REPORT: 160 prisoners come home: the exchange that restores hope

A Friday in June that will not be forgotten

On June 26, 2026, at the Nova Huta crossing point in the Gomel region of Belarus, buses came to a halt on the tarmac. Men stepped out — gaunt, hollow-eyed, some still bearing visible marks of prolonged captivity. They embraced other soldiers, wept, smiled, and called their families for the first time in months, sometimes in years. 160 Ukrainian soldiers were coming home. Simultaneously, 160 Russian soldiers were crossing back in the opposite direction.

This was not the end of the war. It was not a peace agreement. It was something more intimate and, in many ways, more fundamental: proof that even in a conflict of unspeakable brutality, a minimal form of humanity can survive. The 76th prisoner exchange since the start of the full-scale war, brokered by the United Arab Emirates, took place without major incident.

The numbers of the return

President Zelensky confirmed the exchange on social media, noting that "all those released had been held in captivity since 2022." Among them were 115 defenders of Mariupol, including fighters from the Azovstal steelworks — the last Ukrainian stronghold in the port city that became a global symbol of resistance against barbarism. Soldiers from the ground forces, the National Guard, the Special Transportation Service, and the border guards were repatriated. 58 officers were among the group. The youngest was 26 years old, the oldest 66.

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine's Coordination Headquarters has succeeded in bringing 9,606 Ukrainian military personnel and civilians back from Russian captivity. In 2026 alone, 1,596 people have been brought home. These figures, repeated by Zelensky himself, are not just statistics — they represent individual destinies, reunited families, and traumas beginning their long road to healing.

I will never know what those men went through. I can only imagine what it means, after years in Russian jails, when a bus carries you back toward a border you may have thought you would never cross again. That thought weighs on me, and it should weigh on every one of us.

These defenders whom no one forgot

Among the 160 released, the presence of 115 defenders of Mariupol and the Azovstal steelworks carries particular resonance. In May 2022, thousands of Ukrainian soldiers had barricaded themselves in the bowels of that steel plant, holding out for weeks against a relentless siege while Mariupol fell. Their final surrender, ordered by Ukrainian commanders to save lives, had been a profound national wound — but also an act of heroic resistance that had held the world in suspense.

Since 2022, hundreds of these soldiers have returned in stages, exchanged through arduous negotiations. Each return is a symbolic victory as much as a personal one — proof that Ukraine forgets none of its defenders, that it keeps fighting for each one of them even after the surrender. Zelensky said it plainly: "We check every name. We must bring them all back — military personnel and civilians."

The political significance of the Azovstal defenders' return

Politically, the return of these soldiers carries enormous importance. The Azovstal fighters — notably members of the Azov Regiment — had been at the center of a particularly virulent Russian propaganda campaign. Moscow had labeled them "Nazis," dehumanizing them to justify their prolonged detention in conditions that human rights organizations have repeatedly denounced. Every return of these soldiers alive directly refutes that propaganda.

Russia's Human Rights Commissioner Yana Lantratova met her Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Lubinets at the Belarusian-Ukrainian border during this exchange, and the two parties agreed on joint visits to prisoners of war. They also exchanged lists of detained soldiers — a significant procedural step in a process that has long suffered from a lack of transparency on both sides.

Putin's propaganda wanted to make them into monsters. They came back as men — exhausted, wounded, but alive. Every Azovstal defender who crosses the border is a defeat for the Kremlin's lie machine.

A discreet role with major consequences

The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed that the United Arab Emirates had provided humanitarian mediation for this exchange — as they had for the previous swaps of June 5 (185 for 185) and May 15 (205 for 205). Abu Dhabi has established itself as one of the rare actors capable of keeping lines of communication open with both Kyiv and Moscow.

This UAE position reflects their pragmatic foreign policy: maintaining relations with all parties to maximize influence. It is not without ambiguity — the Emirates have continued trading with Russia despite Western sanctions, and their position on the war in Ukraine has never been one of explicit support for Kyiv. But their concrete role in repatriating prisoners is undeniable and deserves recognition.

Belarus's role: a forced corridor

Lukashenko's Belarus serves as the corridor for these exchanges — a tragic irony for a country whose leader remains one of Putin's staunchest allies. More than 70 exchange procedures have been conducted on Belarusian soil since the start of the war, according to Minsk authorities. Belarus presents itself as a "peace protector" during these exchanges, while its military infrastructure is simultaneously used to launch attacks against Ukraine — a contradiction that Zelensky has publicly pointed out.

