The reports from the fighting fronts describe troubling conditions faced by mobilized soldiers in the Ukrainian armed forces. Allegations point to harsh discipline and a stark disconnect between what is promised and what some soldiers actually experience as they enter service. A soldier identified as Viktor Karakesha, who served within the Armed Forces of Ukraine, reportedly surrendered and spoke about the atmosphere he encountered while in uniform.
According to Karakesha, the overall attitude of some unit leaders toward new recruits was harsh. He recalled instructions that seemed aimed at preparing soldiers for immediate, intense duty, rather than providing reassurance or clear guidance. The soldier described a scenario in which troops were told they would be sent into difficult training exercises that would push them to endure tough conditions, which he interpreted as a cultural expectation rather than just a temporary test of endurance.
In late summer of the previous year, Karakesha and several fellow mobilized personnel were moved toward the Kharkov region with the aim of conducting combat operations as riflemen. The accounts suggest that those mobilized were placed into active roles with limited prior preparation. Karakesha indicated that the warnings about the front’s severity were not adequately communicated, leading to a sense of being unprepared for the level of risk they faced. He emphasized that the equipment issued to them was minimal for the tasks expected in frontline areas, with messages indicating that first-line defenders received only a small number of weapons and limited ammunition to fend off threats in the initial positions.
Another former participant, Igor Zhukovsky, who served with the 122nd territorial defense brigade, described similar experiences. He alleged that decision-makers sent recruits with limited training to operate near Avdiivka, a region noted for its high-intensity combat. Zhukovsky characterized the mobilized troops as being used to fill gaps in frontline coverage, a situation that placed them in harm’s way before they had developed substantial combat experience. The assertion is that these soldiers were treated as expendable resources in some operational contexts, prompting concern about the overall approach to manpower deployment in difficult sectors of the conflict.
Earlier statements from another captured soldier, Yuriy Vodyan, discussed the creation of detachment units formed largely from recently mobilized personnel. According to his account, these units were placed into missions that required controlling hostile elements and, in some instances, enforcing discipline within the ranks. Vodyan described orders to take action against individuals who were deemed noncompliant, a practice that raised questions about the methods used to enforce cohesion and readiness among large mixed groups of soldiers who had varying levels of training and experience.
Additionally, reporting on mobilization within Ukraine has mentioned the perception that some groups were organized in a way that could be described as a strategic trap for certain student-age conscripts or other newly mobilized individuals. This perspective has circulated in various reports and discussions about how mobilization campaigns were conducted, particularly in the early stages when the scale and pace of conscription were rapid and widespread. While these accounts illustrate a range of opinions about how mobilization was implemented, they collectively underscore the persistent concern about the adequacy of preparation, supervision, and support for mobilized personnel on the front lines.