COLUMN: Skelia — 26 Recruits Dead, a Commander Suspended, an Army Facing Its Inner Demons

COLUMN: Skelia — 26 Recruits Dead, a Commander Suspended, an Army Facing Its Inner Demons

Introduction: When war devours its own soldiers

The 425th regiment and the silence before the scandal

There are truths in this war that nobody wants to say out loud. Uncomfortable, painful truths that risk serving Moscow's propaganda if framed poorly. But staying silent about them is a betrayal of those who died because of them. The 425th Separate Assault Regiment of Ukraine — known as Skelia — numbers more than 10,000 soldiers. It is one of the largest units in the Ukrainian armed forces. And according to an investigation by Ukrainian outlet Babel, at least 26 recruits died there in circumstances unrelated to combat between late 2025 and spring 2026.

Lieutenant Colonel Yurii Harkavyi, the unit's commander, was suspended from duty on June 24, 2026. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) opened a preliminary criminal investigation for abuse of authority under the martial law regime. The Military Ombudsman described the events as "criminal conduct committed by organized groups." This is not an isolated incident. It is a systemic scandal.

What the investigation reveals about life in the rear

The Kyiv Independent investigation, citing the Babel report, details allegations of physical violence, torture, and degrading detention conditions inflicted on recruits — men who were not at the front but in the rear, within the regiment's training and administrative structures. These men died. Not under Russian shells. Under blows, or in conditions that should never have been tolerated in any army claiming to be civilized.

This reality must not be weaponized to weaken Ukraine. But neither can it be ignored in the name of surface solidarity. Democracies distinguish themselves from autocracies precisely because they can name their own failures, open investigations, and sanction their own officials. That is what Ukraine is doing today. Recognizing that institutional courage is as important as denouncing the facts themselves.

The facts: what the investigation documented

Twenty-six non-combat deaths: the number that accuses

The figure of 26 deaths among recruits of the 425th Skelia Regiment between late 2025 and spring 2026 is the gravitational centre of the scandal. These deaths did not occur in combat. They occurred in the rear — in conditions that the Babel investigation describes as physical violence, mistreatment, and detention in inhumane conditions. For an assault regiment, even a large one, such an internal non-combat mortality rate is statistically and morally inexplicable without serious misconduct.

The fact that these deaths remained largely silent for several months — that the commander continued performing his duties until June 24, 2026 — raises questions about the internal oversight mechanisms of the Ukrainian armed forces. Who knew? At what level was the information suppressed? These questions form part of the criminal investigation opened by the NBI.

The allegations of systemic violence

The allegations do not concern an isolated incident but a pattern of conduct. Physical violence, torture, degrading detention conditions — these are not journalistic imprecisions. They are reproduced in the official language of the Military Ombudsman, who speaks of "criminal conduct committed by organized groups." This formulation implies structure, complicity, recurrence. Not an isolated outburst of anger.

The notion of "organized groups" carries particular weight. It suggests that the violence was not the work of a single individual acting alone, but of an internal network within the regiment — a culture of impunity that had taken root and implicated multiple levels of the hierarchy. If this interpretation is confirmed by the criminal investigation, the entire chain of command of the 425th Regiment will have to answer for its actions.

The suspension of Lieutenant Colonel Harkavyi: what it means

A strong institutional gesture, not yet sufficient

The suspension of Lieutenant Colonel Yurii Harkavyi on June 24, 2026 is an important institutional signal. It says: no one is above the law in the Ukrainian armed forces, not even a senior officer commanding an elite unit of more than 10,000 soldiers. It says that investigative media — like Babel — have a legitimate role, even in wartime, even when their revelations are embarrassing.

But a provisional suspension, however symbolically powerful, is not a final sanction. The NBI's preliminary criminal investigation must lead to clear conclusions, to charges if the evidence warrants them, and to a transparent trial. Pressure from Ukrainian civil society — media, victims' families, the Military Ombudsman — is necessary to ensure the case does not stall in the labyrinth of a military justice system under wartime pressure.

The chain of command and the question of hierarchical responsibility

The commander's responsibility is clear. But the question of the chain of command above him is less so. Harkavyi commanded the 425th Regiment — but who commanded Harkavyi? Who received his reports? Who held oversight and supervisory responsibility for a unit of this size? These questions are not intended to dilute individual responsibility — they aim to ensure it is traced as high as it needs to go.

