Ukraine's SBU and Military Intelligence Exchange Gunfire in Kyiv; Three HUR Officers Wounded, Zelensky Orders Dismissals at Both Agencies
Officers of Ukraine's domestic security service and its military intelligence directorate shot at each other in Kyiv on September 2, 2026, during a dispute over the detention of a Russian Volunteer Corps commander; President Volodymyr Zelensky called it "absolutely disgraceful," dismissed an SBU department head, and ordered the deputy heads of both agencies removed.
Two Ukrainian Spy Agencies Shot at Each Other in Kyiv. Neither Denies It.
On the morning of September 2, 2026, officers from two branches of the Ukrainian state opened fire on each other on Yuriya Shumskoho street, on the left bank of Kyiv[1]. One side was the SBU, Ukraine's domestic security service. The other was HUR, the Defense Ministry's military intelligence directorate. Three HUR officers were shot — one in the leg, one seriously wounded, one lightly hurt[1][3]. No one has reported a death.
Both agencies confirm the shooting happened. Neither has publicly said who fired first[1]. That gap sits at the center of a story that has already cost two officials their jobs, with more removals ordered and still no clear account of who started it.
The fight grew out of a detention. Stepan Kaplunov is deputy commander for combat operations of the Russian Volunteer Corps, a unit of Russian fighters who oppose their own government and fight for Ukraine, operating under HUR[1][2]. The SBU says it was carrying out "urgent investigative measures" in a case about a plot organized by Russia's FSB, its Russian counterpart, to kill a Russian opposition figure[3][13]. HUR's side says the SBU grabbed Kaplunov near his home in broad daylight, without warning anyone, and that SBU officers fired first[1][4].
Why Two Agencies Both Claim the Same Man
The collision underneath this shootout isn't a personality clash. It's a structural one, and it was years in the making.
The SBU is Ukraine's domestic counterintelligence service, built to catch foreign agents operating on Ukrainian soil. HUR is military intelligence, built to run operations against the enemy abroad. Those are supposed to be separate lanes. But four years of full-scale war have pushed HUR into sabotage, deep strikes, and running foreign volunteer units inside Ukraine — work that increasingly overlaps with what the SBU sees as its own turf[1][8].
Kaplunov sat exactly on that overlap. He's a Russian national, in Kyiv, wearing a HUR-run uniform, and the SBU suspected him of working for the FSB. That combination gave both agencies a real claim to jurisdiction over the same case, at the same time, over the same man[1][6].
There's a second pressure baked into this, one that has nothing to do with bureaucratic turf. The Russian Volunteer Corps exists only because some Russians are willing to fight against their own government. That pipeline of recruits depends entirely on a promise: that Ukraine will treat them lawfully, not the way the FSB would treat a defector it caught. At the same time, a unit made up of Russian nationals is the single most attractive place for the FSB to plant a real infiltrator. Both risks are genuine, simultaneously, and that's why neither agency's position is simply bad faith[1][6].
What Each Side Says Happened
The SBU's account rests on jurisdiction and procedure. Its officers say they were executing a lawful search in a live case, and that an armed group tried to stop them. The service's Alpha unit says it fired only to put down that resistance before making the detention[1][3]. On this account, secrecy ahead of the arrest wasn't sinister — it's standard practice when the suspect's own colleagues might tip him off[1]. The argument its defenders make is blunt: if a military unit can physically block a counterintelligence search of its own people, then no one can ever investigate the armed forces at all.
HUR and the Russian Volunteer Corps tell a different story. The commander of HUR's "Timur" special unit says the SBU seized Kaplunov in broad daylight and that SBU officers opened fire on HUR personnel[1][4]. The Corps had already reported him missing on September 1, before any public charge existed[6]. Their strongest argument isn't about turf — it's about keeping faith with people who crossed sides at real personal risk. If a Russian volunteer can be taken without notice, held for over a week, and pressured into confessing, as Kaplunov alleges happened to him, then the next Russian who might defect has one less reason to do it[6][7].
