NextFin news, On the evening of September 5, 2025, several hundred citizens gathered at Kyiv’s Independence Square to protest against the government’s tightening of penalties for military personnel who leave their units without authorization. The demonstrators, holding placards with slogans such as "Service is not slavery!" and "Protect soldiers' rights!", voiced their opposition to the recently passed draft law No. 13260, which was widely mischaracterized in the media as reinstating criminal liability for unauthorized absence and desertion. The protest underscored deep dissatisfaction within the military community and the public regarding the current mechanisms governing return-to-service policies.
The backdrop to these protests is a legislative framework introduced in late August 2024, which established a mechanism allowing soldiers who voluntarily left their units or deserted for the first time to return to service without criminal punishment, contingent upon the written consent of a new commander. This law, colloquially dubbed "once – no stigma," aimed to encourage reintegration and reduce punitive measures. However, contrary to expectations, military leadership and parliamentary sources report a significant increase in cases of unauthorized absence and desertion since its implementation.
According to data from the Office of the Prosecutor General, from January 2022 to September 2025, over 235,000 criminal proceedings were registered for unauthorized absence, with approximately 54,000 related to desertion. This represents a stark rise compared to roughly 60,000 and 30,000 cases respectively during the preceding two-year period. The surge indicates that the policy may have inadvertently incentivized self-discharge as a de facto method for soldiers to seek transfers or avoid frontline duties.
Further complicating the issue, military judicial statistics reveal that actual imprisonment sentences for such offenses remain relatively rare, suggesting a gap between legal provisions and enforcement. Additionally, anecdotal evidence points to systemic challenges within military units, including chaotic training regimens, poor command discipline, and corruption. For instance, some commanders reportedly facilitate "remote service" arrangements, allowing soldiers to remain at home while still receiving pay, thereby undermining unit cohesion and operational effectiveness.
One illustrative case involved a civilian conscripted in February 2025 who, after completing basic training, absconded instead of reporting to his assigned unit. Despite being known to authorities and living openly, no effective measures were taken to enforce his return. Such cases highlight enforcement deficiencies and the challenges of maintaining discipline amid ongoing conflict.
Moreover, the policy’s facilitation of voluntary return has been exploited as a loophole for soldiers to transfer between units, especially from high-risk infantry brigades to less exposed National Guard formations. Until October 1, 2025, inter-service transfers were practically impossible, but recent government decrees introduced electronic reporting systems to streamline this process. However, entrenched command resistance and bureaucratic inertia continue to hamper effective implementation.
The protests in Kyiv thus reflect broader systemic issues: a military struggling to balance the need for discipline with the realities of morale, personnel management, and the pressures of a protracted war. The rise in unauthorized absences and desertion not only threatens operational readiness but also erodes public trust in the armed forces and government policies.
Looking forward, Ukraine faces critical decisions in reforming its military justice and personnel policies. Enhancing transparency, improving training and leadership quality, and addressing corruption are essential to restoring discipline and morale. Additionally, refining the return-to-service mechanism to prevent abuse while offering genuine reintegration pathways will be vital.
Given the ongoing conflict and the strategic importance of maintaining a robust defense posture, these reforms will have significant implications for Ukraine’s military effectiveness and societal stability. Failure to address these challenges risks exacerbating personnel shortages and undermining the country’s resilience in the face of external threats.
According to authoritative Ukrainian sources, including the Office of the Prosecutor General and military insiders, the current policy framework requires urgent reassessment to align legal provisions with practical enforcement and to mitigate unintended incentives for desertion. The Kyiv protests serve as a critical barometer of the policy’s shortcomings and a call to action for policymakers and military leadership alike.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.