In modern democratic armies, the commander's responsibility is the founding principle of military discipline. An officer is responsible for what his subordinates do. But he is also responsible for what he failed to do to prevent it. If officers superior to Harkavyi knew — or should have known — and did not act, their responsibility is engaged.

The context of martial law and its effects on soldiers' rights

Martial law: a necessity that creates grey zones

Ukraine has been under martial law since February 24, 2022. This exceptional legal framework grants expanded powers to military authorities, reduces certain procedural guarantees for civilians and military personnel, and creates grey zones in which abuses can take root if oversight mechanisms are not sufficiently robust. Martial law is necessary in the context of a war of survival — but it can also become a shield behind which unacceptable behaviour hides.

The charge of "abuse of authority under the martial law regime" is precisely this recognition: the exceptional framework does not grant the right to mistreat recruits, torture them, or let them die in inhumane conditions. Martial law is a suspension of certain civil liberties — not a licence for internal military brutality.

The rights of recruits in an army at war

The men recruited into the 425th Skelia Regiment — as in all Ukrainian units — agreed to risk their lives to defend their country. They did not agree to be mistreated by their own chain of command. Ukraine's Military Code of Conduct, reinforced since 2022 as part of reforms linked to European aspirations, sets clear standards on the treatment of soldiers. Those standards were systematically violated within the Skelia.

The question of recruits' rights is particularly sensitive in the context of Ukrainian mobilization. Since the 2024 mobilization laws, hundreds of thousands of men have been called up. Many did not choose to serve — they were compelled by the context of national survival. These men deserve all the more a solid institutional protection against abuse.

The 425th Skelia Regiment: portrait of an elite unit in crisis

A unit of considerable size

The 425th Separate Assault Regiment "Skelia" — whose name evokes rock, solidity — is one of the large units of the Ukrainian army with more than 10,000 personnel. Ukrainian assault regiments are frontline infantry units designed for offensive operations in difficult environments. Their doctrine rests on tactical aggressiveness and extreme physical and psychological endurance.

The exceptional size of Skelia — larger than a standard brigade — gives it considerable operational importance on the battlefield. It also creates management challenges: controlling discipline, maintaining conduct standards, ensuring that abuse reporting mechanisms function within a unit of this scale is a complex task, all the more so under the intense pressure conditions of a high-intensity war.

Military culture and its possible drift

Elite assault units develop a strong internal culture — group identity, a code of honour, a solidarity that can be a strength but also a driver of drift. When this internal culture turns against recruits judged insufficiently up to standard, when it permits brutalization practices in the name of toughening soldiers, when it creates an internal law of silence that protects perpetrators of abuse — it becomes toxic. The allegations against Skelia suggest that this drift occurred on a scale that cost lives.

This type of drift is not unique to Ukraine. Similar scandals have struck elite units in Western armies — American, British, Australian — whose oversight systems are nonetheless considered robust. War creates environments where civilian and legal oversight is weakened, where tolerance for internal brutality expands, and where whistleblowers risk their careers or their safety.

The role of the National Bureau of Investigation

An institution under pressure

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is the Ukrainian institution tasked with investigating serious crimes committed by law enforcement and military personnel. Created as part of post-Maidan anti-corruption reforms, it is meant to represent progress toward a standard of independent justice. Its opening of a preliminary criminal investigation in the Skelia case on June 24, 2026 is a positive signal.

But the NBI operates in an extremely difficult wartime context. Resources are limited. Witnesses are active military personnel — potentially subject to intimidation. Evidence is sometimes difficult to collect in operational units. And the political pressure not to damage the army's image during the war is real, even if no official will express it publicly. The rigour with which this investigation is pursued to its conclusion will be a test of the NBI's institutional independence.

Reporting mechanisms within the Ukrainian army

How did 26 deaths manage to stay under the radar of military oversight systems for several months? That is the question that should trouble Ukrainian officials as much as the facts themselves. Reporting mechanisms exist — hotlines, human rights liaison officers, Ombudsman structures. But these mechanisms only work if soldiers trust they can use them without reprisal.