The released Russian soldiers were received in Belarus before being transferred to Russia for medical treatment and rehabilitation. This procedural detail confirms that Minsk remains an acknowledged satellite state, unable or unwilling to put any distance between itself and Moscow.

Belarus plays the role of gatekeeper in humanitarian exchanges while its bases serve to launch drones against Ukrainian cities. Lukashenko is trying to buy back his image with one hand — while extending the other to Putin. This double game fools no one.

A laborious but well-honed mechanism

Prisoner exchanges between Ukraine and Russia are not spontaneous — they result from weeks, sometimes months, of painstaking negotiations. In May 2026, Ukraine had provided Russia with a "List of 1,000" — a priority exchange list established based on time spent in captivity. This list is at the heart of the mechanism: it forces both parties to confront real names and faces rather than abstract numbers.

The June 26 exchange was described as a "combined exchange" — a term indicating that several categories of detainees (military personnel from different units, and sometimes civilians) could be included. Released soldiers immediately began receiving medical examinations, financial assistance, documentation, and rehabilitation support "to help them reintegrate into society after their prolonged isolation in Russian captivity," according to the Coordination Headquarters.

The Human Rights Commission and ancillary agreements

During the June 26 exchange, the two countries' human rights commissioners also agreed to joint visits to prisoner-of-war camps — a significant step toward transparency. International organizations such as the ICRC have long called for independent access to POWs on both sides, access that has been partially denied, particularly by the Russian side.

Both parties also agreed to serve as a "single channel" for the exchange of documents between the two countries — letters and parcels from families — in the days that followed. A minimal humanitarian gesture, to be sure, but one that means a concrete breakthrough in a wall of silence for families cut off from their loved ones for years.

There is something harrowing about this logic of exchange — as if the value of a human being could be measured in trading currency. But in this merciless war, wresting men from Russian jails by whatever means necessary is an absolute moral imperative.

A colossal humanitarian undertaking

Putting the 9,606 returns since the start of the full-scale war in perspective requires keeping in mind that thousands of Ukrainians — soldiers and civilians — remain in Russian camps or prisons in Russia. Human rights organizations estimate that the real number of Ukrainian detainees in Russia significantly exceeds the official figures exchanged during negotiations. Some have been transferred deep inside Russian territory, beyond the immediate reach of normal exchange mechanisms.

Ukrainian civilians — including children and residents of occupied territories — also figure among those detained without official prisoner-of-war status. Their situation is even more precarious, as they fall under no recognized legal framework for exchanges. Zelensky explicitly mentioned that the goal was to bring back "military personnel and civilians" — publicly acknowledging the full scope of this challenge.

Rehabilitation: a war after the war

For the soldiers who return, liberation is not the end of the struggle. Testimonies collected in previous exchanges describe deep trauma, documented physical torture, and severe psychological after-effects from years of isolation and humiliation. The Ukrainian government has established medical and psychological rehabilitation programs — but resources are limited relative to the scale of need.

Russia's Human Rights Commissioner Lantratova confirmed that "another humanitarian act" of exchange would take place "in the coming days" — a signal that the process continues. This continuity is essential: each exchange strengthens the logistics and procedural trust that make subsequent ones possible. It is the fragile but real mechanism of humanity in wartime.

These men come back with wounds that cannot be seen. Rehabilitation will take years — for some, perhaps a lifetime. The war does not end when the buses cross the border. It continues in their bodies and minds, long after the cameras have turned away.

A signal in the diplomatic fog

The exchange of June 26, 2026 took place on the same day as Zelensky's announcement of the 40-day influence operation, and in the middle of a series of Lavrov statements about Russia's supposed readiness for negotiations. This coincidence of dates is not insignificant: prisoner exchanges represent one of the few forms of cooperation that Russia and Ukraine maintain even at the height of hostilities.

For Zelensky, each exchange is also a tool of domestic legitimacy: it proves to Ukrainian families that the state is not abandoning them, that the fight is worth it, and that return is possible. In a war where mobilization and morale are strategic variables, this message is of capital importance.

Russia also has its prisoners — and its constraints

It is important to note that Russia also recovers soldiers in these exchanges. On June 26, 160 Russian soldiers were transferred to Belarus, where they received psychological assistance before being repatriated. Russia therefore also has pragmatic — not merely humanitarian — reasons to continue participating in exchanges. This bilateral reality is what keeps the mechanism alive, independent of the political speeches.

