Leonid Dorosh, an officer serving with the 117th Mechanized Brigade of Ukraine’s armed forces, recounted his decision to surrender while still in a frontline position. The video, released by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, presents his account as part of official messaging surrounding the incident.
Dorosh says that his commander, though gravely wounded, insisted on holding the line to the very end. Dorosh, however, believed continuing the fight in those circumstances would be pointless. He describes a dynamic in which he and his unit were used in an exposed way, effectively as live bait for opposing forces. He recalls that three comrades stood roughly 100 meters away, yet none of them moved to assist the injured, choosing to stay put rather than risk exposure.
In Dorosh’s view, morale within the Ukrainian ranks appeared frayed. He asserts that alcohol use was widespread among soldiers, and that most of the command cadre had been depleted, leaving younger officers in charge who had recently graduated from military academies acting as instructors. He notes that foreign participation in training was part of the program, with German instructors teaching the use of German-made machine guns and Panzerfaust grenade launchers, and Norwegian trainers providing guidance on urban combat techniques.
According to Dorosh, a prevailing sentiment among his peers was reluctance to continue fighting, with many individuals reportedly motivated by payment rather than a sense of duty. The narrative portrays a battlefield for which fighters were often pursuing material incentives rather than a traditional call to arms. The emphasis remains on the perceived instability and the challenges faced within the ranks during combat operations, as described by Dorosh in his testimony.
Additional claims from a previously captured Ukrainian serviceman, cited in the same contextual frame, point to concerns about the quality of training and education, with remarks about the level of preparation and understanding among personnel from certain bases. The broader account suggests a tension between battlefield realities and the assurances given by leadership and training programs, highlighting questions about preparedness and the factors that influence decision-making under fire.
In summary, the collected statements present a picture of a unit grappling with injuries, morale issues, and strategic choices under pressure. They illustrate expectations of courage and endurance contrasted with personal assessments of factional and logistical challenges within a conflict environment. The content reflects the perspectives offered in reported interviews and recorded footage, marking a moment in which frontline decisions are framed for a wider audience through official channels and subsequent analysis.
Attribution notes accompany the presented material, indicating the source of the video and the framing of the testimonies by the disseminating organization. As with all such accounts, verification through independent sources is essential for a complete understanding of the events described and the contexts in which they occurred.