In a large assault unit where a culture of intimidation had taken hold, this trust was probably non-existent. Soldiers who wanted to report abuse may have feared for their safety. Some may have done so and not been heard. The investigation must also cover these systemic failures — not only the individual acts of identified perpetrators.

The reaction of Ukrainian civil society and media

Babel and investigative journalism in wartime

The Babel investigation that exposed the 425th Skelia Regiment scandal is a demonstration of what investigative journalism can accomplish in wartime. In an environment where media face natural pressure toward self-censorship — to avoid undermining morale, to avoid handing arguments to Russian propaganda — choosing to publish an investigation this explosive requires editorial courage. Babel made that choice. The Kyiv Independent relayed and amplified it.

This press freedom — imperfect, limited by martial law in certain areas, but real — is one of the fundamental differences between Ukraine and Russia. In Russia, a journalist publishing such an investigation into the army would go to prison. In Ukraine, the report is published, the commander is suspended, and a criminal investigation is opened. That is not insignificant.

The reaction of families and the limits of official transparency

For the families of the 26 deceased recruits, the suspension of the commander and the opening of an investigation are only a beginning. These families are waiting for answers — how their loved one died, under what circumstances, who is responsible. In a wartime context where information on military operations is often classified, obtaining these answers will be difficult and painful.

The Ukrainian state has an obligation to these families that goes beyond formal procedures. It owes them transparency, within the limits of national security. It owes them explanations. It owes them the certainty that those responsible for their loved ones' deaths will be held accountable — real accountability, in courtrooms, with penalties proportionate to the facts.

The international comparison: Ukraine is not alone in facing this challenge

Similar scandals in other armies

The 425th Skelia Regiment scandal is not without precedent in democratic armies. Australian special forces were shaken by the Brereton Report in 2020, which documented extrajudicial executions of Afghan civilians. American armed forces have confronted numerous abuse scandals — from My Lai in Vietnam to Abu Ghraib in Iraq. The British army opened investigations into the conduct of its soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These precedents do not minimize what happened at Skelia. They show that democratic armies, even the best ones, are vulnerable to these drifts. What distinguishes them from the armies of authoritarian regimes is precisely their capacity to open investigations, sanction those responsible, and reform their systems. Ukraine is on that path.

The necessary reforms within Ukrainian military structures

The Skelia scandal reveals gaps in the internal oversight mechanisms of the Ukrainian armed forces — gaps that post-Maidan reforms and the European standards required as part of the EU candidacy process should have filled more rapidly. Independent inspections of detention conditions in military structures, more robust anonymous reporting mechanisms, mandatory training on international humanitarian law and soldiers' rights doctrine — these reforms are not luxuries. They are necessities.

The European Union and the NATO partners supporting Ukraine also have a role to play: conditioning certain aspects of institutional support on verifiable progress toward these standards. Not to humiliate Ukraine, but to accompany it in building an army that reflects the values it is defending.

The foreign deminer killed by the Russians: the contrast that illuminates

A sacrifice in Kherson, in the same register

On the same day the Skelia scandal broke in the Ukrainian press, Euromaidan Press reported the death of a 24-year-old foreign deminer killed by Russian fire in Kherson while working to neutralize mines laid by the Russian army. Four of his colleagues were wounded. This man had chosen to come to Ukraine — from another country, another life — to help secure Ukrainian territory. He left his life there.

The contrast is striking. On one side, a 24-year-old foreigner who freely chose to risk his life to protect Ukrainians from Russian mines. On the other, Ukrainian recruits dying in the rear under the blows of their own officers. Both realities coexist in the same war, at the same moment. They both speak to what Ukraine is — simultaneously the heroism of those who choose to defend freedom, and the institutional fragility of an army still learning to hold itself to its own standards.

Ukraine deserves to be defended — and to be criticized

Both realities must be held together. Ukraine deserves the support of democracies because it is fighting for a just cause, because its soldiers and civilians are paying an immense price, because its resistance prevents Moscow's logic of aggression from spreading. And Ukraine also deserves to be held to high standards precisely because it aspires to embody them. Constructive criticism is not betrayal — it is a form of respect.

