Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

2,000 declared unfit in one unit: a failure at the territorial recruitment center, the military medical commission, or higher?

Military ombudswoman Olha Reshetylova revealed an unprecedented case: thousands of people with medical grounds for exemption have ended up in the army — and no one so far can say where exactly the system broke down.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 5, 2026 · 2 min read

2,000 declared unfit in one unit: a failure at the territorial recruitment center, the military medical commission, or higher?
Ольга Решетилова (Фото: Facebook)

About 2,000 people who likely should not have been mobilized for health reasons were found in one Ukrainian military unit. Military ombudswoman Olha Reshetylova confirmed this fact in an interview with RBC-Ukraine. These are not isolated mistakes — this is a systemic failure with four possible points of responsibility.

Where it failed

The mobilization chain in Ukraine is sequential: the Territorial Recruitment Center (TRC) summons a person, the military medical commission (MMC) assesses fitness, after which the person is sent to the unit. According to Reshetylova, investigative actions are now aimed at establishing the specific point of failure.

“We need to fully study the issue of how this happened, at which stage this mass violation occurred. Was it at the TRC stage, the MMC, or already at the military unit, or was the decision made somewhere higher up?”

Olha Reshetylova, military ombudswoman, interview with RBC-Ukraine

Representatives of the Ministry of Defense and the Land Forces Command were involved in the inspection. The ombudswoman did not disclose the unit's name.

Scale — not an exception, but a symptom

2,000 people in one place is not a statistical error. For comparison: an average Ukrainian Ground Forces brigade numbers 3,000–5,000 servicemembers. If half of a formation consists of people who should not have been taken for medical reasons, that's a question not just about paperwork but about the combat readiness of the unit.

The MMC's decision is recorded in the personal file and must be stored in the electronic system “Reserve+”. Thus, data on unfitness should have been technically available at every stage. The fact that 2,000 people passed through the entire chain despite this means either mass disregard of the records or their absence.

Reaction: there is an inspection, but no mechanism

The Office of the Military Ombudswoman has proposed amending the rules for undergoing the MMC. Separately, Reshetylova noted that the Ministry of Defense's Health Department was working on adjusting Order No. 402 — the list of diseases that determine unfitness. However, these changes have not yet come into force, and the current inspection has no publicly announced completion deadlines or responsible persons.

In fact, at present there is a fact of a violation and a process of clarification — but there is neither public accountability nor a clear mechanism that would prevent the same from happening in another unit.

If the inspection establishes that the failure occurred at the MMC level or higher — and not simply due to an error by a particular TRC officer — will this be grounds for a systemic audit of all units, not just one?

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