Kaplunov himself posted on September 3 that he admitted to FSB contacts only after nine days of psychological pressure and threats[6][7]. His lawyer and the Corps say that as of that date, he had not been formally charged and was free[6][7].
The President Calls It "Disgraceful" — and Fires People on Both Sides
Zelensky's response came fast, and it went further than a single dismissal. He called the shootout "an absolutely disgraceful situation" and said shooting inside Ukraine is permitted only against Russian occupiers[2][10]. Hours later, he dismissed Oleh Khramov, the SBU official who heads the department for protecting state secrets[2][5].
Then, on September 3, he went further: the deputy heads of both the SBU and HUR would also be dismissed over the incident[14]. That detail matters, because it means the fallout wasn't one-sided. Both agencies took a hit, not just the one whose officers physically detained Kaplunov.
The Prosecutor General's Office and the State Bureau of Investigation have both opened cases into what happened[1][2]. Sending the matter to prosecutors, rather than settling it purely as an internal personnel matter, is itself an argument — that Ukraine's institutions can investigate themselves in the middle of a war, rather than papering it over.
A Kyiv Shootout Becomes a Washington Argument
The story didn't stay in Kyiv. In Washington, it landed inside an argument that predates the shootout by years: whether the United States can trust how Ukraine handles the money and weapons it sends.
Fox News tied the episode to broader oversight of $67.8 billion in U.S. defense articles and services committed to Ukraine from February 2022 through March 2026, and to separate money-laundering investigations that have touched the presidential office[9]. A Washington Examiner opinion piece framed the gunfight as evidence of a deeper fight over authority and resources inside Zelensky's government[8]. Read one way, two armed services shooting at each other looks like exactly the kind of institutional breakdown that should worry anyone funding the war effort.
Read the other way, the same facts support the opposite conclusion. The underlying case was a counterintelligence operation against a suspected FSB plot — precisely the kind of work Ukraine's Western backers want its services doing. And prosecutors opened investigations, with senior officials at both agencies removed within a day, which supporters of continued aid point to as accountability working, not failing[2][3][5][14]. Neither reading is settled by anything Ukraine's own agencies have said. As of September 4, 2026, no U.S. decision on aid or intelligence-sharing has been announced in response to the shootout, and the connection between the incident and that policy debate is an inference being drawn in Washington, not a claim coming out of Kyiv[9].
How Different Outlets Told the Same Story
The coverage split along fairly predictable lines, and the differences show up mostly in what each outlet chose to lead with. Ukrainian outlets like the Kyiv Independent led with Zelensky's response and his "disgraceful" quote, putting the corrective action ahead of the fight itself[2]. The Kyiv Post framed it as an open question — "what we know" — which lowers the temperature but also defers the accountability question[3]. Al Jazeera laid both agencies' accounts side by side and treated the clash as a symptom of long-running SBU-HUR rivalry, reaching for an institutional explanation before either investigation has reported back[1].
Russian state outlet RT described it simply as Ukraine's security services shooting at each other, largely stripping out the SBU's stated counterintelligence rationale and referring to the city as "Kiev" rather than "Kyiv"[12]. Russian independent outlets based outside the country, like Meduza and the Moscow Times, took yet another angle: they used the careful phrase "abducted or detained," refusing to pick a side, but gave more weight to Kaplunov's torture allegation than to the SBU's plot allegation — a tilt that reflects sympathy for the Russian volunteers who make up their core readership[6][7][13]. Bloomberg's headline stuck closest to the bare, verifiable fact: Zelensky fired an SBU official after the shootout[5].
What none of the coverage has resolved is the one question that actually determines how this reads — who fired first. Investigators in Kyiv are still working that out, and nothing released so far settles it.
Summary
On the morning of September 2, 2026, officers from two arms of the Ukrainian state shot at each other in Kyiv. One side was the SBU, Ukraine's domestic security and counterintelligence service. The other was HUR, the Defense Ministry's military intelligence directorate. Three HUR officers were wounded — one shot in the leg, one in serious condition, one lightly hurt[1][3]. The shooting happened on Yuriya Shumskoho street in the Dniprovskyi district, on Kyiv's left bank[1].
