dw.com
Ukrainian Army Desertion: Amnesty Addresses Symptoms, Not Root Causes
Over 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers deserted during the war, but an amnesty allowing their voluntary return to duty was enacted, addressing the problem but not the underlying issues of exhaustion and poor leadership. Almost 123,000 desertion cases are under investigation, but only 7% have been fully investigated.
- How did the Ukrainian government address the issue of desertion, and what were the effects of their response?
- The high desertion rate reflects soldiers' exhaustion from prolonged warfare and conflicts with superiors, as evidenced by the accounts of soldiers like Kosyantin and Yevgeny. Many returned due to family issues or unmet medical needs, highlighting systemic failures in support and leadership. The amnesty, while effective in bringing soldiers back, doesn't address the root causes of desertion.
- What long-term systemic changes are necessary to prevent future instances of desertion among Ukrainian soldiers?
- Ukraine's ongoing war necessitates addressing soldier burnout and improving support systems to prevent future desertion. The scale of investigations suggests a need for streamlined processes and better resource allocation. Failing to address the underlying issues of exhaustion and poor leadership could lead to continued desertion, weakening the army's effectiveness.
- What are the primary reasons behind the high desertion rate among Ukrainian soldiers, and what are the immediate consequences?
- Over 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers deserted or refused duty, with most returning after an amnesty ending in March 2025 to avoid prosecution. The amnesty, legislatively approved, allowed deserters to return voluntarily. Ukrainian authorities are investigating almost 123,000 desertion cases, but only 7% have been investigated due to the sheer volume.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue of desertion in a largely sympathetic light, emphasizing the soldiers' personal hardships and reasons for desertion, such as family problems, injuries, and conflicts with commanders. While it mentions the legal ramifications, the focus remains on the human element, potentially downplaying the seriousness of desertion as a military offense during wartime. The inclusion of personal stories and quotes from soldiers humanizes the deserters and fosters empathy among readers.
Language Bias
The article uses largely neutral language but occasionally employs emotionally charged words and phrases that subtly influence reader perception. For instance, phrases like "self-destructive missions" and "exhausted by the war" evoke strong emotions and create sympathy for the deserters. While these phrases are not inherently biased, they contribute to a narrative that is more understanding of the deserters' actions.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the experiences of individual soldiers who deserted and returned, but omits broader statistical data on desertion rates among different military units or branches. It also doesn't explore potential systemic issues within the Ukrainian military that might contribute to desertion, such as leadership failures, inadequate supplies, or lack of mental health support. While the article mentions "systemic issues," it doesn't delve into specifics, limiting a complete understanding of the root causes of desertion.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the situation by focusing primarily on the amnesty program and the soldiers who returned. It doesn't fully explore the complexities of the legal and ethical issues involved in prosecuting deserters during wartime, nor does it fully analyze the potential negative consequences of the amnesty program, such as setting a precedent for future desertions. The narrative seems to implicitly present the amnesty as a positive solution without critically assessing its long-term implications.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a Ukrainian government initiative to address the issue of desertions from the army by offering amnesty to soldiers who return to duty. This demonstrates a commitment to restorative justice and reconciliation, aligning with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) which promotes peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provides access to justice for all and builds effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.