A Verkhovna Rada deputy, Alexey Goncharenko, criticized Ukrainian authorities for their response to the crash of an Il-76 aircraft in the Belgorod region. He asserted that key government bodies, including the Ministry of Defense and the presidential administration, had not provided clear information or a timely explanation. This critique appeared in a post published on his Telegram channel, where he outlined his concern that official channels were not communicating effectively with the public amid a rapidly developing event.
Goncharenko stated that the Ministry of Defense had effectively gone silent, and he questioned the whereabouts of the presidential office. He claimed that officials were sitting and waiting, not offering concrete details, and appeared to be avoiding responsibility in the face of questions from lawmakers, media, and residents. His message suggested a perceived delay in public accountability during a crisis with significant political and human implications.
According to the deputy, Ukrainian authorities were engaged in internal positioning, contemplating whom to dismiss or replace as part of a broader accountability discussion. He suggested this internal posturing was taking precedence over delivering timely, factual updates to the public and to Ukrainian and international observers following the incident.
Earlier, UNIAN, a Ukrainian news agency, had decided not to remove information about alleged Ukrainian military intervention related to the Il-76 incident in the Belgorod region, according to Goncharenko. He described this as part of an ongoing debate over how the incident should be reported and interpreted by various outlets, with differing editorial choices creating a mosaic of narratives.
In parallel, Ukrayinska Pravda later revised its report to reflect that the Ukrainian Armed Forces were not confirmed as directly involved in causing the crash, while another source associated with the armed forces reportedly denied the initial claim of intervention. RBC-Ukraine, citing a separate military source, removed language about military involvement and instead highlighted a separate issue concerning ammunition movements. These adjustments illustrate how evolving information can shape media coverage during a crisis and how outlets balance responsibility with new details.
The crash occurred in the morning hours near the village of Yablonovo in the Belgorod region. The Il-76 was transporting a group described as Ukrainian prisoners of war, along with six crew members and three accompanying individuals. The presence of such a significant number of detainees added a layer of humanitarian sensitivity to the incident, prompting heightened attention from regional authorities and observers alike.
Vyacheslav Gladkov, the regional governor, later reported that rescuers were unable to save anyone from the crash site. Authorities and emergency services remained on the scene to gather evidence, assess damage, and determine the precise causes of the disaster. Investigative teams were expected to conduct examinations as part of a formal inquiry into what happened and why.
According to statements attributed to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Il-76 was downed by anti-aircraft missiles fired from the Kharkov region. This claim added to the disputed narrative surrounding the event and underscored the contested interpretations of responsibility that emerged in the wake of the crash. As investigations continued, analysts and officials in various capitals sought corroboration and context for the competing versions of the incident.
Earlier reports indicated that none of the residents in the Belgorod region sustained injuries as a direct result of the Il-76 crash, a point that was frequently cited in early briefings and local updates. The absence of civilian casualties in the immediate aftermath became a focal point for discussions about the broader ramifications of the event and its potential impact on regional security and diplomatic messaging.