# Meduza confirms exchange of 160 prisoners of war each side > Introduction: what do we really know about this exchange - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Analysis - Published: 2026-07-03 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/factcheck-meduza-confirme-lechange-de-160-prisonniers-de-guerre-chaque-camp ## Introduction: what do we really know about this **exchange** ### A confirmation from an independent Russian outlet The independent Russian outlet **Meduza**, operating in exile to escape Kremlin censorship, **confirmed** on **June 26**, 2026 the **exchange** of **160 prisoners of war** on each side between **Ukraine** and Russia. This confirmation coming from an independent Russian source, rather than strictly a **Ukrainian** or Western one, deserves to be highlighted in the fact-checking exercise I'm undertaking here. This **fact-check** aims to sort out what is **confirmed**, what remains uncertain, and what falls under interpretation in the coverage of this **exchange**, the third stage of the "**thousand for thousand**" deal negotiated in May between **Kyiv** and **Moscow**. ### Why this **fact-check** is necessary **Prisoner of war** **exchange**s between **Ukraine** and Russia systematically generate a flood of sometimes contradictory **figures**, official statements that need checking, and **logistical** details whose accuracy deserves examination before being relayed unfiltered. It's the job of a serious columnist to sort the verified from the speculative. So I will examine, claim by claim, what the primary and secondary **sources** actually allow us to establish about this **exchange** that took place on **June 26**, 2026. ## Claim 1: **160 prisoners** exchanged on each side ### What the **sources** confirm This central claim is corroborated by several **independent** **sources**: **Meduza** reports the exchange of 160 **Russian** **servicemen** for 160 **Ukrainian** **servicemen**, a **figure** also **confirmed** by the Chinese news agency **Xinhua** in its coverage of the same event. The **convergence** of two sources from very different journalistic contexts strengthens the reliability of this figure. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense and **Russian** authorities also validated this number through their respective official communication channels, constituting a triple corroboration rarely obtained this quickly on this kind of file. ### Verdict: **confirmed** Based on this convergence of **independent** and official sources, I consider this claim to be **confirmed** with a high degree of certainty. The figure of **160 prisoners** exchanged on each side is not subject to any significant contradiction in the available sources. This rigor in verifying numbers is not an academic exercise: it underpins the credibility of all the journalistic work that follows on this sensitive file. ## Claim 2: third phase of the "**thousand for thousand**" deal ### The context of the May 2026 deal The claim that this exchange constitutes the third phase of a broader deal dubbed "**thousand for thousand**" is also verifiable. This deal, negotiated in May 2026 during talks between Ukrainian and Russian delegations, called for the gradual release of a total of a thousand prisoners on each side, staggered across several distinct phases. The first two phases of this deal had already been reported by several outlets in May and early June 2026, which places this June 26 exchange within a coherent and documented sequence rather than an isolated event. ### Verdict: **confirmed** with nuance I consider this claim to be **broadly confirmed**, although it remains difficult to independently verify the exact cumulative number of prisoners released since the start of this specific deal, as official **Ukrainian** and Russian tallies sometimes diverge slightly on aggregate figures. This nuance does not, however, call into question the general validity of the claim, which correctly reflects the sequential structure of the deal negotiated in May. ## Claim 3: transfer of Russian soldiers to **Belarus** ### What the sources report about this **logistical** step Several reports indicate that the Russian soldiers freed in this exchange were transferred to **Belarus** for medical care before their final return to Russia. This logistical step, already observed in previous exchanges in 2026, is explained by **Belarus**'s geographic proximity to certain transfer zones and by the close military cooperation between **Moscow** and Minsk. This practice is not unique to this specific exchange and has been documented repeatedly since the start of the **war**, making it a standard procedural element rather than an anomaly worth flagging. ### Verdict: confirmed This claim is **confirmed** by its consistency with procedures observed in previous exchanges and by the journalistic reports available on this specific exchange. No source consulted contradicts this information. I note, however, that precise details on the nature of the medical care provided remain limited in public sources, which constitutes a minor but not decisive gray area for the overall assessment of this claim. ## Claim 4: this exchange takes place amid an ongoing active war ### What the timing of the exchange reveals It is essential to verify that this humanitarian exchange does not signal any broader de-escalation of the conflict. Available reports confirm that active hostilities continued without significant interruption at the very moment of this exchange, with continuous Russian strikes on Ukrainian territory reported by several outlets during the same week. This coexistence between humanitarian exchange and ongoing fighting is not contradictory: it instead illustrates the paradoxical nature of this conflict, where certain channels of humanitarian cooperation persist despite the total absence of a general ceasefire. ### Verdict: confirmed This claim is **confirmed** unambiguously by continuous media coverage of the fighting during the same period. No source suggests any link between this exchange and any broader military truce. I think it is crucial to maintain this clear distinction to avoid any confusion among readers between one-off humanitarian gestures and genuine