DECODING: The 425th Skelia Regiment — 26 non-combat deaths and the investigation that stings

The Babel investigation that triggers an institutional crisis

On June 23, 2026, the independent Ukrainian outlet Babel published an investigation into the 425th Separate Assault Regiment, known as Skelia. The investigation, grounded in testimony from current and former soldiers, relatives of mobilized servicemembers, medical records, court documents, and forensic examinations, documents at least 26 deaths of service members between late 2025 and spring 2026. What sets these deaths apart from combat losses: according to Babel's sources, they occurred shortly after mobilization and training, in circumstances linked to inadequate medical care, coercion, and physical abuse. The following day, on June 24, Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) formally opened an investigation.

The 425th Skelia is not an ordinary regiment. With more than 10,000 personnel, it is one of the largest assault formats in the Ukrainian army. It regularly receives a large share of recently mobilized recruits and is sent on high-risk assault operations. It is precisely that status — first destination for new recruits, frontline regiment in some of the most dangerous missions on the front — that makes the allegations particularly grave. If the conditions documented by Babel are accurate, they concern Ukrainian soldiers who never got the chance to fight for their country before dying in it.

Twenty-six dead without having fought. In a war where Ukraine is fighting for its survival, where every soldier is precious, this is a gut punch. I'm not taking sides with the accusation before the investigation is finished — that is the SBI's job. But I am taking sides with transparency. These soldiers and their families deserve answers. And Ukraine deserves an army worthy of its values.

Six months of journalistic work on documented evidence

The investigation published by Babel on June 23, 2026 is the result of rigorous journalism grounded in multiple verifiable sources. The independent Ukrainian outlet consulted current soldiers from the regiment, former soldiers, relatives of deceased or still-serving military personnel, and examined medical records, court documents, and forensic reports. This diversity of sources — both testimonial and documentary — gives the investigation a methodological robustness that explains the rapid opening of a formal inquiry by the SBI.

The allegations in the investigation are specific: soldiers reportedly died shortly after their mobilization and training, in conditions linked to inadequate medical care, coercion, and physical abuse. These allegations do not describe combat deaths — they describe deaths under conditions of military administration. The distinction is crucial: if confirmed, these deaths are not the inevitable casualties of a war of documented brutality, but institutional failures that cost Ukrainian soldiers' lives before they could even serve their country.

Skelia's immediate response — 18 of 26 in hospital

The Skelia regiment responded to the allegations by specifying that 18 of the 26 deaths had occurred in hospital or on the way to hospital, not directly at service posts. The regiment explains that these deaths were linked to pre-existing poor health conditions in the conscripts concerned. It also specifies that the regiment does not directly participate in conscript mobilization — it receives personnel assigned by conscription offices after they have been deemed fit for service by a medical commission. This defense — the men were already sick before arriving, medical commissions had approved them — raises as many questions as it answers.

If conscripts were indeed suffering from serious medical conditions — which would be true in some cases of forced mobilization — the question shifts to the conscription medical commissions that deemed these men fit for service. And if men in fragile health were sent to a high-intensity assault regiment, the question of institutional responsibility remains open. The Skelia's response does not exonerate the system — it raises the possibility that the failure is systemic rather than regiment-specific.

Eighteen dead in hospital or on the way there. The Skelia presents that as a clarification. I read it as an aggravation. Sick men dying in an assault regiment — whether at posts or in hospital — raise the same fundamental question: how did men who should not have been there end up there? The answer to that question matters more than the exact location of the deaths.

The formal charges being examined

On June 24, 2026, Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation formally opened an investigation following the Babel article. The SBI specified that it was verifying the allegations and examining whether military officials had exceeded their authority and official powers under martial law, with grave consequences. This precise legal formulation refers to specific provisions of Ukraine's criminal code on military authority abuse — a solid legal basis for an investigation into allegations of coercion and physical abuse.

The SBI's investigation is separate from that of the Military Law Enforcement Service, which had already begun examining the facts. Human Rights Commissioner Dmytro Lubinets asked the SBI and the Specialized Defense Prosecutor's Office to conduct a "full, objective, and impartial" investigation, declaring that "any human rights violation, especially under martial law, is unacceptable and requires an immediate response." A monitoring group from the ombudsman's office was to visit the regiment for an on-site inspection.

