- February 10, 2026
- 7:55 pm
- Israel
On February 10, 2026, an incident occurred at Ben Gurion Airport that immediately became noticeable to the entire media environment. Israeli-Russian freelance journalist Nick Kolekhin (Nikita Kulyukhin) was removed from the flight on which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was flying to Washington to meet with US President Donald Trump.
According to Kolekhin, he had previously received permission to join the press pool. But just before takeoff, he was taken off the plane in front of his colleagues, being told it was necessary to “check his connections.”
In such stories, not only formal decisions are important, but also the way they are implemented. Here everything happened as publicly as possible, at the last minute, without detailing the reasons — and this almost always means that the context will start to work further.
How exactly the removal from the flight occurred and what Kolekhin himself claims
Why he believes he was admitted and then abruptly “changed their mind”
Kolekhin says he went through the usual admission process: received confirmation, was among the journalists, boarded the plane. Then — a short command to leave and collect his luggage.
He describes the incident as humiliation: “collect your luggage” and removal from the flight without documents and explanations that could be verified.
He separately emphasizes his biography: repatriated as a child, served in combat units, served in the reserve. And adds that he has been working as a freelancer for various media for many years, thus perceiving his presence in the pool as a professional story.
Why the video with the “ticket on the prime minister’s flight” became a separate irritant
On the same day, Kolekhin published a selfie video from the airport and showed the boarding pass for the flight on which the prime minister was flying.
In the ticket, according to him, the flight number, gate data, and the barcode of the airport’s internal system were visible, while the seats were crossed out with a marker. He explained this as “security measures” and essentially told the audience what a boarding pass looks like when flying with the head of government.
For the average viewer, this looks like a mundane detail.
For the security services of top officials, any demonstrations of “internal mechanics” — even partially hidden — are almost always perceived as a potential risk. Not because the person necessarily “did something,” but because that’s how security logic is structured: it’s better to eliminate uncertainty than to deal with consequences.
What the Shin Bet said and why the state does not disclose the reasons
The official position is built around one word — “risks”
The Shin Bet explained that the service is responsible for the protection of the head of government. As part of its duties, the agency makes decisions aimed at minimizing risk to the prime minister and information related to the head of government.
And then — the key caveat: the grounds for specific decisions are not commented on.
Why this decision is almost impossible to “discuss substantively”
When the state does not disclose criteria, public discussion inevitably goes in two directions.
The first — emotions and procedure: “why publicly,” “why at the last moment,” “why without explanations.”
The second — the context of the figure: if they do not give an answer “why removed,” people begin to discuss “why admitted” and “what follows him.”
This is not always fair to the person, but almost always predictable for Israel’s news field.
What previous stories around Kolekhin resurfaced and why it matters
Where he works as a freelancer and why this list is discussed
Kolekhin is a freelance journalist. Among the platforms he collaborated with are the Russian publication Izvestia, TV channels Solovyov Live and NTV, as well as the Chinese agency Xinhua.
In a normal situation, such lists remain part of the biography.
But in the case of a government flight, it turns into a question of trust: the person spends many hours on the same plane with the prime minister, is inside a closed circuit, gains access to the logistics and regime of the trip. There, the criteria are stricter than in standard editorial work.
What the “Seventh Eye” investigation said and where the line of dispute lies
In the journalistic investigation by The Seventh Eye (“Ha-Ayin HaShvi’it”), it was reported that Kolekhin sought to publish pro-Russian materials containing Putin’s and Kremlin’s narratives in Israeli publications Walla and The Jerusalem Post.
The investigation claimed that the publications were made on a paid basis.
Kolekhin himself disputed this. He explained to journalist Emil Shleimovich from “Details” that “Russian journalists wanted to check the possibility of making articles that could help achieve peace between Russia and Europe.” He refused to name these journalists and denied the information about the paid basis of the publications.
Thus, legally it looks like a conflict of versions: there is an investigation with claims and there is the position of the figure involved, who rejects the key point. But in the security system, even the very fact of such a conflict often becomes a risk factor — not as a “verdict,” but as a signal that there is already accumulated toxicity around the person.
And here it is important to articulate the middle of the story: NANews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency in such cases usually fixate on one principle — when security does not disclose reasons, society will still judge by context, and that is why past publications, reputational disputes, and media traces begin to play a stronger role than any participant would like.
