Manipulation, fake news, and “scorched-earth” inquiries: Why the Pechersk Court Ordered Law Enforcement to Investigate the Activities of Fake Journalist Lyubov Velychko
The Pechersky and Solomyansky District Courts of Kyiv ordered law enforcement agencies to enter information into the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations (URPI) and to launch an investigation into the actions of Lyubov Velychko, a journalist for the publication “Teksty.”
This is evidenced by the relevant court rulings issued following the consideration of complaints regarding the inaction of law enforcement agencies:
- Ruling of the Pechersk District Court dated February 26, 2026 (Case No. 757/9968/26-k) — regarding the Office of the Prosecutor General.
- Ruling of the Pechersk District Court dated March 2, 2026 (Case No. 757/9967/26-k) — regarding the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office.
- Ruling of the Pechersk District Court dated March 2, 2026 (Case No. 757/9966/26-k) — regarding the Territorial Office of the State Bureau of Investigation in Kyiv.
Background: “Journalistic Investigation” or Pressure on Citizens
The trigger for the court proceedings and disputes was likely a public statement by entrepreneur, columnist, and public figure Vladislav Smirnov. He accused Lyubov Velychko of turning media activities into a tool for informal police surveillance and ideological pressure.
In a Facebook post, Smirnov shared his observation that Velychko had contacted him via private messages regarding his public posts, immediately making an accusatory statement:
“Hello. I came across your page, looked at your content, and have a question as a journalist. What motivates you to share anti-mobilization content so regularly?”
Vladislav Smirnov emphasized that such a question, even before any answers are received, amounts to a preemptive “verdict” and reverses the standard journalistic logic of “fact—question—conclusion” to “conclusion — choosing words for the article.” In his view, such inquiries are intended to force a person to justify their criticism of the authorities and, in effect, subject their statements to criminal charges under Articles 114-1 or 109 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Separately, the expert drew attention to Velychko’s collaboration with the Institute for Cyberwarfare Research (ICWR), where she works under the leadership of a police general, raising questions about the line between analysis and the collection of data on citizens in the interests of the security services. The columnist also noted a perfunctory approach to requests: in a document sent to him, Velychko asked for responses by an unrealistic deadline—“September 31 inclusive.”
Instead of responding to the allegations, Smirnov suggested that Velychko investigate the real problems in the defense sector—the embezzlement of funds in the military-industrial complex and the Ministry of Defense, the workings of state institutions, and the activities of officials.
Public Defense of Velychko
In response to the publication of the correspondence, Lyubov Velychko and the NGO “Women in Media” immediately denounced the harassment and pressure from bloggers Vladislav Smirnov and Anton Gura. The NGO characterized these actions as gender-based online violence involving sexist insults and attempts at discrediting. According to the NGO, up to 81% of Ukrainian women in the media face similar pressure in their work.
However, the journalist’s opponents emphasize that these claims of “media wars” are an attempt to divert attention from the media’s cover-up of large-scale corruption schemes.
Smirnova’s Response to the Accusations: “A Gender Shield to Cover Up Unprofessionalism”
Commenting on the report by the NGO “Women in Media,” in which his analytical posts were characterized as gender-based online violence, sexism, and misogyny, Vladislav Smirnov claimed this was yet another instance of manipulation by the journalist and her defenders.
According to Smirnov, unable to provide a legally sound response to questions about who commissioned the data collection and the purpose of using his personal information, Velychko decided to “hide behind a gender shield”:
“Having no legal arguments and realizing her professional defeat, Lyubov Velychko decided to hide behind a ‘gender shield.’ She used the platform of the civil society organization ‘Women in Media’ and published an entire report there, in which my analytical piece was used to level accusations of sexism, misogyny, and gender-based persecution. It’s all incredibly cynical. When “independent investigators” are unable to answer a citizen’s legitimate questions, they instantly assume the convenient status of a victim. “This organization and the author took abusive comments from complete strangers under my post and artificially pinned them on me,” Smirnov noted.
The columnist emphasized that the goal of such publications is to “devaluate the real issue of women’s rights” and to turn well-reasoned political criticism into fabricated gender-based violence in order to provoke the blocking of his page through complaints.
Smirnov also highlighted the contradictory nature of the conclusions in the “Women in Media” NGO’s report itself:
“The most comical thing about this story is that in the last paragraph, the publication’s editors officially acknowledge that criticism of a journalistic approach without a gender component constitutes a professional and political discussion. In other words, the experts themselves confirmed that there was no sexism whatsoever in my words. This isn’t journalism; it’s intellectual degradation, informational fraud, and a shameful exploitation of human rights issues to conceal their own manipulations before the law,” the civic activist concluded, adding that Velychko’s actions may be part of a commissioned smear campaign.
Background of the Investigations: “Spetstekhnoexport” Schemes
Velychko’s opponents point out that, while she criticizes bloggers for their criticism of the mobilization, she ignores large-scale abuses in the defense sector. In particular, this concerns the activities of Pavlo Barbul, the former director of the state-owned enterprise “Spetstekhnoexport”:
- Diverting funds to shell companies: In 2015–2016, over 80 million hryvnias in public funds were transferred to “SPEC PROM MECHANIZATION” LLC for the supply of equipment whose existence has not been confirmed. In total, the scheme involves about two dozen shell companies.
- Intermediary “front companies”: Through an agreement with the Czech company “Vakur s.r.o.,” 3.78 million euros (over 107 million hryvnias) were diverted from state-owned enterprises (“Artem,” “Aviakon,” “Spetstekhnoexport”) transferred 3.78 million euros (over 107 million hryvnias) for allegedly provided contract support services.
- Disruption of supplies to the Ukrainian Armed Forces: tax audits revealed the failure to fulfill a number of foreign trade agreements worth hundreds of millions of hryvnias, which resulted in fines for the state and delays in supplying the army.
What Lyubov Velychko Is Known For
This is not the first time complaints have been raised about Lyubov Velychko’s working methods and the accuracy of her publications. The journalist has repeatedly found herself at the center of scandals, which arose mainly due to her excessive reliance on fake news, which likely emerged in this way: “she made it up herself—she was the first to write about it.”
- 2020: The reporter was criticized for spreading controversial material regarding the so-called “Wagner special operation.”
- Claims of “$40 million for Yermak”: Velychko published a story alleging that Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President, had received $40 million from Russia in exchange for facilitating the handover of Volodymyr Tsemakh. The Office of the President officially called this information fake news.
- Lawsuits over the gambling industry: Her article on Ukrainian online casinos triggered a wave of lawsuits seeking to protect the business reputations of the companies and financial institutions mentioned in the article, including IBOX Bank and “Alta Capital.”
Currently, the procedural status and legal assessment of the actions of all parties to the conflict will be determined by investigative authorities within the framework of criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to court orders.