The fight grew out of a detention. Stepan Kaplunov is deputy commander for combat operations of the Russian Volunteer Corps, a unit of Russian anti-Kremlin fighters that fights for Ukraine and answers to HUR[1][2]. The SBU says it was working a case about a plot organized by Russia's FSB, its Russian counterpart, to kill a leader of a Russian opposition movement[3][13]. HUR's side says the SBU grabbed Kaplunov near his home in daylight without telling anyone, and that SBU officers fired first[1][4]. The SBU says its officers were attacked while conducting a lawful search, and that its Alpha special unit fired only to stop armed resistance[1][3].
Zelensky called it "an absolutely disgraceful situation" and said shooting in Ukraine is permitted only at Russian occupiers[2][10]. Hours later he dismissed Oleh Khramov, head of the SBU's department for the protection of state secrets; the next day, September 3, he announced that the deputy heads of both the SBU and HUR would also be dismissed over the incident[2][5][14]. The Prosecutor General's Office and the State Bureau of Investigation opened a case[1][2]. Kaplunov said on September 3 that he confessed to FSB contacts only after nine days of pressure and threats; his lawyer and the Corps say he has not been charged and is free[6][7].
The genuine dispute is not whether the shooting happened. It is whether this was a legitimate counterintelligence arrest that HUR obstructed, or an extrajudicial seizure of a soldier by a rival agency. Nothing yet released settles who fired first. A separate, second-order dispute has opened in Washington over what the episode says about Ukraine's institutional reliability — a question the Ukrainian record itself does not address.
The Event
On the morning of September 2, 2026, officers of Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) and the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense (HUR) exchanged gunfire on Yuriya Shumskoho street in Kyiv's Dniprovskyi district[1]. Three HUR personnel were wounded: one shot in the leg, one in serious condition, and one lightly injured[1][3]. The confrontation followed the detention of Stepan Kaplunov, deputy commander for combat operations of the Russian Volunteer Corps, a HUR-subordinated unit; the Corps publicly reported him missing on September 1[1][6]. President Volodymyr Zelensky ordered an investigation, called the incident "an absolutely disgraceful situation," dismissed SBU state-secrets department head Oleh Khramov the same day, and on September 3 announced that the deputy heads of both the SBU and HUR would also be dismissed[2][5][10][14].
Undisputed Facts
- SBU and HUR officers exchanged gunfire in Kyiv on the morning of September 2, 2026[1][3].
- Three HUR personnel were wounded; no deaths have been reported by either agency[1][3].
- The confrontation centered on Stepan Kaplunov, deputy commander for combat operations of the Russian Volunteer Corps, a Russian anti-Kremlin unit that operates under HUR[1][2].
- The SBU stated publicly that its officers were carrying out urgent investigative measures in a probe of a terrorist attack it says was organized by Russia's FSB[3][13].
- Zelensky publicly called the incident "an absolutely disgraceful situation" and said shooting in Ukraine is permitted only at Russian occupiers[2][10].
- Zelensky dismissed Oleh Khramov, head of the SBU's department for the protection of state secrets, hours after the shootout[2][5].
- On September 3, 2026, Zelensky announced that the deputy heads of both the SBU and HUR would also be dismissed over the incident[14].
- The Prosecutor General's Office and the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) opened an investigation into the incident[1][2].
- Kaplunov said on September 3 that he admitted to FSB contacts only after nine days of psychological pressure and threats; as of that date his lawyer and the Corps said he had not been charged and was free[6][7].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Two agencies, one battlefield
- The SBU is Ukraine's domestic security and counterintelligence service — a successor institution to the Soviet-era KGB structure, responsible for catching foreign agents inside the country. HUR is military intelligence under the Defense Ministry, built to run operations against the enemy. During four years of full-scale war, HUR has grown far beyond that original brief, running sabotage, deep strikes, and foreign volunteer formations inside Ukraine. That expansion put the two services on overlapping ground. This shootout happened exactly where the mandates overlap: a Russian national, in Kyiv, in uniform under HUR, suspected by the SBU of working for the FSB[1][8].