According to the Independent, Russia's Human Rights Commissioner Lantratova stated that both countries had exchanged lists of detained soldiers and that she had agreed with her Ukrainian counterpart on joint visits to camps. These are concrete signs of minimal cooperation — fragile, but real — in a context of total war.

These exchanges are the only thing I consider genuinely bilateral in this conflict. Not a peace, not even a truce — just the shared recognition that human beings deserve to go home. It is little. But it is something.

Documented testimonies about Russian prisons

Released Ukrainian soldiers bring with them accounts of their conditions of detention. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Committee of the Red Cross have documented allegations of systematic mistreatment in Russian detention centers: deprivation of food, water, and sleep, physical violence, and prolonged isolation. These testimonies are corroborated by the physical condition of soldiers observed in previous exchanges — emaciated, bearing marks of injuries and visible trauma.

Russia systematically denies these allegations and claims its prisoners are treated "in accordance with international conventions." This claim is contradicted by years of accumulated evidence. The discussions between Human Rights Commissioner Lantratova and her Ukrainian counterpart Lubinets during the June 26, 2026 exchange about joint visits represent a timid step forward — but independent verification of detainees' condition remains inadequate.

The question of detained civilians

Zelensky explicitly mentioned in his June 26 statement that the objective is to bring back "military personnel and civilians" — acknowledging that Ukrainian civilians are held by Russia without official prisoner-of-war status. These civilians — journalists, activists, residents of occupied territories, sometimes minors — find themselves in an even more precarious situation than soldiers, as they benefit from no formal protection under the normal military exchange framework.

Human rights organizations estimate that the total number of Ukrainian civilians held by Russia — in Russian prisons, camps in Siberia, or detention facilities in occupied territories — numbers in the thousands. These people do not make front-page news during official exchanges, but their fate is at the heart of this war's humanitarian stakes.

The soldiers who come back have families waiting, lives to rebuild, trauma to overcome. But behind every released soldier, there are civilians, journalists, activists whom no one counts in the exchange statistics. They deserve to be named too.

A number that speaks the scale of the tragedy

The 76th prisoner exchange since the start of the full-scale war — that is a number worth saying aloud. Seventy-six times since February 2022, negotiating teams from both sides have come together to agree on the terms of returning captive soldiers. Seventy-six times, men and women have crossed a border and recovered their freedom. Seventy-six times as well, Russian soldiers have made the journey in reverse.

This number is both a measure of the human devastation of this conflict — it takes thousands of captures to produce 76 exchanges — and proof that even in a total war, minimal mechanisms of humanitarian cooperation can survive. Since the establishment of the Coordination Headquarters, 9,606 Ukrainians have been repatriated. That is 9,606 people who have been reunited with their families, their country, their lives — imperfectly, painfully, but genuinely.

The duty of remembrance for those who have not yet returned

For every Ukrainian who is released, how many remain in captivity? That number is unknown — Russia does not publish complete and reliable statistics on the number of Ukrainian prisoners it holds. Estimates vary, but they suggest that thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are still detained. Each exchange, however significant, is only a drop in the bucket against this reality.

Zelensky said it: "We check every name." This promise — simple, direct, human — may be one of the most important a head of state can make in wartime. It says that the state does not abandon its soldiers, that sacrifices are not in vain, that return is possible. It is a message that sustains national cohesion and justifies the sacrifices made.

9,606 returns. Every number represents a person, a family, a story. We must never reduce them to statistics. This figure is not a victory metric — it is a measure of this war's horror and of the obstinacy of those who refuse to abandon their loved ones.

Beyond the numbers

These 160 soldiers released on June 26, 2026 each carry a story we may never fully know. What they lived through in Russian detention centers — the documented conditions of malnutrition, physical abuse, and psychological isolation — belongs to a reality that words struggle to capture. But their return is a concrete, tangible, real fact.

What this tells us about Ukraine

The Ukraine that organizes these exchanges, that maintains lists, that negotiates in the shadows with international mediators, that refuses to leave its soldiers rotting in Russian prisons without fighting for them — this is a Ukraine that deserves the unwavering support of the West. Not out of sentimentality, but because it stands for something we should all want to preserve: human dignity in the face of horror.

Pressure and resistance always end up producing results. History has demonstrated this. The question is whether the West will have the patience and determination to stand alongside those who are fighting for freedom.

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.