The institutional actors — who is responsible for what

The Skelia affair illuminates the complexity of the accountability chain within Ukraine's armed forces. The 425th Separate Assault Regiment is the direct service unit. Conscription offices are responsible for initial mobilization and fitness medical commissions. The Operations Command supervises personnel allocations. The General Staff holds overall supervisory responsibility. None of these levels can claim complete absence of responsibility if the allegations are confirmed — the question is determining exactly where in that chain the failures lie.

Commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi and the general staff had not commented on Babel's investigation findings at the time of publication. Lubinets indicated he had discussed the allegations with Syrskyi. This absence of response from the upper command is notable in a country at war where institutional communication is generally rapid on sensitive topics. The regiment, for its part, says it is ready to cooperate with all investigations to establish "impartially and objectively all the facts."

The accountability chain in an army of more than a million people, mobilized in emergency conditions under total war. That is an organizational challenge of extraordinary complexity. Failures exist in every army in the world under these conditions. The question is not whether failures exist — it is whether they are systemic, whether they are known, and whether anyone is prepared to correct them.

The high-risk assault regiment

The 425th Separate Assault Regiment Skelia has an operational history in the full-scale war that places it among the most exposed units of the Ukrainian army. It participates in assault operations — the most dangerous missions on the front, involving advances under direct enemy fire, seizing fortified positions, and close-quarters combat. In that context, high casualties are expected and documented. What distinguishes the current affair is that the 26 documented deaths are not combat losses — they occurred under non-combat conditions, during or shortly after the training and integration phase.

This is not the first controversy surrounding Skelia. In April 2026, footage of a failed mechanized attack near Pokrovsk — one of the most contested cities in the Donbas — had drawn public criticism of the regiment's tactics. Defenders of the Skelia responded that assault units are tasked with some of the most dangerous missions on the front — a factual argument that does not answer questions about the quality of tactical planning. That prior controversy creates a context in which the affair of the 26 deaths fits into a broader picture of questions surrounding the regiment.

The regiment's size — a giant of Ukrainian mobilization

With more than 10,000 personnel, the Skelia is a military format of exceptional size within Ukraine's order of battle. That size reflects both the massive operational needs of the front and the reality of Ukrainian mobilization since 2024, which significantly increased the number of recruits integrated into existing units. A regiment of this size is difficult to manage at a consistently high level of institutional quality — the challenges of supervision, training, medical care, and respect for soldiers' rights are multiplied by scale.

The decision to send to the Skelia a "large share of recently mobilized recruits" — as the Kyiv Independent describes it — raises questions about the fit between the regiment's reception and training capacity and the volume of recruits it receives. In armies facing accelerated mass mobilization, the risk of institutional failures increases proportionally with the speed and volume of mobilization. That is not an excuse — it is a management reality that must be addressed by effective supervisory mechanisms.

Ten thousand personnel in a single assault regiment. That's an entire city in uniform. And like any city, problems can develop within it without command being immediately aware — or wanting to be. The Skelia's size is both its operational strength and its institutional vulnerability.

The 2024 mobilization law and its effects

To understand the Skelia affair in its context, we need to recall the reality of Ukrainian mobilization since 2024. The mobilization law adopted in 2024 significantly broadened the categories of people subject to mobilization, lowered the minimum age, and made exemptions harder to obtain. This law was necessary — Ukraine faces massive military pressure, heavy front-line losses, and an urgent need to replace and reinforce its troop strength. But it also produced a mobilization under pressure that can include men whose health is not optimal for military service.

Testimonies documented by Ukrainian media since 2024 describe men mobilized with pre-existing medical conditions, men whose medical files were not properly reviewed, medical commissions working rapidly under operational pressure. These failures in the medical screening process are not deliberate policy — they are the result of limited human resources in conscription offices and institutional pressure to supply manpower quickly. But they create conditions in which men who should not be serving end up in assault units.

The tension between military necessity and soldiers' rights

The Skelia affair illustrates the fundamental tension between the military necessity of an army fighting for its survival and the fundamental rights of soldiers to adequate training, appropriate medical care, and protection against institutional abuse. This tension is real and documented in every army that has faced mass mobilization under constraint — from the French army during World War I to American forces during the Korean War. It does not justify abuse — but it explains it in context.

What distinguishes a democratic army from an authoritarian army in these situations is precisely the capacity to acknowledge failures, to investigate them, to hold those responsible accountable, and to correct them. The SBI's opening of an investigation within 24 hours of Babel's article is a positive signal on that count. Human Rights Commissioner Lubinets's rapid response is also a positive signal. The transparency with which Ukraine allows independent media to investigate its military institutions during a war is a sign of democratic maturity that few countries at war maintain at this level.