- Foreign volunteers are a recruitment asset with fragile terms
- The Russian Volunteer Corps exists because some Russians will fight their own government. That flow depends entirely on trust that Ukraine will treat them lawfully. It also creates a permanent counterintelligence risk, because a unit of Russian nationals is the single most attractive place for the FSB to plant someone. Both risks are real at once, which is why both agencies' positions are defensible on their own logic[1][6].
- Wartime accountability under a spotlight
- Ukraine's government has cycled through senior dismissals and investigations through 2025 and 2026 — a deputy head of the presidential office dismissed on August 19, 2026 amid a money-laundering case, a defense minister dismissed on July 15, 2026[9]. Each episode is separately sourced, but they accumulate into an external perception problem that shapes how allies read any new incident.
Material realityThree HUR officers were shot by SBU officers, or in an exchange with them, inside Ukraine's capital during a war[1][3]. A Russian citizen fighting for Ukraine was held for a period both sides describe differently, alleges he was pressured into a confession, and had not been charged as of September 3, 2026[6][7]. The physical facts that persist regardless of narrative: two armed state services proved willing to point weapons at each other over a jurisdictional dispute, and no public evidence yet establishes who fired first. Investigations by the Prosecutor General's Office and the DBR are open[1][2]. One SBU department head has lost his job[2][5]. Russia's war continues, and both agencies remain operational.
Narrative as a weaponFour actors are actively shaping how this is read. The SBU wants you to believe this was a counterintelligence operation obstructed by armed men — which makes its shooting defensive and its secrecy standard. HUR and the Russian Volunteer Corps want you to believe a soldier was seized without notice and pressured into a confession — which makes their response a rescue. The Office of the President wants you to believe it is a discipline problem already being handled by prosecutors, not a structural rift. And in Washington, both camps of the aid debate want you to believe the incident proves what they already believed: that Kyiv is unreliable, or that Kyiv's institutions self-correct. Note that this last connection is inference, not reporting. As of September 4, 2026, no U.S. decision on military aid or intelligence-sharing has been announced in response to the shootout, and the Ukrainian sources describing the incident do not raise the question. Readers should also note a name discrepancy across outlets — most report the detained officer as Stepan Kaplunov, while some reference material uses a different first name — and that the count and severity of injuries come from agency statements, not an independent authority.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe SBU's case rests on jurisdiction. Counterintelligence inside Ukraine — catching Russian agents on Ukrainian soil — is the SBU's assigned job, not the military's. Its officers say they were executing a search in a live case about an FSB-organized plot to kill a Russian opposition leader[3][13]. On that account, an armed group tried to obstruct a lawful search, and the Alpha unit fired only to stop armed resistance before detaining them[1][3]. The deeper principle its defenders invoke: if a military unit can physically block a counterintelligence search of its own people, then no agency can investigate the armed forces at all. Secrecy before the arrest is not sinister — it is standard practice when the suspect's colleagues might warn him[1].
WhyProtecting exclusive authority over domestic counterintelligence, a mandate HUR has steadily encroached on during the war[1][8]. The service also has a reputation problem to manage: a botched or unlawful seizure of a soldier fighting for Ukraine would be far more damaging than a rough arrest of a real FSB asset.
Impact on themKhramov's dismissal fell on the SBU's side of the ledger, and Zelensky also ordered the SBU's deputy head removed over the incident, alongside HUR's[2][5][14]. The DBR investigation can reach SBU officers, including the Alpha operators who fired[1].
Frames it asHUR's case rests on due process and on faith kept with foreign volunteers. The commander of HUR's "Timur" special unit says the SBU seized Kaplunov "in broad daylight" and that SBU officers opened fire on HUR personnel[1][4]. The Corps says he was taken from the yard of his home and reported him missing on September 1 — that is, before any charge was public[6]. Its strongest argument is about recruitment, not turf: Russians who defect to fight against Moscow do so on the promise that Ukraine will not treat them the way the FSB would. If one can be taken without notice, held nine days, and pressured into a confession — as Kaplunov alleges — that promise is broken, and the next defector does not come[6][7].