diplomatic progress toward peace. ## Claim 5: the origin of the **mediation** remains partially documented ### What we know about the intermediaries' role Some media coverage attributes a **mediation** role to third-party actors in negotiating this "thousand for thousand" deal, notably the **United Arab Emirates**, whose involvement in previous exchanges has been well documented since 2023. However, the sources consulted for this specific June 26 exchange do not systematically detail the precise identity of every intermediary involved. This gray area is not uncommon in coverage of this type of diplomatic negotiation, where certain details about the exact channels of communication remain confidential to preserve the viability of future exchanges. ### Verdict: partially verifiable I classify this claim as **partially verifiable**, for lack of exhaustive and detailed confirmation in the public sources available at the time of writing this **fact-check**. This uncertainty does not, however, invalidate the general plausibility of outside mediation, which is consistent with documented precedents. I prefer to name this limitation rather than claim, with false certainty, details I cannot confirm independently. ## Claim 6: this exchange represents a significant humanitarian gesture despite the war ### A measured overall assessment At the end of this systematic verification, it appears that most of the central claims surrounding this June 26, 2026 exchange withstand rigorous examination of the available sources. The figure of **160 prisoners** per side, the framework of the "thousand for thousand" deal, and the logistical transfer via Belarus are all confirmed by multiple, converging sources. Only certain secondary details, notably the exact identity of the mediators for this specific exchange, remain partially uncertain, without calling into question the overall validity of the reported event. ### The importance of this kind of exercise for journalistic credibility I consider this verification exercise, tedious as it may be, an essential approach for any columnist who claims to honestly inform readers about a conflict as emotionally charged as the war in **Ukraine**. The temptation to relay without checking is strong, but it damages the credibility of the entire profession over the long run. This fact-check confirms that the June 26 exchange is a real, documented event, consistent with the broader trajectory of humanitarian negotiations between **Kyiv** and **Moscow** since **2022**. ## Claim 7: this exchange fits into a regular series since **2022** ### What the frequency of exchanges shows The sources consulted describe this June 26 exchange as the **76th** since the start of the Russian invasion in **2022**, a figure reported by **Xinhua** and consistent with the cumulative count tracked by several specialized outlets such as **Militarnyi**, which had documented the **75th** exchange in early June. This regularity, despite the absence of a ceasefire, suggests the existence of a relatively stable humanitarian communication channel between **Kyiv** and **Moscow**, independent of the broader fluctuations of the military conflict. ### Verdict: confirmed This claim is **confirmed** by the consistency of the counts reported by several **independent** sources on the sequence of exchanges since 2022. No major contradiction appears among the different outlets that have covered this series of exchanges. I think this regularity deserves to be highlighted, because it demonstrates that a minimum of humanitarian cooperation persists even during the most intense periods of the conflict. ## Conclusion: a well-documented exchange despite a few gray areas ### The verdict of this verification This fact-check confirms that the exchange of 160 **prisoners of war** on each side, which took place on June 26, 2026, rests on solid factual foundations, corroborated by independent Russian sources like **Meduza**, international agencies like **Xinhua**, and official statements from both **governments** involved. The few uncertainties identified, notably regarding the precise identity of the mediators for this specific exchange, do not call into question the reality of the event or its place within the broader sequence of the "thousand for thousand" deal negotiated in May. ### Why this rigor matters for the future I will continue to apply this same methodological rigor to every future exchange, because it is through this systematic verification work that journalistic coverage of this war can preserve its credibility against disinformation coming from every direction. These 160 **Ukrainian** **servicemen** who returned home on June 26 deserve rigorous, precise, and honest coverage of the facts surrounding their release. **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### 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. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [Russia and Ukraine exchange 160 prisoners of war each — Meduza, June 26, 2026](https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/06/26/russia-and-ukraine-exchange-160-prisoners-of-war-each) - [Russia, Ukraine swap 160 prisoners of war each – 76th exchange since 2022 — Xinhua, June 26, 2026](https://english.news.cn/europe/20260626/6579ad8cd2c54e148bce9e25784391e1/c.html) ### Secondary sources - [Ukraine and Russia complete third phase of 1,000-for-1,000 prisoner exchange — RBC-Ukraine, June 26, 2026](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-and-russia-complete-third-phase-of-1782478036.html) - [Russia and Ukraine swap 160 soldiers each in latest prisoner exchange — Euronews, June 26, 2026](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/06/26/russia-and-ukraine-swap-160-soldiers-each-in-latest-prisoner-exchange) - [75th Prisoner Exchange: 186 Ukrainians Liberated From Captivity — Militarnyi, June 5, 2026](https://militarnyi.com/en/news/75th-prisoner-exchange-186-ukrainians-freed/) - [Ukrainian defenders released from captivity sing national anthem — Ukrainska Pravda, June 5, 2026](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/06/05/8037934/) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/factcheck-meduza-confirme-lechange-de-160-prisonniers-de-guerre-chaque-camp