Ukraine lets Babel investigate its army during a war for its survival. And the SBI opens an investigation within 24 hours. That's not institutional weakness — it's functional democracy. Compare that with Russia, where journalists who question the army end up in prison. The difference says everything about the two systems in confrontation.

Lubinets and the ombudsman's office

Ukrainian Human Rights Commissioner Dmytro Lubinets's response to the Skelia affair was rapid and explicit. He demanded "full, objective, and impartial" investigations, described any human rights violation under martial law as "unacceptable," and said he had personally discussed the allegations with commander-in-chief Syrskyi. His office announced that a monitoring group would visit the regiment for an on-site inspection. That institutional response — ombudsman, SBI, Military Law Enforcement Service — shows that supervisory mechanisms exist and function in Ukraine.

Lubinets's statement that "any human rights violation is unacceptable and requires an immediate response" is particularly significant in the context of a war where pressure of military necessity is constant. It signals that Ukraine maintains a human rights protection framework even during the most intense conflict of its modern history. That framework may be imperfect in its application — the Skelia affair itself suggests as much — but its existence and its activation are important indicators of the nature of the Ukrainian system.

The SBI and its investigative powers

Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation is the national institution tasked with investigating violations committed by representatives of law enforcement, security services, and the armed forces. Its activation in the Skelia affair is appropriate and represents the level of institutional response expected in the face of allegations this serious. The SBI has the legal powers to access military records, summon witnesses, order additional forensic examinations, and, if sufficient evidence is gathered, prosecute members of the armed forces before military courts.

The legal framework of the investigation — "exceeding authority and official powers with grave consequences" — is a solid basis for potential prosecution. If the allegations are confirmed, identified responsible parties could face criminal charges carrying significant sentences. The investigation's duration remains uncertain — in complex military cases involving many witnesses and documents, investigations can take months. But the fact that it is open is in itself a concrete and important consequence of Babel's publication.

The SBI investigates. The ombudsman activates. Syrskyi is informed. Ukraine's institutional machinery functions. That's exactly what should be happening. What concerns me is how fast that machinery will move and how independently it will act. In a war where the army is sanctified by necessity, holding one's own institutions accountable is a political act of courage that is far from automatic.

Inadequate medical care — the central knot

Among the allegations documented by Babel, inadequate medical care is most directly linked to the deaths. Mobilized men with serious medical conditions — cardiac, respiratory, or other — were reportedly kept on active duty without adequate access to care, and died of complications that could have been treated with proper medical management. The fact that 18 of the 26 deaths occurred in hospital or on the way suggests that warning signs existed — that these men were hospitalized before dying — but that care came too late or under insufficient conditions.

Medical care under the conditions of an army of mass mobilization like Ukraine's in 2025–2026 poses immense logistical challenges. Military doctors, nurses, medical equipment — all of these resources are under extreme pressure in a country simultaneously conducting a high-intensity war on multiple fronts. Delays in accessing care, misdiagnoses, late transfers to higher-level facilities — these failures are documented in every army at war and are not exceptional phenomena. What makes them grave in this case is the concentration of 26 deaths in a single unit over a relatively short period.

Coercion and physical abuse — the most serious allegations

The allegations of coercion and physical abuse are the gravest because they involve deliberate behavior rather than systemic failures. If soldiers were subjected to physical abuse, that transforms the investigation from one into institutional failures to a criminal inquiry into intentional offenses. The distinction is fundamental: institutional failures can be corrected through organizational reform; deliberate abuse requires criminal prosecution and deeper cultural change.

These allegations are the hardest to establish solidly — they rest on testimony that may be influenced by bias, personal grievances, misunderstandings, or different interpretations of tough-but-legal military training practices. The SBI's work will be precisely to untangle those categories: distinguishing intense but legal training from criminal abuse, identifying potential perpetrators of behaviors that contributed to deaths, and assessing whether those behaviors were known to unit commanders or concealed from them.

Inadequate medical care versus deliberate physical abuse. The distinction is critical, both legally and morally. The former can result from an overwhelmed system. The latter is a crime. The SBI's investigation must establish that distinction with rigor. And if deliberate abuse is confirmed, people must be held criminally accountable — not sacrificed symbolically, but prosecuted rigorously.

