Reshetylova: Ukraine’s army needs cultural shift to protect soldiers’ rights

In an interview with Radio NV, Reshetylova discusses the first wave of complaints she has received, resistance from military commanders, and the pending legislation that would formalize the institution of the military ombudsman.

What are the main problems you've heard about from service members in your first months on the job?

I've heard a lot—and frankly, I was already familiar with many of these issues before the appointment, having worked in service member rights advocacy for years. But the volume of complaints I now deal with daily allows me to systematize and analyze these problems more comprehensively.

Some issues are solvable quickly, while others require systemic reforms—sometimes not even legal changes but shifts in mindset.

If we were to rank complaints, the most common early on were about transfers—the lack of enforcement of the right to be transferred between units. There were also complaints about being denied medical treatment or referral to military medical commissions. Many came from families of the fallen, missing, or POWs.

Within the first few months, we were able to alleviate the most urgent issues related to transfers. With help from the Ministry of Defense's Central Office for the Protection of Servicemen's Rights, we identified and addressed the worst-offending units, explained to commanders the need to follow General Staff orders, and in some cases, higher-level commanders stepped in directly. The issue hasn't disappeared, but it's no longer critical. The Army+ digital platform has also made inter-unit transfers easier.

Now, the challenge is coordinating transfers between different security sector agencies, like from the Armed Forces to the National Guard or Border Service. There's ongoing work to integrate Army+ into Interior Ministry structures.

Ukraine has been at war with Russia for over a decade, but this institution didn’t exist until now. There was only a hotline number on the Defense Ministry's website. I spoke with soldiers who said their commanders demanded 20% of their pay. But they didn’t trust the hotline. "We can't name ourselves," they said. "We might give our commander's name, but nothing will happen to him—and we’ll be punished." Have you heard things like this?

Absolutely. These cases happen. And maybe in some instances, the hotline did work as it should. But there’s already a general distrust among service members toward military institutions.

This is exactly why we need a military ombudsman. Other structures won’t work because you have to understand the psychology of those in uniform—they operate within strict hierarchies. They know that if their commander finds out they filed a complaint, there could be consequences.

That’s why my office allows for confidential complaints. I always ask service members to explicitly request confidentiality if they're worried about retaliation. We don’t contact commanders directly or disclose identities without consent. Our goal is to protect those who report abuses.

In most cases, we don’t simply forward complaints. We often follow up with the service member, verify the facts. One example: a soldier filed a complaint saying he was under pressure. A day later, he wrote back saying he wanted to withdraw it because the issue was "resolved." We didn’t buy it. We called him. "Are you sure? Or did someone find out you reported it?" He insisted all was fine. But we double-check because we know how things work.

Once, we sent a complaint to the Ground Forces Command, and they forwarded it—as usual—to the very commander accused of violating rights. The soldier came back to us and said, "What are you doing?" We had to remind Ground Forces Command that under Ukrainian law, complaints must never be referred to the subject of the complaint.

We’re working to instill a culture of accountability in the defense and security sector. It can’t be just a box-checking exercise.

You mentioned that some issues require a shift in worldview. What do you mean by that?

These are the hardest issues—existential, even. For example, the value of human life in the military. After 11 years of war, especially among commanders who’ve seen intense combat, this sense of value can atrophy. When death is constant, the instinct to preserve life dulls. Not for everyone, but it happens.

That's why it's essential to have someone from the civilian world—yet close to the military—to remind them that we're not the enemy. We’re here because we believe every life matters. That’s why I focus on issues like prolonged deployments, missing-in-action cases, evacuations from high-risk positions.

These aren’t issues you solve by changing a statute. You need conversations—with commanders at all levels. You have to listen, sometimes debate. It's a long process.

The Ukrainian military is humane. But the war is brutal, and the enemy is ruthless. Sometimes we forget our central narrative: that people are our highest value.

Another example: uncertainty. Even senior leadership—from the top down—often doesn’t know what tomorrow holds. That affects morale. If a soldier is in training, they should know ahead of time which unit they’ll join. If it’s about leave, then it must be planned, however hard that may be. Families need to know when they’ll see their loved ones. This kind of predictability sustains a soldier’s inner resilience.

You're a seasoned human rights advocate. But now you're confronting a rigid, hierarchical military system, and we’re in the middle of a full-scale war. Many commanders must see you as a threat. What's that experience like?

