"We Can't Fight Like the Russians": Musienko on Mobilization and Changes in the Army

The incident in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka has once again intensified the debate over mobilization, respect for human rights, and the accountability of officials. While the National Guard and law enforcement agencies are investigating the circumstances of the events, the question arises of how to change approaches to military recruitment and prevent similar conflicts.

Oleksandr Musienko, a Ukrainian Armed Forces servicemember and military analyst, explained on 24 Channel why it is important to assess the events in the Kyiv region only after the investigations are complete and what changes are already taking place within the Ukrainian Armed Forces. He also discussed the use of robotic platforms instead of personnel in dangerous areas of the front line, as well as the prospects for establishing a military police force and reforming the military justice system.

What Needs to Change After the Incident in Borshchahivka

Following the events in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka, Serhiy Sternenko highlighted two serious problems: the lack of mobilization reform and the danger of military escalation within the country. Could this incident serve as a catalyst for real change, rather than just another round of statements?

My position is that we must first await the results of the investigations and audits that have already been announced. Only after all the circumstances have been established will it be possible to objectively assess what happened.

Of course, such situations evoke strong emotions. The incident has generated significant public attention and is the focus of the media, human rights activists, and representatives of various government agencies.

But we must remember that Ukraine faces a primary task: to repel Russian aggression, protect people from missile and drone attacks, and preserve our statehood.

An internal investigation by the National Guard is currently underway, and law enforcement agencies are examining the circumstances. Representatives of the Military Ombudsman’s Office are also involved in this process.

We need to determine the root cause of the conflict, how events unfolded, who was involved, and how all parties acted.

After all, there are many versions of the story right now. Representatives of different sides may view the situation differently, which is natural in such high-profile cases.

That is precisely why I would refrain from drawing categorical conclusions. Without being directly on the scene and without having all the facts, it is very easy to make an assessment that will later prove to be incorrect.

At the same time, this does not mean that the issue should be ignored. On the contrary, the investigation must remain under constant scrutiny, particularly by the media, human rights organizations, and relevant government institutions.

It is important that the results of the investigations not only establish accountability for specific actions but also help us understand what needs to be changed to prevent similar situations in the future.

As for broader solutions, they are undoubtedly needed. But we must understand the circumstances in which the country finds itself.

It will soon be five years since the start of full-scale Russian aggression. The war is taking its toll on society; fatigue is setting in, and people are reacting in different ways to complex events and the government’s decisions.

Finding solutions that are easy, comfortable, and equally acceptable to everyone under such conditions is extremely difficult.

The state must strike a balance, avoiding extremes that could lead to social unrest. At the same time, we must not lose control of the processes on which the country’s defense capability depends.

Therefore, it is now necessary to establish all the circumstances surrounding the events in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka, assess the actions of those involved, and only then determine what specific changes are needed.

How to Reform Mobilization and Approaches to Military Service

Yuriy Butusov stated that Ukraine lacks a systematic effort to build trust in mobilization and to ensure commanders’ accountability for service members from the very beginning of their service. To what extent do communication problems deepen public distrust, and what can the state change right now?

First of all, I’d like to understand exactly what is meant by the term “systematic communication.” It’s a fairly broad concept, and everyone can interpret it in their own way.

When it comes to specific solutions, I disagree that nothing is changing. In fact, a great deal is being done right now, particularly to adapt the Armed Forces to modern conditions of war.

We are facing large-scale changes in the military. This involves revising the training system, making more active use of drones, various types of robotic platforms, and other technological solutions.

This is directly related to both mobilization and the number of people needed to carry out combat missions.

An analysis is currently underway to determine how many service members are stationed at specific positions, what tasks they perform, what equipment they use, and how effective their work is.

Rotations are a separate issue. We understand that moving personnel to the front lines always involves danger, and that many tasks require human involvement.

But we need to look for ways to reduce these risks. In particular, we need to determine which functions can be delegated to robotic platforms or unmanned systems.

For example, is a robotic platform capable of holding a specific position? Can it independently deliver ammunition? Which tasks can be performed using drones, and where is the presence of military personnel still necessary?

Various solutions are being explored – from delivering ammunition to reloading, transporting cargo, and performing specific engineering tasks.

The main goal is to minimize the number of situations where a soldier is forced to personally risk his or her life for a task that could potentially be performed by a machine.

Of course, it’s impossible to completely replace people. Infantry soldiers do tremendous work, and their role remains extremely important.

But we must shift the balance between human labor and the capabilities of modern technology.

We cannot fight like the Russians, using the same approaches. We need to shift toward asymmetric operations, make broader use of technology, and adapt new methods directly to battlefield conditions.

This requires not only the procurement of equipment but also a review of regulatory documents, training systems, and management decisions.

After all, many current methods were developed under different conditions of warfare. Now we must take into account the capabilities of unmanned systems, robotic technology, and new methods of unit command.

Such changes are gradually taking place, although not all of them are equally visible to the public.

