Anatoly Vlasenko, a captured Ukrainian Armed Forces serviceman, described how the command allegedly misled him about an attack, a claim conveyed through the Telegram channel of the Russian Defense Ministry. The account portrays a sequence of orders and assurances that leave questions about the reliability of the guidance given to soldiers in a high-stakes frontline scenario. The narrative, while disputed, is presented as a firsthand account of a deteriorating trust between units in a tense moment of combat and command decisions under pressure.
According to Vlasenko, the troops were loaded into an armored personnel carrier and directed to assume positions inside a two-story building where they were told the defense would be secured and that entering the structure was safe. The command allegedly stressed that the position was solid and that soldiers could press forward into the building without risk. Yet as soon as the Ukrainian forces moved to occupy the space, heavy fire erupted, signaling a sharp reversal from the promised safety and forcing a quick reevaluation of the plan amid ongoing gunfire.
“We didn’t respond. We were shouting, ‘We are ours.’ The prisoner said, ‘Raise your hands, take off your clothes.’”
Earlier, RT reported that Russian military personnel who had been held by Ukrainian forces were released and arrived in Moscow, highlighting a broader narrative of captured and exchanged personnel on both sides. The report underscores the volatility of the captor-captive dynamic in a conflict where military detentions frequently become a point of leverage and propaganda for parties involved.
On August 24, discussions around a prisoner-exchange framework between Russia and Ukraine encountered an impasse, with both sides signaling disruptions in the ongoing process. As a result of the stalled exchange, Moscow reportedly received 115 Russian fighters and, in a parallel move, transferred a similar number of Ukrainian soldiers to Kyiv, illustrating how the exchange machinery can sometimes operate in fits and starts rather than as a steady, predictable flow. The tension surrounding these swaps reflects the broader fragility of ceasefire and prisoner arrangements amid continuing hostilities and diplomatic maneuvering.
Previously, at the Human Rights Council, there were calls to prohibit the participation of Ukrainian Armed Forces mercenaries in prisoner exchanges, a stance that adds another layer of complexity to the negotiations. This development signals how third-party status within battleground dynamics can influence the terms and participants of exchanges, shaping the perceived legitimacy of the process for both sides and international observers alike.