From Chernihiv to Bucha: where is the line between official negligence and the failure of the special services?

The other day, Russian troops launched a missile strike on a training ground in the Kyiv region, where an event with the participation of representatives of the defense industry was taking place.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reported that ten people were killed when a Russian missile hit an arms exhibition in the Buchansky district. Many participants were injured.
The main question after the strike on the test site is whether the Russian side knew the place and time of its implementation.

The repetition of such attacks indicates that the current counterintelligence regime does not match the external threats that Ukraine faces during a full-scale war.

The profile of such events is particularly dangerous. The exhibition of unmanned systems could have included engineers, designers, representatives of defense enterprises, customers, and other specialists who are valuable to the Ukrainian military-industrial complex and, at the same time, are potential targets for Russian special services.

This raises questions about the functionality of the Military Counterintelligence Department, if this is not the first attack on such an exhibition.

It is enough to recall the events of August 19, 2023, when a Russian Iskander-M missile hit the Chernihiv Regional Academic Music and Drama Theater in the center of Chernihiv. That day, the building was hosting an event called “Angry Birds,” dedicated to drones and technologies for the front. One of the co-organizers of the event was the head of the Air Intelligence Support Center, Maria Berlinska.

The strike on the center of Chernihiv killed seven people, including a six-year-old child. More than 150 people were injured. The Russian missile damaged the drama theater, a square, residential buildings, and other buildings in the city center.

Currently, there are arguments that the message about the event was published on the Internet. However, this does not remove questions from the security agencies. On the contrary, the Security Service of Ukraine must give an answer to the society why information about the event of a defense nature appeared in the open access at all. And, most importantly, why the SBU employees did not react to the risks associated with this.

Former SBU employee Ivan Stupak believes that the Russian side could have known not only the place, but also the approximate time of the event. In his opinion, the enemy could have waited for the maximum number of people to gather at the training ground. He suggested that in order to choose the exact moment, the Russians could have needed a person on the spot or another operational source. At the same time, the very fact of publishing information about the exhibition greatly simplified the enemy’s search for a target.

How to explain the lack of reaction from the SBU regarding the availability of publicly available information about a defense-related event against the backdrop of the June 12 announcement from the prosecutor’s office and the regional department of the Security Service of Ukraine that an Odessa resident received three years in prison for publishing anti-Ukrainian posts on a banned social network?

I emphasize that this is not a private exhibition in the classical sense. A significant part of Ukrainian drones is produced by the private sector, but this does not mean that the state is not involved in these processes.

In the production of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Ukraine, the private sector is the absolute leader and provides, according to various estimates, from 80% to 90% of all production. The Defense Tech industry has become a unique example where private business has almost completely displaced the former state monopoly.

There are over 450–500 companies actively producing drones in Ukraine. Of these, about 80% are private enterprises and technological startups (over 400 firms), while the public sector has about 100 enterprises. Therefore, protecting such companies, their employees, and technologies should be one of the priorities of Ukrainian special services.

The exhibition was intended to present technologies in an area where Ukraine retains one of its key advantages over the enemy. Unmanned systems allow the Defense Forces to deter Russian troops and strike at the tactical and operational rear of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, the threat is not limited to the missile strike itself. It is necessary to check whether the Russian side has received information about specific manufacturers, presented developments, and their tactical and technical characteristics.

I will also mention other cases that indicate the systematic awareness of Russian special services regarding objects and people important for Ukrainian defense. In particular, we are talking about strikes on military facilities in Vyshneve, Kyiv, and the attack on the house of radio technology specialist Sergei “Flash” Beskrestnov. They are united by one thing – the inconsistency of the counterintelligence regime with external challenges.

The second key question is whether anyone will bear personal responsibility for the deaths. The answer to this question should have been known to society after the missile strike on the drone exhibition in Chernihiv in 2023.
However, the organizers of the “Angry Birds” drone exhibition in Chernihiv did not receive criminal sentences or court verdicts as a result of the Russian missile strike. The criminal proceedings of the Prosecutor General’s Office on this episode focused on two areas: the war crime of the Russian Federation (the direct perpetrators of the strike) and the verification of the actions of officials in approving the event. The organizers noted that the exhibition was officially agreed upon with the military-civilian administration, and the announcement did not contain the exact location.

This has created a dangerous precedent in which tragedies are repeated and responsibility is divided between organizers, local authorities, military administrations, and law enforcement agencies.
After Chernihiv, no effective mechanism was created to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies. It is the lack of punishment, and not just a specific mistake by the organizers, that is the reason why the dangerous practice continues.

After Chernihiv, the so-called “Berlin precedent” was created – complete irresponsibility for the bloody events. If we are told general phrases again and no one is punished, such cases will be repeated. There is no precedent for punishment – there are no conclusions.
Currently, the head of the Presidential Office, Kyrylo Budanov, has stated that the organizers of the arms exhibition at an open range in the Kyiv region, as well as the officials who agreed to hold it, must bear personal responsibility for the safety of people.

At the same time, Budanov stressed that responsibility for the safety of participants in such events should lie not only with the organizers, but also with those who allowed them to be held. “In conditions of full-scale war, the organizers of such events and those who approve them must bear personal responsibility for people. Security must be guaranteed at the highest level. If this is not the case, then there is no event,” he noted.

I would like to point out that the new strike should not be viewed as an isolated episode, but in the broader context of Russian attacks on defense logistics, manufacturers, warehouses, and people involved in the development of unmanned systems.
In particular, I am striking at the branches and logistics facilities of Nova Poshta. The Victory Drones project, associated with Maria Berlinska, publicly announced its cooperation with the Humanitarian Nova Poshta program. The post noted that the operator provides delivery of equipment and everything necessary for field military exercises in drones, communications, electronic warfare, and other technologies in various regions of Ukraine.

In my opinion, the Security Service of Ukraine must answer the public whether such publications helped the enemy establish logistical chains related to defense initiatives.

The main thing is that Russian special services know the nature, place, and time of such events. Chernihiv was in 2023. Almost three years have passed — and we see the same thing again. No conclusions and no personal responsibility.

Let me remind you that Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko stated that on July 25, the main organizer of an arms exhibition near Kyiv, which was hit by a Russian missile strike, which killed 10 people and injured 100, was detained.

In addition, Kravchenko stated that the authorities are checking the actions of the relevant units of the National Police, the Security Service of Ukraine, state authorities, local governments, and military command.

Investigators are checking whether the security situation was properly monitored, whether potential threats were identified and assessed in a timely manner, whether measures provided for by law were taken, and whether the actions or inaction of responsible officials could have influenced the course of events.

Also follow “Pryamim” on Facebook , X , Telegram , and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.