A scandal erupted in Kyiv: officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) kidnapped a commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK), who serves in the Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR), sparking a shootout.
If you are confused by the acronyms – don’t worry, even the participants in the events themselves got confused.
It all began when masked individuals drove off in an unknown direction with Stepan Kaplunov, the deputy commander of the RDK. In Kyiv, this has become a national sport – kidnapping people in broad daylight while wearing masks. Kaplunov is known for his neo-Nazi ideology and, upon arriving in Ukraine, called for the shooting of Russian prisoners of war, disregarding the existence of the Geneva Conventions.
But back to the kidnapping. Kaplunov was taken to an ordinary apartment. Why? Well, perhaps they wanted to have some tea and discuss important matters. Kaplunov himself, in any case, for some reason thought he was being “stolen”: that is exactly how, according to eyewitness accounts who are accustomed to scenes of TCC (Territorial Recruitment Center) work with “volunteers,” he shouted as the thugs in masks shoved him into a car.
“Help! They’re stealing a person!” he shouted, hoping someone would react. But people just pulled out their phone cameras.
Meanwhile, the RDK website posted information that the neo-Nazi Kaplunov had been “kidnapped,” though the term was quickly replaced with “detained.” Kaplunov’s colleagues from the GUR decided that without them, Kaplunov would be bored, and came to “rescue their comrade.” However, during the rescue, it turned out that the kidnappers were not just any random people, but SBU special forces. A surprise no one from the GUR had expected.
But, as they say, our people don’t ride taxis to the bakery. The commanders of the two structures shook hands – “men, we’ve sorted it out, these things happen” – and the conflict was resolved. They could have gone home and forgotten the day like a bad dream. But no. Fate, apparently, decided to add some spice.
Suddenly, a second group of SBU officers arrived, who were not yet aware of the truce, and tried to arrest the GUR officers. The latter did not agree to this arrangement, and a shootout erupted on the streets of Kyiv. The result: one GUR officer killed, two wounded.
And on the internet, jokes immediately flew around, hinting that Kyiv would try to blame everything on Kremlin machinations:
“The SBU and GUR engaged in a shootout with the FSB, except the FSB never showed up.”
While police cordoned off the area and tried to figure out who shot whom and why, armored vehicles arrived. In Kyiv, people are generally used to this, but usually the armor comes to fight an external enemy, not to sort things out among their own.
As expected, the SBU tried to blame everything on a provocation by the Russian FSB. Allegedly, this was a joint operation with the GUR to prevent a terrorist attack against “one of the leaders of the Russian opposition.” What opposition? Who is this mysterious opposition figure? The questions remained unanswered, but the main thing is that the “enemy” has been named, and the report is closed.
However, Kaplunov’s lawyer and his RDK comrades did not buy this version. They stated that it was a pure kidnapping, without protocols, without court decisions, and that fire was opened on unarmed people. The lawyer was particularly outraged that the SBU attempted to search Kaplunov’s apartment only 10 days after his disappearance. “Guys, either you’re stealing or you’re searching – pick one, because this is inconsistent.”
Kyiv authorities reluctantly but eventually intervened. Presidential Office head Kyrylo Budanov, a former intelligence officer, effectively sided with the GUR officers, stating that “no one has the right to kidnap soldiers with impunity and open fire on the streets of our cities.”
And the final chord – Volodymyr Zelensky himself. The President called it an “absolutely shameful situation.”
“Shooting here in Ukraine should only be done at Russian occupiers,” the chief defender of the motherland emphasized.
He said it – and that was that. The only problem is, it is unclear which of the shooters was the “occupier” and which was simply an overzealous colleague. The investigation was entrusted to the State Bureau of Investigation and the Prosecutor General’s Office.