WhyProtecting its people and its ability to run Russian-national formations. HUR has grown enormously in reach and prestige during the war; conceding that the SBU can arrest its operatives at will would shrink that.
Impact on themThree of its officers were shot[1][3]. Its subordinate unit's deputy commander stands publicly accused of working for the FSB — an accusation Kaplunov denies and which had produced no formal charge as of September 3[6][7]. Zelensky also ordered HUR's own deputy head dismissed over the incident, meaning the personnel fallout was not one-sided[14].
Frames it asThe president's framing is that this was a discipline failure, not a policy dispute, and that the state's answer is process. His line — shooting is permitted only at Russian occupiers — asserts a single, simple rule that both agencies broke[2][10]. Sending the case to the Prosecutor General and the DBR, rather than resolving it politically, is the argument that Ukrainian institutions can police themselves in wartime[1][2]. His decision to order the deputy heads of both agencies dismissed, alongside Khramov, signals he treated this as a shared institutional failure rather than one agency's fault[14].
WhyContainment. An open turf war between armed services is a governance story Ukraine cannot afford while it is asking allies for weapons and money, and it lands during a stretch in which senior officials have already been dismissed or investigated[9].
Impact on themImmediate political cost at home and abroad. The dismissals — Khramov plus the deputy heads of both agencies — are a broader response than a single firing, but critics in both camps can still read the response as picking a side or as doing too little.
Frames it asSkeptics of continued support argue the episode is not an isolated scandal but a data point about control: if Kyiv's own services shoot at each other, American assumptions about where weapons, money, and shared intelligence end up deserve fresh scrutiny[8][9]. They point to the scale — $67.8 billion in U.S. defense articles and services committed from February 2022 through March 2026 — and to money-laundering investigations reaching the presidential office[9]. Supporters of continued aid make the opposite reading of the same facts: the arrest was an FSB counterintelligence case, meaning Ukrainian services were doing exactly the work the U.S. wants done; and the fact that prosecutors opened a case and senior officials at both agencies were removed within a day is evidence of accountability, not its absence[2][3][5][14]. Neither camp's inference is settled by the Ukrainian record, which so far describes a single incident and an open investigation.
WhyBoth sides are arguing a prior policy position, using a Kyiv news event as evidence for it.
Impact on themNo U.S. aid or intelligence-sharing decision has been announced in response to the shootout as of September 4, 2026; the connection is argued, not enacted.
Frames it asRussian state outlets present the story simply: Ukraine's security services are shooting at each other, which is offered as evidence of internal decay[12]. Russian independent outlets in exile, such as Meduza and The Moscow Times, take a different angle — they foreground the Russians who left Russia to fight Putin and are now alleging mistreatment by the Ukrainian state, and they carefully label the detention "abducted or detained" because the accounts conflict[6][7][13].
WhyFor state media, discrediting Ukraine as a partner. For exile media, the welfare and legal standing of Russian anti-Kremlin fighters, who are their readership's most exposed constituency.
Impact on themThe FSB plot allegation, if true, is a Russian operational failure; if false, it is a Ukrainian error that Moscow gains from either way.
