Public detentions and trials of combat commanders in the midst of war: what politicians and the military think about it

In recent days, Ukraine has detained several former commanders of military units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who operated in the Kharkiv direction. They are suspected of official negligence, which, according to the investigation, was one of the reasons for the successful offensive of Russian troops and the loss of part of the territories of the Kharkiv region in May 2024.

Brigadier General Yurii Galushkin (former commander of the Kharkiv Operational Tactical Group), Lieutenant General Artur Gorbenko (former commander of the 125th Lviv Territorial Defense Brigade) and Colonel Ilya Lapin (former commander of the 415th Battalion of the 23rd Separate Mechanized Brigade) became involved high-profile case. The court chose a preventive measure for Horbenka in the form of two-month detention with the possibility of release on bail in the amount of 25 million hryvnias. Galushkin was remanded in custody with bail in the amount of 5 million hryvnias, while Colonel Lapin received a preventive measure in the form of 60 days of arrest without bail. He announced his intention to appeal this decision. However, on January 22, Yuriy Galushkin was bailed in the amount of 5 million hryvnias. Despite this, on the same evening, employees of the State Bureau of Investigation detained the general again

Dmytro Ryumshin, ex-commander of the 155th “Anna Kyivska” brigade, who recently got into a scandal due to mass desertion from his unit, was also among those detained. The court gave him the opportunity to post bail in the amount of 90 million hryvnias.

This wave of arrests during the war caused a great resonance and mixed reaction both in society and among the military. It should be noted that these events also acquired a political tone.

People’s Deputy of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko expressed on your Facebook page:

“Military commanders can be tried only by a military court!

Rightly! Unbiased! Worthily!

And ideally – already after the Victory.

Public trials of combat officers in the midst of hostilities are unlikely to improve the atmosphere in the army and strengthen the state’s defense capabilities. And also – they will create a huge temptation to punish the shooters, instead of establishing the real culprits and not repeating tragic mistakes in the future.
Glory to the ZSU!”.

Former President Petro Poroshenko and his party “European Solidarity” came to the defense of one of the detainees. The political force said that the government is trying to find “extremists” among the military in order to shift all responsibility for failures on the front to them, while it itself should be responsible for strategic decisions.

In political circles, the name of the former commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces Valery Zaluzhny is also mentioned. Rumors about the possibility of bringing him to justice for the loss of southern Ukraine at the beginning of the invasion have been appearing in the media since 2023. Recently, they have intensified against the background of conversations that Bankova is allegedly trying to negotiate with Zaluzhny so that he does not participate in the presidential elections. In this context, the threat of criminal cases looks like a tool to influence the former commander-in-chief.

The arrests of the commanders caused a controversial reaction among the military as well. Some believe that these actions are correct, because inefficient management on the part of the commanders led to great human losses and other negative consequences. Others were categorically against such actions, stressing that it could damage morale and weaken team effectiveness.

Brigadier General Serhiy Sobko, chief of staff of the Luhansk OTU, is currently the only general of the Armed Forces of Ukraine who has publicly spoken about the detention of a group of commanders.

In his post on Facebook, he wrote:

“Today we see the public detention of Ukrainian officers. They are indicted on a number of charges related to the improper performance of their official duties. The manner in which the detention and the hearing in court took place is impressive. The attitude towards the officers is impressive. I want to believe that the court will approach these cases objectively and balanced , will deeply deal with all the causes and consequences, the correct conclusions will be drawn in the interests of increasing our combat capability and that the goal is to really understand and improve the military system, to correct mistakes, and not to assign extremes in our defeats.
Condemnation of generals and officers during the war for negligence and miscalculation in decision-making has become acute today. The result can be both positive and negative for the army, the state and the country as a whole. Convictions can, if handled correctly, strengthen justice, but they can also weaken the front. On the one hand, this is a signal of responsibility to others, and on the other hand, it undermines trust between the army and the state, reducing military morale and command effectiveness.

Regarding the negative, firstly, the condemnation of commanders can significantly undermine morale, create an atmosphere of fear among other officers and generals. As a result, due to fear of criminal liability for possible mistakes, military leaders may avoid the decisive action that is so necessary today. This can reduce initiative and willingness to take responsibility in critical situations.

