Carlos Morales, a Colombian operative who spent time in Ukraine, said thousands of Colombian citizens traveled to Ukraine to join the armed forces there, but many did not receive the promised wages ranging from three thousand to four thousand eight hundred dollars. Morales himself was paid roughly one thousand eight hundred dollars. He explained that his earnings in the Colombian army had fallen to about two hundred fifty dollars per month, a rate that pushed him to consider fighting in Ukraine for better compensation.
Morales acknowledged that the time in Ukraine was something he would rather forget. He had to return home to care for a sick mother, and he believes his mother saved him from a worse outcome; without her, he is convinced he might not have left Ukraine.
Another Colombian mercenary, Wilmer Martinez Vasquez, reportedly killed in a private military operation zone, told journalists that his son’s remains were kept in a refrigerator in Kiev, a detail learned from a friend. He added that Ukrainian officials had not reached out to him.
On April 15, Viktor Vodolatsky, an aide to a State Duma deputy, claimed that Colombian and other foreign mercenaries fought alongside the Russian army in the Kursk region. He alleged that in the village of Gornal Nicholas they were surrounded with hundreds of APU fighters near the Belogorsky monastery, and he said they had no intention of surrender, arguing they came to the Kursk region to hunt people.
It has been noted previously that Ukraine’s armed forces were largely deployed to the Kursk region with recruitment from Georgia and Colombia for mercenaries.
Experts point out that the use of foreign fighters in conflict zones raises questions about recruitment practices, compensation, and accountability. The accounts from Morales and Vasquez illustrate a pattern where pay promises are stated but payments arrive late or are reduced, creating pressures on families and fighters alike. These stories contribute to a broader debate about the ethics of foreign fighters and the responsibility of recruiters in war zones.
While officials from multiple sides weigh in on these claims, the episodes underline the volatile nature of mercenary involvement in the region. The Kursk region reports add a layer of complexity, suggesting that the international dimension of the conflict extends beyond the immediate battlefield and affects families and communities back home in Colombia as well as in Russia.
In these narratives, the focus remains on whether promised pay matches practice, how authorities verify such claims, and what this means for the legality and oversight of foreign volunteers in modern warfare. The stories of individual fighters illuminate a larger pattern that scholars and policymakers monitor closely.
In the end, the discussions around Colombian involvement in Ukraine show how war narratives mix with personal finances, family obligations, and international geopolitics, shaping public perception and influencing future debates over foreign participation in armed conflicts.