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.3
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bloomberg | U.S. center, financial | 2 | "Zelenskyy Fires Secret Service Official After Kyiv Shootout" | Straight and narrow — the verifiable action in the headline. Calling the SBU the 'secret service' is imprecise shorthand for a domestic counterintelligence agency. |
| Kyiv Post | Ukrainian, English-language, pro-Ukraine editorial line | 3 | "Kyiv Shootout Between SBU and HUR – What We Know" — an explainer that lays out both agencies' statements | Frames the story as a knowledge gap rather than a scandal. The 'what we know' construction lowers the temperature and defers the accountability question. |
| Kyiv Independent | Ukrainian, English-language, reader- and grant-funded, pro-Ukraine | 3 | "Zelensky dismisses high-ranking SBU official, demands investigation after shootout between Ukraine's security services in Kyiv" | Leads with the president acting, not with the agencies fighting. Its follow-up headline uses "fallout" and quotes 'disgraceful' — the corrective response frames the crime. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 3 | "Ukrainian intel agencies in Kyiv firefight: What happened and why?" | Places both accounts side by side and reaches past the incident to institutional rivalry. Even-handed on the shooting, but the 'why' frame treats internal Ukrainian dysfunction as the settled explanation before the investigation reports. |
| Meduza | Russian independent, exiled to Latvia, designated 'undesirable' by Moscow | 3 | "The deputy commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps... was either abducted or detained in Kyiv" | The 'abducted or detained' construction is unusually careful — it refuses to adjudicate. But foregrounding Kaplunov's torture allegation over the SBU's plot allegation tilts sympathy toward the Russian volunteers, its core constituency. |
| Washington Examiner (Opinion) | U.S. right | 6 | "What's behind the Ukrainian intelligence gunfight" — reads the clash as a fight over authority and resources inside Zelensky's government | Moves quickly from a single incident to a systemic judgment about Ukrainian governance. The SBU's stated FSB counterintelligence rationale is present but does not shape the conclusion. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 6 | "Billions in US aid to Ukraine under microscope as corruption rocks Zelenskyy's inner circle" | Bundles separate stories — dismissals, a money-laundering probe, aid oversight — into one narrative of decay. 'Rocks' and 'under microscope' are characterizations; the $67.8 billion figure is a cumulative four-year commitment presented as if it were at immediate risk. |
| RT | Russian state | 8 | "Ukraine's SBU and HUR reportedly fire at each other" | The FSB plot allegation — the SBU's entire stated reason for the operation — is minimized or presented only as a Ukrainian claim. Uses 'Kiev' rather than 'Kyiv'. The story is Ukrainian disorder, with the counterintelligence context stripped out. |
References
- Ukrainian intel agencies in Kyiv firefight: What happened and why? — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded
- Zelensky dismisses high-ranking SBU official, demands investigation after shootout between Ukraine's security services in Kyiv — Kyiv Independent · Ukrainian, reader- and grant-funded, pro-Ukraine editorial line
- Kyiv Shootout Between SBU and HUR – What We Know — Kyiv Post · Ukrainian, English-language, pro-Ukraine
- Shootout in Kyiv: SBU and Military Intelligence Exchange Fire in Rare Public Confrontation — Kahawatungu · Kenyan independent digital outlet, aggregating wire and Ukrainian sources
- Zelenskyy Fires Secret Service Official After Kyiv Shootout — Bloomberg · U.S. center, financial, privately owned
- The deputy commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps, which fights for Ukraine, was either abducted or detained in Kyiv — Meduza · Russian independent, exiled to Latvia, designated 'undesirable' by the Russian state
- Ukraine's SBU accuses Russian Volunteer Corps deputy commander Stepan Kaplunov of working for the FSB and plotting an Independence Day assassination. He says he was tortured into confessing. — Meduza · Russian independent, exiled to Latvia
- What's behind the Ukrainian intelligence gunfight — Washington Examiner (Opinion) · U.S. right, opinion section; owned by Clarity Media Group (Philip Anschutz)
- Billions in US aid to Ukraine under microscope as corruption rocks Zelenskyy's inner circle — Fox News · U.S. right
- Shoot-out between Ukrainian spy services in Kyiv 'disgraceful', says Zelenskiy — The Irish Times · Irish, centrist, trust-owned
- Shootout in Kyiv between Ukrainian spy services 'disgraceful', says Zelenskyy — Irish Examiner · Irish, centrist, commercially owned
- Ukraine's SBU and HUR reportedly fire at each other — RT · Russian state-funded and state-directed
- Ukraine Claims It Foiled FSB Plot Against Anti-Kremlin Figure Amid Shootout in Kyiv — The Moscow Times · Russian independent, based in Amsterdam, banned in Russia
- Deputy heads of the SBU and the HUR will be dismissed — Zelenskyy on the shootout in Kyiv — UNN · Ukrainian, state-adjacent news agency