Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Incident at Odesa recruitment center: self-inflicted injury and two versions — what it means for public trust

In Odesa, a man cut his neck and arms inside the premises of the Kyiv Regional Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. The military commissariat says it was an act of aggression and an attempt to evade conscription; the man claims he was coerced and that his belongings were confiscated. We examine why the answer to this question matters for security and trust in the system.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

December 17, 2025 · 3 min read

Incident at Odesa recruitment center: self-inflicted injury and two versions — what it means for public trust

What happened

In Odesa, inside the Kyiv District Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (РТЦК та СП), a man sustained cuts to his arms and neck. According to the military commissariat, he was brought in by police as part of a search for violations of military registration rules; during standard procedures the man allegedly behaved extremely aggressively and threatened with a knife, after which he inflicted cuts on himself. He was hospitalized; medics and police responded to the call.

"We emphasize separately that no measures of physical coercion or unlawful actions were applied to the citizen by servicemen of the TC for Recruitment and Social Support..."

— Kyiv RTCK and SS

Accounts of the parties

RTCK's position: The man was brought to the military commissariat because he was wanted for violating registration rules and did not provide documents proving unfitness for service. No deferment markings were found in the unified electronic registry "Oberig." The military commissariat characterizes the actions as an attempted self-harm to avoid conscription and reports that an ambulance and the police were called to provide assistance.

The man's version: A video circulating in local social media shows him identifying himself as Nazar Uzhviy and claiming that on December 15 he was allegedly detained on his way from training, placed in a car and taken to the RTCK. According to him, his phone and money were taken there, and 20–30 people were held inside the premises for a day without explanation. In the video he says he cut himself with a knife he found inside.

"They detained me on the way from training... they took my money and phone. I was there for a day, they didn't explain why they were holding me."

— Nazar Uzhviy, in the video

The man also claims he has a military ID with a mark of unfitness due to eye surgeries, issued by the Kirovohrad military commissariat. This information should be confirmed or refuted by an official investigation and registry checks.

Context and significance

This incident occurs against the backdrop of a series of troubling events in the city: on November 21 an explosion with casualties occurred at one of Odesa's district TCCs, and on December 4, according to the NGO "Defense of the State," there was allegedly an attack on a sailor involving employees of the Prymorskyi TCC — because of that the military commissariat announced an internal investigation. It is precisely because of such cases that public attention to the practices and procedures in these institutions is increasing.

The issue goes beyond a single incident: it is about trust in the registration and conscription system, transparency of procedures and mechanisms for reviewing complaints. If the military commissariat's version is confirmed, it would indicate cases of evasion and manipulation; if the man's account is confirmed, it would call into question the approach to handling citizens at the RTCK.

What should happen next

Key steps to clarify the situation: checking the "Oberig" registry records, medical documentation and police reports, video analysis and, if necessary, the results of an internal investigation. The military commissariat already says no physical coercion was used and that measures were taken to preserve the victim's life — these statements must be supported by documentation.

For the public and local authorities it is important that the investigation be prompt and public. Answers to questions about proper procedures and accountability in such cases affect perceptions of the mobilization system as a whole.

Conclusion

We have two mutually exclusive versions and a number of facts that need to be checked: registry records, medical documents, video and investigative findings. Setting emotions aside for now — transparency of the process is crucial. The question is not only what happened to one person, but whether institutions can promptly provide answers that will restore citizens' trust.

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