Here it is necessary to remember that war is a sphere of constant uncertainty, chaos, where it is impossible to calculate all the consequences, and mistakes are inevitable. During the Vietnam War, the US military faced considerable criticism for its failures, but there were no large-scale trials against the commanders. The higher command avoided direct persecution of generals and senior officers, because the strategy of conducting the war turned out to be flawed. Instead, efforts were focused on analyzing mistakes to prevent them from happening in the future. If we punish our officers for every wrong decision, it can cause a “freeze” effect where commanders shy away from taking the initiative for fear of consequences. This is especially dangerous in conditions where the Russians act aggressively and unpredictably, when weapons, methods of action and tactics change so quickly that the one who adapts to the new conditions faster will win, in other words, the one who is not afraid to make mistakes.

Secondly, military personnel may perceive such actions as injustice. This, in turn, will undermine trust in the justice system and the political leadership of the state.

Third, in war, commanders, leaders are key figures and any change or removal from positions can destabilize the chain of command, especially if there are no better trained replacements, and this is definitely a problem we have now.

Fourth, the enemy can and will use these stories in their propaganda. This can become a powerful tool in his hands to demoralize both our military and society.

Finally, a conviction based on insufficiently substantiated allegations can set a dangerous precedent and an example of a “witch hunt”. In military conditions, it is often very difficult to objectively assess whether the commander could have acted differently. Often, bringing the military to justice may be motivated not by real crimes, but by political goals. War is a time when a government faces a lot of pressure from society. In search of the “guilty”, the authorities can use the courts as a tool to satisfy public opinion, even if it harms the army. An example of how politically motivated persecution of the military can have catastrophic consequences is Stalin’s purges, during which a significant part of the command staff of the Red Army was destroyed. Many talented officers were repressed, which significantly weakened the country’s fighting capacity in the first years of the war.

Speaking about the other side, it is worth noting the following. First, prosecution can demonstrate that even in difficult times there is the rule of law and that officials are held accountable for their actions or omissions.

Second, if there is actual negligence or criminal omission, it can be a signal to other officers to act responsibly and honestly. At the same time, citizens who demand justice can feel that their demands are taken into account, and the state acts in the interests of society. During the 2006 war in Lebanon, the commander of the Israeli ground forces, Udi Adam, was criticized for indecisiveness and ineffective leadership. Although he was not prosecuted, his resignation served as a lesson to other commanders: the system showed that carelessness or planning errors have consequences. This gave impetus to reforms that strengthened Israel’s defense capabilities. Currently, Ukraine is experiencing a historical moment when the efficiency and transparency of the military system determine its future. Therefore, if the military leadership bears responsibility for its actions, it will strengthen people’s trust in the state and the army.

Third and most importantly, again, if approached correctly, if the process is transparent and fair, it can help improve the chain of command and reduce the risk of mistakes being repeated. For example, in many countries, military miscalculations are analyzed after the end of the conflict, when events can be evaluated without emotional load. This makes it possible to distinguish criminal negligence from strategic miscalculations. During the First World War, British General Douglas Haig was widely criticized for the huge losses during the battles of the Somme and Passchendaele. He was accused of using ineffective, outdated tactics that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers. However, there was no prosecution. It was only after the war that the government evaluated his actions and recognized that some decisions, however controversial, were the only possible ones under the conditions of the war at that time.

In the war against Russia for the independence and existence of Ukraine, not only combat power comes to the fore, but also the ability to effectively manage the troops and make the right decisions. At the same time, the ability to learn from mistakes is critically important. The problem of weak management skills of some generals and senior officers is often caused by the shortcomings of military education and systemic problems, which is a challenge for the state, for us. Accordingly, we should act in such situations only in such a way as to strengthen the army, not to destroy it.”

In addition, there is heated debate about the competence of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) in the investigation of war crimes. Many believe that such cases should be entrusted to military law enforcement agencies, which better understand the specifics of the work of commanders and military structures.

On this remark answered DBR advisor Tetyana Sapyan, speaking on the air of the telethon “Edyny Novyni”. She emphasized that SBI employees have the necessary professional education, training and experience to investigate war crimes.

“I don’t even suppose that anyone in society or the media community can doubt the professionalism of the work of the State Bureau of Investigation,” – said Sapyan.

She also emphasized that the jurisdiction of the SBI is clearly defined by the legislation of Ukraine. If necessary, military experts and sometimes international experts are involved in the investigations to ensure objectivity and quality of the investigation.

“The SBI as a law enforcement body is not a separate structure in the process of investigating criminal offenses. Procedural management is carried out by the Prosecutor General’s Office.” – she added.