Robots Are Taking on the Roles of Assault Troops

A good example of these new approaches is Operation “Vivaldi,” conducted by the Ukrainian Defense Forces.

It utilized technological solutions that, until recently, were not common in combat operations. Specifically, this involved the deployment of robotic platforms via drones.

Previously, certain tasks of this type had to be carried out by assault troops. And we understand very well just how dangerous such operations are and what kind of training they require.

Now there is an opportunity to perform part of this work remotely. And this changes not only the process of conducting combat operations itself, but also the role of the service member.

A person can serve as an operator of a drone or robotic platform, control equipment, ensure the proper functioning of relevant systems, or participate in engineering operations.

This also means that different military personnel can be assigned different roles depending on their skills, training, and capabilities.

And it is precisely these changes that we need to discuss with the public.

When we discuss communication regarding mobilization, it’s important to show more than just general calls to serve. People need to see concrete examples of how the military is changing, what technologies are being used, and what roles service members can play.

Operation “Vivaldi” is one example that can be highlighted. I think more information about similar initiatives and their practical application will become available in the near future.

This will help better explain how combat missions are evolving, why training requirements are changing, and what new specialties are becoming necessary in the military.

At the same time, technological advancement requires a different management system.

We are already seeing people with new approaches joining the command structure. Among them are young but experienced military personnel who have a different understanding of how to deploy infantry, work more actively with drones, and take advantage of modern technology.

The principles outlined by Mykhailo Drapatiy are also telling. They involve greater freedom of action for commanders, decentralized management, and trust in those working directly on the ground.

Examples of successful operations demonstrate that such trust can yield results. A commander who understands the situation in his sector must be able to make decisions quickly.

But freedom must necessarily be combined with responsibility.

Zero tolerance for abuse, corruption, and other violations is of the utmost importance.

This also applies to personnel decisions. Changes in commanders, new appointments, and a review of certain management approaches are currently taking place.

Complaints from service members and information about decisions made in the past are also being taken into account.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the army remains unchanged and that no reforms are taking place. Some of these decisions are already being implemented, although their results are not always yet visible to the general public.

Of course, such changes take time. But I hope that gradually, all categories of service members – soldiers, sergeants, and officers – will feel their impact.

The military police and courts require separate reform

Yuriy Butusov and Vitaliy Portnikov have raised the issue of the lack of a fully-fledged military justice system. At the same time, Dmytro Lubinets reported that as of October 2026, more than 6,000 complaints had been filed regarding the actions of representatives of the TCC and the SP – more than in the entire previous year. How critical is the lack of a military police force, specialized investigative units, and military courts?

I am well acquainted with the history of this issue, as I was once involved in the military justice system.

First and foremost, it is important to remember that Ukraine already had both military courts and military prosecutors’ offices. However, as part of the reform of the justice system, a decision was made to change this model.

Moreover, the reasons were not limited to Ukraine’s internal problems. The relevant decisions were also influenced by the recommendations and reservations of European partners in the context of Ukraine’s integration into the European Union.

The main issue concerned the independence of military courts.

There were concerns that such a system might not be sufficiently independent from state authorities. After all, military judges held corresponding ranks, and the President of Ukraine was authorized to confer them.

This created additional avenues for potential influence over the judicial system.

Therefore, during the reform, a decision was made to abolish military courts in their previous form.

At the same time, it is not entirely accurate to claim that all mechanisms for handling military offenses disappeared entirely along with them.

Military prosecutor’s offices were reorganized, and their functions were transferred to specialized units within the prosecutor’s office system.

Prosecutors who oversee proceedings in cases involving military criminal offenses continue to work today.

These are crimes provided for by the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Therefore, a certain degree of specialization in the field of military offenses has been preserved.

As for the military police, this is primarily a matter for the Ukrainian parliament.

Draft legislation on this matter has been developed in the past. These bills differed in content and proposed various models for the future system, including the reform of the Military Law Enforcement Service.

But I cannot explain why this issue has not yet received a final legislative resolution.

If we look at the experience of NATO countries, specialized mechanisms of military justice do indeed exist.

For example, France has separate legislation governing military justice that takes into account the specific nature of legal relationships within the armed forces.

Ukraine currently has a large army and is in the midst of a full-scale war. Therefore, the issues of specialized legislation, the accountability of military personnel, and the particularities of the justice system must be reviewed in light of these circumstances.

I believe we need to continue improving military justice. Perhaps we should revisit legislative initiatives to establish a military police force and undertake broader reforms in this area.

But I’m not sure that the mere creation of a new structure will automatically solve all the problems.

We can create a military police force, amend the law, and introduce new procedures, but it is extremely important how these tools will actually function in practice.

Therefore, we must assess not only the feasibility of creating a separate body but also its powers, oversight mechanisms, independence, and ability to effectively ensure compliance with the law.

At the same time, I do not question the need to improve military justice. Ukraine must develop these mechanisms taking into account the current needs of the military and previous reform experience.

Musienko on the incident in Borshchahivka: watch the video