Challenges of accelerated mobilization since 2024

The Skelia affair fits within a broader context of Ukrainian mobilization challenges since 2024. The adoption of a new mobilization law generated intense debate in Ukraine — on conscription age, exemptions, appeal procedures. Cases have been documented of people mobilized under controversial conditions — administrative errors, procedural violations, mobilization of men with serious medical conditions. These isolated cases reflect the inherent tension of mass mobilization in a state governed by law that seeks to maintain its legal standards.

The question of conscription medical commissions is particularly sensitive. To meet personnel needs, these commissions work under pressure and may be led to approve men whose medical fitness is marginal. If men with serious medical conditions are sent to the Skelia after being approved by medical commissions, responsibility shifts to those commissions — and to the system that pressures them to produce rapid results. The Skelia affair may be the most visible symptom of a systemic problem affecting the entire mobilization process.

The voice of soldiers — testimony that must be heard

One of the most important dimensions of the Babel investigation is that it gives voice to current and former soldiers testifying about conditions in their unit. In an army at war, the normal complaint and appeal mechanisms are difficult to use — the pressure of group cohesion, fear of reprisals, operational conditions that make any administrative step difficult. The fact that soldiers chose to speak to Babel — an independent outlet rather than an official institution — suggests either a distrust of official channels or the absence of accessible appeal mechanisms.

For the families of the 26 deceased soldiers, the Babel investigation and the SBI's inquiry may represent the first opportunity to get real answers about the circumstances of their loved one's death. In a military culture where information on non-combat deaths is often withheld or obscured, this transparency forced by investigative journalism is an essential service rendered by a free press to Ukrainian society. And it is a service that only a free press can render.

Soldiers who speak to a newspaper rather than to their superiors. That is itself information. If internal complaint channels functioned credibly, soldiers would use them. The fact that they turn to Babel says something about trust — or its absence — in the internal institutional mechanisms of the Ukrainian army. That's a problem to correct, not to ignore.

A free press at war — a precious asset

The existence of independent media like Babel capable of investigating Ukrainian military institutions during a war is a first-order democratic asset. Many countries at war have chosen to muzzle the press to protect public morale and the image of their armed forces. Ukraine has not made that choice — the independent press continues to function, to criticize, to investigate, to publish. That is a courageous political decision with short-term costs — articles like Babel's are uncomfortable for military institutions — but one that produces long-term benefits in terms of democratic legitimacy and public trust.

Ukrainian civil society, its independent media, its human rights organizations — all of these structures have been strengthened by the war rather than destroyed. They constitute the institutional fabric that allows Ukraine to distinguish itself from its Russian adversary in terms of values. And that distinction is not symbolic — it is practical: an army that can be questioned and reformed is an army that improves. An army in which abuses are exposed and those responsible held accountable is an army with stronger institutional integrity.

The limits of transparency in a wartime context

That said, transparency has limits in a wartime context. Ukraine must find a balance between press freedom, institutional accountability, and the protection of operationally sensitive information. The Babel investigation focuses on internal regiment conditions — not on classified military operations — which facilitates that balance. But other investigations could raise more complex tensions between journalistic transparency and national security. Ukraine's democratic maturity will be tested by its capacity to maintain that balance under the pressure of war.

The Ukrainian government has so far chosen an approach of conditional transparency — allowing criticism of non-operational institutions while maintaining restrictions on information related to ongoing military operations. This approach is reasonable and is applied similarly in other democracies at war. The Skelia affair falls clearly in the category of "legitimate institutional criticism" — not in the category of "operationally sensitive information." The rapid institutional response is a sign that the Ukrainian government understands that distinction.

Ukraine lets Babel investigate. The SBI investigates after. The ombudsman activates. Syrskyi is informed. In an existential war, maintaining these accountability mechanisms is extraordinarily difficult — and extraordinarily important. It's the difference between a democracy at war and an autocracy at war. And that difference is fundamental to what Ukraine represents in this conflict.

International image and donors

The Skelia affair has potential implications for the international image of the Ukrainian army — an image that plays a role in the political will of Western donors to maintain and increase their support. Allegations of institutional abuse within a Ukrainian unit could be exploited by pro-Russian voices in Western countries to question the legitimacy of support for Ukraine. This is a real propaganda risk that the Ukrainian government must anticipate in its communications.

The best response to this risk is precisely transparency and accountability — showing that Ukraine investigates its own failures, sanctions those responsible, and corrects the problems. That demonstration of institutional integrity is more persuasive for international partners than any attempt to minimize or conceal the allegations. Ukraine's democratic partners understand that armies at war face failures — what they evaluate is the institutional response to those failures.

