Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

War

Mocked the memorial at Maidan — turned out to be a serviceman who had left his unit without authorization

A video insulting fallen defenders prompted a detention: the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and law enforcement established that the suspect is a private who left his military unit. We examine the legal consequences and why this matters for society and the armed forces.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 3, 2026 · 2 min read

Mocked the memorial at Maidan — turned out to be a serviceman who had left his unit without authorization

What happened

At the end of February 2026 a video appeared on social media in which a man speaks disparagingly about national symbols and the memory of those killed on the Maidan. UNN, citing the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR), reported that the suspect was Ihor Voloha. After public outcry he was detained in Kyiv.

This is the city centre — what have you stuck all these little flags here for? Take them down, people are relaxing here

— Ihor Voloha, person shown in the video

The footage also contains insults directed at the memory of the defenders of Mariupol and "Azovstal." The video was circulated on Instagram and Facebook; its authorship and repeated provocations sparked public indignation.

Who is this man

According to media reports and open sources, Voloha previously trained in boxing at a Kyiv children-and-youth sports school. Law enforcement established that at the time of the video's publication he held the status of a serviceman who had left his military unit without permission in the Mykolaiv region.

After the video spread, the man changed his appearance to avoid recognition — he shaved off his mustache. That did not prevent his identification and arrest.

What charges are being brought and what are the consequences

The DBR has notified him of suspicion under part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorised abandonment of a military unit or place of service). The sanction provides for punishment of up to 10 years' imprisonment.

In addition, the case is likely to involve other articles of the Criminal Code, including:

  • Art. 296 — hooliganism;
  • Art. 435-1 — insult to the honor and dignity of a serviceman;
  • Art. 338 — desecration of state symbols;
  • Art. 436-2 — justification or denial of the Russian Federation’s armed aggression.

Lawyers who monitor practice emphasize that the combination of disciplinary and criminal liability makes the prospects for conviction serious and sends a signal to society that public provocations against national memory will not go unanswered.

Why this matters

This case combines two issues: respect for the memory of the fallen and military discipline. In wartime, symbols and memorials are not only an emotional value but also a factor in the moral state of society and the armed forces. When a serviceman commits such desecration, it undermines trust and exploits the nation's painful wounds.

Security experts and lawyers note that a swift response from law enforcement is important not only as punishment of an individual, but as a preventive mechanism — so that similar provocations do not become normalised.

Summary and outlook

The case is being investigated by the DBR, and further suspicions under a number of articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are likely. Two questions are important for society: whether the case will be proven in court — and whether it will serve as a signal for systemic work on discipline in the armed forces and countering informational provocations. The answer will show how effectively institutions turn public demand into real legal results.

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