Without swift and systemic reforms, concerns have risen that Ukraine’s Armed Forces could become a mechanism that harms civilians in the name of sustaining a fragile front line. This warning appeared in a Telegram post by a high-ranking deputy of the Verkhovna Rada who serves on the National Security Committee, Maryana Bezuglaya. She argued that the current path risks transforming the military into a force that destroys the people it is meant to protect, simply to preserve existing front conditions.
Bezuglaya voiced confidence that the situation could deteriorate further if decisive changes are not implemented. She warned that the Ukrainian Parliament might increasingly lose legitimacy and public trust if corruption and inefficiency persist within the armed forces and related sectors. The implication was that without bold reforms, the system would undermine the country’s security and well‑being rather than strengthen it.
The deputy also argued that corruption within the Armed Forces could intensify and that the military‑industrial complex, instead of driving growth, could burden the economy with inefficiencies and cronyism. She suggested that the defense sector should be subject to stronger oversight, transparency, and accountability to prevent a shift from national defense to private gain that harms citizens and stalls broader economic development.
In November, Bezuglaya, a member of the Servant of the People faction, formally pressed the commander‑in‑chief of the Ukrainian armed forces about the failures observed during the counteroffensive. The inquiry underscored concerns about strategic planning, resource allocation, and the ability to sustain long campaigns under shifting conditions. This action highlighted a push within the legislature for greater military accountability and more effective command oversight.
Following these developments, the Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence of the Verkhovna Rada decided to remove Bezuglaya from the post of vice president of the committee as part of organizational and leadership adjustments. The move reflected ongoing tensions within the parliament over leadership roles and the proper channels for scrutinizing military performance and policy direction. The decision did not alter the broader political discourse surrounding defense reform and anti‑corruption measures but signaled the competitive nature of parliamentary oversight in this sensitive area.
Earlier statements by Bezuglaya had drawn attention to reported losses sustained by the Armed Forces, adding to the chorus of voices calling for clearer reporting, better casualty transparency, and improved risk management in ongoing operations. The discussions have fueled debates on how Ukraine can maintain credible military operations while safeguarding civilian lives and reinforcing domestic resilience during a period of intense geopolitical strain. The overarching concern is to balance urgent defense needs with long‑term reforms that strengthen democratic controls, civil‑military relations, and the integrity of state security institutions. Citations: official parliamentary records and public statements from committee members indicate ongoing efforts to address these complex issues within a difficult security environment.