Impact on troop morale and on mobilization

Within Ukraine, the allegations around the Skelia have an impact on troop morale and on willingness to be mobilized. For men called to join the army in the coming months, the revelation that soldiers died in non-combat conditions within a major assault unit can generate anxiety and distrust toward military institutions. That distrust is normal and legitimate — and the only way to counter it is to show that failures are taken seriously and corrected.

For soldiers already in service, the allegations may be experienced as an insult to their sacrifice — if institutional failures exist within their own army. But they can also be experienced as confirmation that the oversight system works — that journalists can investigate, that the SBI can inquire, that the ombudsman can intervene. That positive reading — transparency as strength rather than weakness — is the one the Ukrainian government and its partners must promote.

The impact on mobilization. That's the most urgent practical question. Will men refuse to join the army because the Skelia had 26 non-combat deaths? Perhaps a few. But if the investigation produces concrete results — responsible parties sanctioned, institutional reforms — it can also strengthen confidence in a system that is improving. The institutional response to this crisis will be decisive for its impact on mobilization.

Armies at war and institutional failures

The Skelia affair deserves to be placed in international context to assess its relative gravity. Armies at war face documented institutional failures across all historical periods. The American army during the Vietnam War experienced fragging (soldiers killing their own officers), prisoner abuse (notably Abu Ghraib in Iraq), and non-combat deaths in controversial conditions. The British army had its scandals in Afghanistan and Iraq. These examples justify nothing — they contextualize.

What distinguishes democratic armies in these situations is the institutional response: open investigations, criminal proceedings, documented reforms. Ukraine is following this model — and it is the right one. The question is not whether failures exist in the Ukrainian army — they do, as in any army of its size. The question is whether correction mechanisms function effectively enough to prevent and sanction those failures.

The difference with the Russian army — a documented contrast

The contrast with documented practices in the Russian army is stark. Journalistic investigations, testimonies from Russian prisoners of war, and intercepted communications have documented in the Russian army cases of dedovshchina (abuse of new recruits by older soldiers), executions of soldiers who refuse to advance, massive medical negligence, and a complete absence of any appeal or oversight mechanisms. These failures are systemic and documented by serious human rights organizations — and they occur in a context where there is no free press to expose them and no independent institutions to investigate them.

The comparison is not made to minimize the allegations around the Skelia — every Ukrainian non-combat death is a tragedy that deserves answers. It is made to underscore that the difference between the two armies — the one fighting for democracy and the one fighting against it — is not the absence of failures, but the institutional response to those failures. Ukraine investigates. Russia suppresses. That is a fundamental difference.

The Russian army executes soldiers who refuse to advance. The Ukrainian army opens an investigation when 26 of its soldiers die out of combat. These two facts juxtaposed say everything about the fundamental difference in the nature of the two systems. Ukraine can do better — and must do better. But it is already in a fundamentally different category from its adversary.

April 2026 — footage that had already raised questions

The Pokrovsk controversy in April 2026 deserves examination in the context of the affair of the 26 deaths. Footage of a failed mechanized attack by the Skelia near the city had drawn public criticism of the regiment's tactics. This footage showed material and human losses in an operation that had clearly gone wrong. Defenders of the regiment responded that assault units are "tasked with some of the most dangerous missions" — a factual argument that does not answer questions about planning quality.

These two controversies — Pokrovsk's tactics and the non-combat deaths — may be independent in nature (one is operational, the other institutional) but they reinforce each other in their effect on the regiment's reputation. For the families of Skelia soldiers and for Ukrainian public opinion, the accumulation of these questions creates the image of a problematic regiment deserving increased oversight. That perception, whether entirely justified or not, has real effects on the regiment's capacity to recruit, maintain morale, and function effectively.

Operational necessity versus institutional accountability

The debate around the Skelia illustrates a permanent tension in every army at war: operational necessity, which drives rapid decisions sometimes at the cost of normal institutional standards, and institutional accountability, which demands that those standards be maintained even under extreme conditions. Both are legitimate and necessary — but they can come into conflict.

Ukrainian command must manage this tension explicitly and publicly: affirm that institutional standards — adequate medical care, protection from abuse, respect for soldiers' rights — are non-negotiable even under the most difficult conditions, while acknowledging that failures can occur and must be corrected. That explicit affirmation — that operational necessity cannot justify institutional abuse — is the correct response to the Skelia affair.

Operational necessity cannot justify institutional abuse. That line must be drawn clearly by Ukrainian command — not in vague communiqués, but in actions: investigations carried through to the end, responsible parties sanctioned, documented reforms. The Ukrainian army is too precious and too necessary to allow institutional failures to rot it from within.