Not a threat—but yes, sometimes I see a look of pain on their faces, like, "Oh no, it's her again." I was prepared for this, even expected more pushback.

Right now, probably because I represent the Commander-in-Chief, they can't ignore me. Whether they want to or not, they have to engage.

I don’t approach them with ready-made answers. I consult with them, we discuss issues at briefings, I ask for calls. I respect their workload, so I try to be efficient. Usually, we’re aligned. They understand the problems too. But with everything they’re tasked with, systemic reform just isn’t a priority.

The military won’t change itself—not because it doesn’t want to, but because it physically can’t while fighting a war. So no, I haven’t faced real resistance. We’re working together. I get support from commanders at all levels. Of course, there are difficult cases, and we look for workarounds.

As I’ve said in other interviews, I’m trying to cultivate a reflex: better not to violate the rules, or Reshetylova will start calling. From 7 a.m. to midnight, I’m in touch with them. I know it’s probably not their favorite thing. So better to comply, and we’ll all talk less.

You mentioned complaints can be submitted confidentially. How do you verify the information?

There are many ways. You have to understand the inner workings of each unit and know who your reliable sources are. Sometimes it’s a senior NCO, sometimes a civil-military cooperation officer. We gather profiles of both the complainant and the commander, especially in conflicts.

We also work with the Military Law Enforcement Service, mental health officers, even counterintelligence. This is a horizontal network. We keep our finger on the pulse in every unit.

Of course, there are cases where soldiers manipulate the system. After checking, sometimes we conclude that the complaint wasn’t valid. It happens.

There’s an ongoing debate about whether Ukraine should bring back the military prosecutor’s office. Some say we need prosecutors who understand the military. We’ve seen commanders investigated after the May 10 assault near Kharkiv. The State Bureau of Investigation is handling it. What's your view?

The broader debate is about military justice as a system. Parliament is reviewing a bill on military police. There are also discussions about reviving military courts.

We already have a functioning Specialized Defense Prosecutor’s Office. Do we need to recreate the military prosecutor's office that was disbanded in 2019–2020? I’m not sure. Most institutional memory is gone. We'd have to train a new generation of prosecutors.

The current specialized prosecutors are largely doing their job. I don’t think we need radical changes—just reinforcements. They're understaffed, which leads to delays in prosecuting war crimes. Often cases get stuck in court because prosecutors can’t attend every hearing.

Military police? Yes, essential. We should start by expanding the authority of the Military Law Enforcement Service. Draft legislation is already in the works. That’s the logical first step.

We also need a broader conversation on the structure of military justice. It can’t be implemented overnight. And we must ask: what are we creating it for?

For war crimes, do we need judges who are also military officers? I don’t think so. Would a soldier be able to fairly judge a general? That could be a conflict.

We need specialization, yes. But not necessarily military ranks. And these processes must be flawless—procedurally sound, with solid evidence. These are the best people our society has. Even if they make mistakes, they deserve justice done right.

Last week, the president submitted the draft law on the military ombudsman to parliament. It may pass in two to three months. Why did it take so long? You were appointed in December, but the bill was submitted only in mid-May.

Because I was part of the drafting process, I can tell you—it took time. We debated its constitutionality at length.

This is my fifth year in public service, and I’ve come to realize how different the perspective is from within government compared to that of an activist. Implementation is a different beast. Martial law adds further constraints. Creating a new institution within the existing system is extremely difficult.

That’s why we held extensive discussions with presidential lawyers, experts, civil society—to make this law as compatible as possible with current governance structures.

Eventually, we agreed that this should be a presidentially appointed official with a support office—the Military Ombudsman’s Office—as part of democratic civilian oversight of the security and defense sector.

Those legal debates slowed us down, but I believe we’ve produced the best possible version of the bill.

What powers do you currently lack as military ombudsman? What can you already do?

My biggest limitation is staffing. Processing hundreds of complaints daily with the resources I have is simply unsustainable. We risk burnout. The institution needs capacity to handle complaints, propose reforms, and coordinate with military units.

In terms of authority, I can interact with the military. But I need clear procedures—and that’s what the bill establishes: rules for inspections, conclusions, recommendations, and how military units should respond. Right now, I send official letters. They respond, of course, but there's no standardized process. That’s what we’ve put into the law. We need a legal foundation to say: this is how the military ombudsman works, and here is the mandate.