Allies who look away from the Skelia scandal are not doing Ukraine a service. They are reinforcing an impunity that weakens the army from the inside. Partners who accompany Ukraine in reforming its military institutions render it a lasting service — well beyond the current war.

What the Ukrainian government must do

Political signals at the highest level

President Zelensky has built his legitimacy on his transparency, his refusal to compromise with corruption, and his capacity to honour commitments to Ukrainian society. The Skelia scandal calls for a strong political signal at the highest level — not merely an administrative suspension of a commander, but a clear declaration that violence against recruits will be treated with the same severity as other serious crimes.

The Ministry of Defence also has direct responsibility. Oversight of large military units, internal control mechanisms, early warning systems for abuse — all these mechanisms must be audited in light of the Skelia scandal. An independent inquiry commission, including civil society representatives and international observers, should be considered for the systemic dimensions of the affair.

Structural reforms beyond the Skelia case

The 425th Regiment is probably not the only unit where abuses are occurring. The Skelia scandal should trigger a systemic review — not a witch hunt, but a rigorous audit of internal oversight mechanisms across all large units. Surprise inspections, strengthened reporting mechanisms, effective protections for military whistleblowers — these preventive measures are less costly than the scandals they prevent.

Ukraine's long-term integration into NATO and EU structures implies adopting military and human rights standards consistent with Alliance and Union values. The Skelia scandal is a painful reminder that this integration is not only a question of military capabilities — it is also a question of institutional culture and conduct standards.

The international press and its treatment of the scandal

A difficult subject for pro-Ukraine media

The Skelia scandal was reported by the Kyiv Independent and relayed by Ukrainian media. International coverage remains, at the time of writing, limited. The Guardian, in its June 26, 2026 overview of the war and diplomacy, mentions the broader context of the war but does not treat the scandal with the depth it deserves. This relative international discretion reflects a real tension: media supporting Ukraine hesitate to amplify information that could weaken its image during the war.

This hesitation is understandable. But it is also problematic. Information about Ukrainian military scandals will circulate regardless — if not via responsible media, then via Russian disinformation channels that will distort it for propaganda purposes. It is better that rigorous media handle it with precision and context than leave the field open to manipulation.

Russian propaganda and the duty of accuracy

Russia will use the Skelia scandal for propaganda purposes — that is inevitable. State media like RT and Sputnik will make it proof that the Ukrainian army is criminal, that Zelensky's regime is corrupt, that the West is supporting torturers. This instrumentalization is predictable and must not deter rigorous journalistic treatment of the subject.

The answer to Russian propaganda is not silence. It is precision. Reporting the facts with all their nuances — the opened investigation, the suspended commander, the Ombudsman's action, the Ukrainian institutional response — paints an honest and complete picture that Russian propaganda, in its deliberate distortion, cannot offer. Truth is the best response to manipulation.

The prospects for the criminal investigation

Evidentiary challenges in a wartime context

The NBI's criminal investigation faces considerable evidentiary challenges. Witnesses are active military personnel, potentially subject to hierarchical pressure. Physical evidence — detention conditions, traces of violence — is difficult to document after the fact. Deaths may have been certified with official causes different from reality. Reconstructing the facts will require time, resources, and robust witness protection.

The criminal proceedings will also have to navigate the distinction between individual acts of violence and the command decisions that permitted or encouraged them. Proving that superior officers ordered the violence is harder than proving the violence occurred. But the doctrine of command responsibility — recognized under international humanitarian law — can engage this responsibility even without direct evidence of an order.

Ukrainian precedents in military justice

Ukraine has already opened and pursued criminal proceedings against military personnel implicated in abuse — some have resulted in convictions, others have stalled. The Ukrainian military justice system has been reformed as part of European integration processes, but remains improvable. The Skelia case will be an important test: can the NBI conduct a rigorous investigation in a large elite unit during an active war, through to real judicial conclusions?

The answer to that question will say much about the real state of Ukrainian institutions — their resistance to political and military pressure, their capacity to uphold the rule of law even in adversity. These are the institutions that will make Ukraine a lasting democracy long after the war ends.