What the SBI must establish

For the SBI's investigation to produce meaningful results, it must establish several key elements. First: the precise circumstances of each of the 26 deaths — medical causes, location, time between symptoms and medical care. Second: whether physical abuse occurred and if so, its nature, scope, and perpetrators. Third: whether commanders knew about conditions in the unit and chose not to intervene. Fourth: whether systemic failures exist in the conscription and medical commission processes that sent unhealthy men to this unit.

Each of these elements requires different investigative methods: forensic examinations for causes of death, interviews for abuse, document audits for command responsibilities, systemic analyses for conscription failures. The SBI has the legal powers to conduct these investigations — but the quality of the results will depend on resources available, independence maintained from political and military pressure, and the time allowed for a rigorous investigation.

Reforms that could result from this

Regardless of conclusions on individual responsibilities, the Skelia affair should lead to institutional reforms in several areas. Strengthening conscription medical commission standards — to ensure men with serious medical conditions are not declared fit by commissions under pressure. Improving appeal mechanisms for soldiers experiencing abuse — anonymous and protected channels for reporting problems without risk of reprisal. Strengthening medical oversight in large mobilization units — more active tracking systems for soldiers after their arrival in the unit. These reforms, if implemented, would transform an institutional crisis into systemic improvement.

Ukraine's capacity to transform this crisis into improvement is an important test of its institutional maturity. Crises reveal failures. Responses to crises define institutional character. A regiment of 10,000 people, a total war for national survival, a mobilization under extreme pressure — that context guarantees failures will occur. What can be guaranteed is that mechanisms for detection, investigation, and correction function. The Skelia affair will test those mechanisms — and the results of that test will have lasting implications for the Ukrainian military institution.

Reforms. That's what matters in the long run. Not only individual sanctions — which are necessary — but the systemic changes that prevent this from happening again. Ukraine has the institutions to do that. The question is the political will to carry those reforms through in the conditions of a war that consumes every available ounce of energy.

The difficult virtue of transparency in war

The affair of the 425th Regiment Skelia is a test for Ukraine — not of its military strength, but of its capacity to maintain democratic standards under the most difficult conditions imaginable. A war for national survival, mass mobilization, daily losses on the front — and simultaneously, independent journalists who investigate, institutions that respond, human rights defended even in the institutional trenches of mobilization. That combination is difficult and rare. It deserves to be recognized for what it is: a demonstration that Ukraine fights not only for its territory, but for the values that make that territory a democracy.

What the 26 dead deserve

The 26 Ukrainian soldiers who died in non-combat conditions within the Skelia deserve answers and justice. Their families deserve to know what happened. Identified responsible parties deserve to be held accountable under the law. And Ukraine deserves an army whose institutional standards match the values that justify the war it is waging. It is to that demand that the SBI's investigation, the ombudsman's actions, and ultimately the Ukrainian military command must respond. The 26 dead cannot be a statistic — they must be a catalyst for change.

Twenty-six names. Twenty-six families waiting for answers. Ukraine has a duty to give them those answers — not in vague communiqués, but in rigorous investigation findings, fair trials, and documented reforms. These soldiers died in Ukraine, for Ukraine or were meant to. Ukraine owes them the truth.

The Skelia as an institutional case study

The 425th Separate Assault Regiment Skelia has become, in a matter of days, a case study in managing institutional failures in a democratic army at war. The Babel investigation, the SBI's response, the ombudsman's activation, the regiment's declared position of cooperation — all of these responses constitute an institutional process that, if conducted with rigor and independence, can transform a crisis into progress. The quality of that process will say something important about the state of Ukraine's democratic maturity in 2026.

An Ukraine capable of self-correction

An institution's capacity to self-correct is the ultimate test of its vitality. An army that conceals its failures erodes from within. An army that exposes and corrects them — even painfully, even under the most difficult conditions — strengthens its legitimacy and its long-term effectiveness. Ukraine has chosen the path of transparency in this affair. The outcome of this investigation into the Skelia — whether it produces convictions, reforms, or both — will be an important marker in the institutional history of the Ukrainian army. And that history deserves to be written with integrity.

Ukraine looking itself in the face. That's what the Skelia affair is really about. Not the shame of a failing army — but the strength of a democracy capable of examining itself honestly even under fire. And in a war where values are as much at stake as territories, that strength matters as much as any military victory.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.