War has a way of spilling far beyond the front line, and sometimes the most dangerous battles are not fought with artillery but with narratives. That was the message from Ukraine’s 2nd Khartiia Corps of the National Guard after a tense confrontation in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka, a suburb of Kyiv, where reports of soldiers who had left their units without permission drew a crowd to a house and eventually escalated into a protest. In a statement on Facebook on Nov. 3, the corps tried to step back from the immediate drama and explain what it believes is really happening. As Russia’s advance slows and Ukrainian forces reclaim territory, the corps argued, Moscow cannot win on the battlefield, so it will try to weaken Ukraine’s military from the inside by undermining public trust. The events in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka, whatever their specific facts, are the kind of episode that can be weaponized in that broader information war. The corps acknowledged that the military is not perfect, that it has real problems, and that those problems deserve honest discussion. But it also warned that not every criticism is good-faith, and that the enemy is actively looking for ways to turn legitimate concerns into a weapon against Ukraine’s defense.
The first scenario the corps described is familiar to anyone who has lived through Russia’s war on Ukraine: terror against civilians, carried out through missile strikes and drone attacks, accompanied by a constant whisper that resistance is hopeless. “Russia cannot be defeated, so we must negotiate peace.” That phrase, Khartiia said, is being pushed today by Moscow-dependent politicians and media, both inside Ukraine and abroad. The goal is not to offer a real path to peace but to erode the will to fight. When missiles hit apartment blocks, when the power grid is attacked, when families are separated by the front line, exhaustion becomes a weapon. The human mind naturally seeks relief from fear and uncertainty, and the promise of peace — even a bad peace — can be seductive. The corps did not dismiss the pain or the fatigue behind such feelings. But it insisted that this narrative is being deliberately amplified, at a moment when Ukraine’s forces are making gains, precisely to stop the momentum that has been bought with so much blood. In this context, even a street protest fueled by genuine outrage can become part of a larger pattern, an emotional release that the enemy can exploit to make it seem as though the country is falling apart from within.
The second scenario is more insidious because it targets the institutions and people Ukrainians need to trust most. According to Khartiia, Russia is now trying to discredit exactly those military units and commanders who are operating effectively at the front, destroying Russian forces, and liberating territory. In the past, information attacks focused mainly on the conscription system, which was already a source of tension and resentment. But now the attacks may turn directly on the troops themselves. The corps warned that provocations, studies, investigations, and interviews about how soldiers are trained, how they are supplied, how they are treated, or the conditions under which they wage war could all be used as ammunition. The point is not to expose real problems, though real problems certainly exist. The point is to shake the confidence of supporters, to strengthen the sense that evading service is justified, and to sharpen disputes among different groups in society. If people no longer believe in the army, they will not support it. If they do not support it, they will not volunteer, will not donate, will not tolerate the sacrifices war demands. The enemy understands that a democratic society’s greatest vulnerability is its own doubt.
At the heart of Khartiia’s response was a reminder that the military is not a separate, perfect world. In a total war with conscription, the army is a cross-section of society. “There are motivated and not-so-motivated people here, gentle and cruel, healthy and sickly, disciplined and carousers, athletic and untrained, resistant to temptation and addicted,” the statement said. “People do not change their nature by putting on a uniform. So challenges and problems in the military during a war are natural.” This is a deeply human message, and a necessary one. It is easy to imagine soldiers as larger-than-life heroes or as faceless instruments of state policy. The truth is more complicated. War throws together people who would never otherwise share a room. It pressures them with danger, uncertainty, and loss. It asks them to endure stress that would break almost anyone. In such conditions, mistakes, abuses, conflicts, and failures are not surprises; they are part of the human cost of war. The corps was not using this as an excuse. It was asking the public to understand that when problems are discovered — and they should be discovered — they must be measured against the reality of what the military is asked to do. Training and discipline are not punishments; they are what preserve soldiers’ lives and allow them to carry out combat missions. A unit that is honest about its flaws while still fighting effectively is not a failed unit; it is a living institution trying to do an impossible job under impossible conditions.
Khartiia went further and said that Ukraine’s commanders are trying to build a new culture in the military, one that can win on the battlefield while also preserving the lives and dignity of personnel. This is difficult in peacetime; in wartime it is even harder. But the corps pointed to the results that Khartiia and other units and groupings have achieved on the battlefield as evidence that the approach is working. “The birth and establishment of this culture and this capability is a threat to Russia,” the troops said. “That is exactly why Russia will choose the most effective means for its attack.” The statement was also addressed to journalists, investigators, and researchers who might be tempted to dig into the military’s problems. Khartiia advised them to ask themselves what their investigations are really for. Are they trying to improve the army, or to destroy it? Are they interested in the truth, or in a sensational story that can be used to damage Ukraine’s defense? The corps said it is ready for good-faith discussion of problems in its units, and it proposed separate training for journalists and experts to help them understand the nature of war and its effects on troops and commanders. This is not the language of an institution that has something to hide. It is the language of an institution that knows it is being watched by an enemy eager to seize on every flaw and turn it into a narrative of betrayal.
To understand why all this matters, it helps to go back to what happened in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka. On Nov. 2, reports emerged that National Guard troops were on the grounds of a house in the village, including men who may have left their military unit without authorization. Locals gathered near the house and tried to break down the gate and enter the grounds. Kyiv Oblast police denied reports of illegal detention and of a death, but they did confirm receiving a call from workers at a private ambulance who were being prevented from reaching a patient. National Guard commander Oleksandr Pivnenko arrived at the scene and said troops who had returned to their units after leaving without authorization were in the building; four of them had been hospitalized. He stressed that improper treatment of troops who return after AWOL is unacceptable and promised to investigate possible beatings. The clashes later intensified: unidentified individuals threw smoke grenades and broke windows and a fence near the house. Kyrylo Budanov, the head of the Office of the President, also arrived, and people in the house began to be led out. Budanov said 14 people were at the temporary deployment point of the Azov Corps; they were to be taken to a hospital, but a crowd blocked the bus. He called the events a “classic street protest” that should not have happened and stressed that blocking the bus hindered medical care for troops who needed it. On Nov. 3, the State Bureau of Investigation opened a criminal case. Military ombudsperson Olha Reshetylova said that troops who had defended Mariupol and Azovstal, gone through Russian captivity, and returned to service were at the deployment point. That detail is especially heartbreaking: some of the men at the center of the conflict may have already survived the worst horrors of the war, only to come home to this. Whatever the investigation finds, the incident shows how quickly a real problem can be transformed into a rallying cry, and how easily the chaos of war can be used to divide a society that needs to remain united. Khartiia’s warning is not a dismissal of public concern. It is a plea to see the bigger picture: Russia cannot defeat Ukraine’s military in a fair fight, so it will try to make Ukraine defeat itself. The answer is not to ignore problems, but to address them with honesty, discipline, and trust — and to recognize that the enemy is listening to every angry voice, looking for a way to twist it into a weapon.