Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

193 Ukrainian military personnel returned from captivity — among them those prosecuted by Russia for "terrorism"

On April 24, another prisoner exchange took place. Russia held some of the fighters in Chechnya and managed to initiate criminal cases against them — a legal tool that complicates their return and still lacks a systematic response.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 24, 2026 · 1 min read

193 Ukrainian military personnel returned from captivity — among them those prosecuted by Russia for "terrorism"
Обмін полоненими (Фото: Telegram-канал Володимира Зеленського)

On April 24, Ukraine returned 193 servicemen from Russian captivity. Among them are defenders whom Russia had managed to bring criminal charges against: typically on charges of "terrorism" or "participation in illegal armed formations." Some of them had been held in Chechnya.

Photographs from the exchange site captured exhausted people who were met by medics and representatives of the Coordination Headquarters for Treatment of Prisoners of War. The detailed medical condition of the servicemen is not officially disclosed — standard practice during the first hours after return.

Detention in Chechnya is a separate variable in this story. Human rights defenders note that conditions in Chechen places of detention differ from general Russian pre-trial detention facilities and camps: lower levels of external oversight, higher risk of torture, and lower probability of visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which already has limited access to Ukrainian prisoners of war throughout Russian-controlled territory.

Criminal cases as a pressure tool are not a new practice. Russia initiates them systematically: this allows holding a person longer even after a potential exchange, to bargain for a higher "price," or simply to complicate the negotiation process. The Geneva Convention prohibits prosecution of combatants for lawful participation in combat operations, but Russia ignores its provisions, and there is effectively no international enforcement mechanism.

Overall, since the start of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has managed to return over 3,800 servicemen and civilians. The number of those still in captivity is not officially confirmed — estimates vary from several thousand to tens of thousands of people depending on the source and calculation methodology.

The question that remains unanswered after each such exchange: does Ukraine and its partners have a specific legal mechanism to counter Russian practice of prosecuting prisoners of war — and if not, when exactly will its emergence become a condition for the next round of negotiations?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026