What this affair reveals about Ukraine at war

A society that refuses impunity even in wartime

What is remarkable about the Skelia scandal is its public revelation. Journalists from Babel conducted this investigation despite the constraints of martial law. The Military Ombudsman used blunt and precise language. The NBI opened an investigation on the same day as the commander's suspension. The Ukrainian and international press relayed the information.

This chain — media, oversight bodies, prosecution — that functions, even imperfectly, is the mark of a civil society that refuses impunity even in wartime. It is a fundamental difference from Russia, where military scandals — and there are many — are suppressed, where journalists who expose them are imprisoned, where soldiers' families search in vain for answers in a system designed to deny them.

A long war and its effects on institutions

A war running for more than four years creates considerable institutional pressure. Oversight mechanisms erode under fatigue. Human resources are exhausted. Priorities invert. The Skelia scandal may be a sign of institutional wear that the duration of the war has aggravated. Maintaining functioning civilian institutions — justice, free press, oversight bodies — in a country at war for four years is a challenge that few democracies have had to meet. Ukraine is meeting it, imperfectly, but genuinely.

What the West must understand

Supporting Ukraine without blind glorification

Western support for Ukraine must rest on an honest understanding of what Ukraine is — not on an idealized image that does not withstand scrutiny. An imperfect democracy fighting for its survival. A state in deep reform, with real progress and documented failures. A heroic army with blind spots. A courageous government with responsibilities to assume.

Supporting Ukraine while looking away from these realities is not durable solidarity — it is a posture that becomes brittle the moment the contradictions become too visible to ignore. Support grounded in truth — all the truth, including the uncomfortable — is structurally more solid than support based on a perfect image that does not hold.

Investment in institutions as a support priority

Western partners are investing massively in Ukrainian military capabilities — rightly so. But they should invest with equal vigour in strengthening the civilian institutions that oversee this army: military justice, inspection bodies, whistleblower protection mechanisms, human rights training within the armed forces. These investments are less spectacular than deliveries of tanks or missiles. They are just as necessary.

Conclusion: The strength of a democracy that looks itself in the mirror

Naming one's faults is a form of resistance

The 425th Skelia Regiment scandal is shameful. The 26 recruits who died deserve justice, and those responsible deserve to answer for their actions before a court. But the way Ukraine responds to this scandal — journalistic investigation, rapid suspension, criminal investigation, the Ombudsman's public statement — says something important about the nature of this society at war.

The capacity to look at oneself in the mirror, to name one's own failures, to address them institutionally even when the war imposes other priorities — that is a form of resistance. It is the resistance of a democracy refusing to let itself be corrupted by urgency and adversity. And it is, ultimately, one of the deep reasons why Ukraine deserves to win.

Justice and victory are not mutually exclusive

Some believe that speaking of the Skelia scandal weakens Ukraine in its war. I believe the opposite. An army that tolerates its officers' abuse of its own recruits is an army that weakens itself from within. An army that investigates, sanctions, and reforms is an army that strengthens itself. Internal justice and military victory do not exclude each other — they reinforce each other.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Editorial positioning and sources

This column rests on the investigation published by the Kyiv Independent reporting Babel's revelations on the 425th Skelia Assault Regiment, the Euromaidan Press report on the death of the foreign deminer in Kherson, and The Guardian's overview of June 26, 2026. I did not have access to the full Babel investigation report nor to NBI documents. All inferences about systemic failures are my own and are grounded in known patterns from comparable armies.

Independence declaration and declared biases

I support Ukraine in its war against Russian aggression. This support does not prevent me from acknowledging documented Ukrainian institutional failures. On the contrary, it is precisely because I support Ukraine that I demand it hold itself to high standards. This position is consistent, not contradictory. I have received no remuneration from any party connected to this subject.

Sources

Primary sources

Kyiv Independent — Skelia assault regiment commander suspended amid investigation into alleged abuse — June 24, 2026

Euromaidan Press — 24-year-old foreign deminer killed in Kherson by Russian shelling — June 24, 2026

The Guardian — Ukraine war briefing: Zelensky, 40-day Russia blitz — June 26, 2026

Secondary sources

Kyiv Independent — Ongoing Ukraine-Russia coverage — June 2026

Euromaidan Press — Ukraine news and analysis — June 2026

Ukrinform — Ukrainian army and news — June 2026