Is averyanov dead?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple media and social posts on 19 December 2025 claim that GRU Major General Andrei (Andrey) Averyanov was killed in a drone strike on a tanker in the Mediterranean, but those reports remain unconfirmed: open-source outlets repeating the claim cite Russian commentators and Telegram posts, while at least one aggregator explicitly notes there is no official confirmation [1] [2]. Independent, verifiable confirmation of Averyanov’s death is not present in the reporting supplied, so a definitive answer cannot be reached from these sources alone.
1. Who is Andrei Averyanov and why his alleged death matters
Averyanov is publicly identified in multiple investigations as the commander associated with GRU Unit 29155, the clandestine Russian military intelligence formation blamed for sabotage and assassination operations in Europe, and has been repeatedly linked by Western reporting to the unit’s activities since at least 2019 [3] [4]. Western and regional coverage also documents his post‑Prigozhin role and high-profile travels to Africa after August 2023—visits framed as consolidating Russian influence there and absorbing parts of Wagner’s remit [5] [6] [7].
2. The new claims: what reporters and social posts are saying
On 19 December 2025 several outlets and social-media accounts circulated a narrative that a Mediterranean tanker struck by drones carried Averyanov and that he was “eliminated,” a story amplified by commentators such as Alexander Nevzorov and picked up by regional news sites and aggregators [1] [2]. These reports couple dramatic language about Averyanov’s alleged role in past poisonings and sabotage with video of a ship on fire or Telegram-sourced posts claiming casualties [1] [2].
3. What the supplied sources themselves acknowledge about verification
The sources that published the claim include explicit caveats: Charter’97 and other aggregators note the absence of official confirmation and attribute the initial allegation to a specific journalist or social‑media posts rather than a corroborated government or investigative source [2]. The presence of video or eyewitness-sourced posts does not substitute for confirmation from independent investigators, naval authorities, or official channels—none of which appear in the provided material [2] [1].
4. Alternative explanations and possible motives behind rapid reporting
The pattern—rapid circulation of a high-value assassination claim sourced to Telegram and controversial journalists—fits known information‑operation dynamics in the conflict: unverified but plausible-sounding reports can be useful to pro-Ukraine or anti-Kremlin channels, to Russian domestic actors seeking to explain internal shakeups, or to opportunistic commentators chasing clicks; the supplied reporting itself does not adjudicate motive [1] [2]. Established Western outlets and intelligence commentaries previously discussed Averyanov’s prominence and potential involvement in sensitive operations, which makes him a natural subject for both verified investigation and rumor [3] [8] [9].
5. Bottom line: can the supplied reporting answer “is Averyanov dead?”
No. The supplied sources document who Averyanov is, why his death would be consequential, and that claims of his death circulated on 19 December 2025 via specific journalists and social posts, but they also record that those reports lack official or independently verified confirmation; therefore the question “is Averyanov dead?” cannot be answered affirmatively based on this reporting alone [1] [2]. If independent confirmation—such as a statement from a government, credible investigative reporting, or corroboration by multiple verified open‑source monitors—appears, the assessment should be updated.