Administrator of the channel about bypassing the shopping mall remanded in custody in Odesa

In Odesa, the court extended the detention of the administrator of a TV channel. She was accused of obstructing the work of territorial recruitment centers and spreading pro-Russian propaganda.

The relevant ruling was made by a judge of the Berezovsky District Court of Odesa Oblast.

According to the investigation, since January 2024, the accused has been administering an open telegram channel aimed at people of conscription age in Mykolaiv region. The channel was used to collect and disseminate information about the places and times of mobilization events, as well as to coordinate actions to avoid the delivery of summonses. Investigators believe that the woman not only moderated the channel, but actually managed its work, shaped the content and attracted new participants.

Calls to avoid subpoenas

The case file contains specific calls that, according to the prosecution, had a direct impact on the disruption of mobilization. In the publications, men in Mykolaiv and the region were urged to avoid mobilization events and contacts with representatives of the TCC and the JV. The author of the posts claimed that the delivery of calls was allegedly accompanied by coercion and threats, and asserted that such actions had become "common practice."

The messages contained advice on how to minimize the risk of receiving a summons: do not visit shopping malls, do not go out alone, limit the use of your own transport, take a taxi or bicycle, and carry self-defense equipment. It was also recommended to keep the contacts of lawyers in advance and to closely monitor the messages about the locations of mobilization events.

In addition, the channel disseminated texts harshly criticizing the mobilization and activities of the TCC, as well as materials containing anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian narratives. The posts denied the legitimacy of the actions of the Ukrainian authorities, blamed the state leadership for the war, and claimed that a "positive image of mobilization" was being imposed on society, which should not be trusted.

Anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian narratives

The publications called the mobilization "lawlessness" and the activities of the TCC "an era of lawlessness". The author of the posts claimed that the calls were "no longer documents" and that representatives of recruitment centers allegedly acted through "intimidation, abduction and violence." The investigation emphasized that such wording not only discredited the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but also created fear and distrust of state institutions.

Separately, the court discussed materials that have signs of justifying Russia's armed aggression. The telegram channel published texts with statements about the "coup of 2014" and "external governance of Ukraine," and the war was presented as a consequence of the actions of the Ukrainian authorities and the West. These messages claimed that Ukrainians were allegedly "being sent to their deaths by force" and that the Armed Forces of Ukraine were using people as "cannon fodder".

According to the prosecution, the woman agreed to cooperate with a representative of the aggressor state, who gave her tasks to fill the channel with anti-Ukrainian materials and Russian propaganda narratives. Investigators believe that she could have been remunerated for performing such tasks.

Refusal to plead guilty

During the court hearing, the accused did not admit her guilt. She stated that she did not have pro-Russian views and that her publications were "value judgments". She also argued that the TCC was not a military formation, and the risks cited by the prosecutor's office were far-fetched. The defense insisted on changing the measure of restraint to round-the-clock house arrest, citing the health of relatives and the conditions of detention in the pre-trial detention center.

However, the court concluded that the defendant's activities were systematic, and the materials she disseminated could have a real impact on evading mobilization and undermining the state's defense capabilities. As a result, the prosecutor's motion was granted, and the woman was left in custody.

Also in February, law enforcement officers brought to court the case of a 44-year-old local resident who promised to defer mobilization in exchange for 5,500 dollars through "employment" with the SBU. He faces up to eight years in prison with confiscation of property.

Анна Бальчінос