"For the Azov fighters to kill someone": Voloshyna named the likely goal of the provocation in Borshchahivka

The unrest in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka has sparked new debates surrounding mobilization and public attitudes toward the Ukrainian military. Following the incident, law enforcement began identifying those involved, and Kyrylo Budanov stated there were signs of outside influence on the events.

Journalist and psychologist Larysa Voloshyna explained on 24 Channel why she suspects a planned provocation against “Azov” soldiers and what role organized groups might have played in the unrest. She also spoke about the consequences of deserting military units without authorization, the need for changes to the mobilization process, and the possible political plans of Donald Trump’s family.

Why the unrest could have been a planned provocation

Following the unrest in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka, Kyrylo Budanov stated that the events were not without outside influence. According to law enforcement, approximately 100 participants have already been identified, and reports of the situation were actively shared on Telegram channels. What conclusions should be drawn, and how could Russia have exploited this?

I agree that this could have been an operation orchestrated by the Russian Federation. Everything unfolded too seamlessly to be explained away as a random gathering of people.

It wasn’t as if some woman just showed up, got down on her knees, started screaming, and all the Telegram channels suddenly picked up her story on their own. What we saw was a fairly organized information campaign that quickly turned a single incident into a large-scale confrontation.

I believe this was a planned operation. At the same time, law enforcement must determine the specific involvement of its organizers with Russia.

Take a look at the woman who became one of the central figures in these events. According to information that has emerged about her, she has debts, is implicated in a criminal case, and was wanted in connection with a traffic accident after which she allegedly fled the scene.

If these circumstances are confirmed, such a person may be vulnerable to recruitment. Russian intelligence services often seek out people with financial or legal problems, offering to help resolve them in exchange for certain actions.

But there is another problem here. There are already groups operating in Ukraine whose members coordinate their actions when one of them is detained in connection with mobilization measures.

They gather together, arrive at the scene, and start shouting that the actions of the Territorial Mobilization Center representatives are illegal. Often, they aren’t even referring to a specific procedural violation. For these people, mobilization itself is illegal.

We’ve already heard of similar cases, particularly in Sykhiv, Lviv. There, too, people gathered who tried to intervene in the situation and obstruct the actions of the relevant authorities.

But in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka, in my opinion, the situation has moved to the next stage. Here, people have already appeared who identified themselves as medical workers, along with special vehicles and an entire support group.

I have a lot of questions, especially for the woman in a medical uniform and the vehicle that was being used as an ambulance.

You can’t just put on a white coat, drive up to people, and start providing paid medical services without a legal basis for doing so. If someone poses as a medical professional, this is no longer just a matter of social conflict but also of potential liability for fraud.

The same applies to a private vehicle being used with emergency medical service markings. We need to determine who owns it, on what grounds it was operating, and whether it was authorized to use those markings.

Among the participants in the gathering were people wearing balaclavas; some were throwing eggs, while others were shouting various accusations. One of those present even claimed that the Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) was allegedly hunting him down, even though Kyrylo Budanov was standing right next to him.

It seems to me that it was important for the organizers to create as much chaos as possible, draw a crowd, and make the situation uncontrollable.

Moreover, I don’t think that the main goal was necessarily to enter the building. For certain individuals, it may have been an attempt to take a specific servicemember, but for the possible Russian organizers, the conflict itself was far more important.

After all, the people didn’t come to the regional recruitment center. They gathered near the location of the “Azov” combat unit, where active-duty soldiers were stationed.

And for Russian propaganda, “Azov” holds special significance. For years, the Russians have been trying to discredit this unit, persecuting its fighters while they were in captivity and sentencing them to long prison terms.

I suspect the organizers may have been counting on an escalation of violence. Imagine a large crowd gathering near a military facility, a scuffle breaking out, someone provoking the soldiers, and then a shot rings out.

For Russian propaganda, this would have been the perfect scenario. They could have spread the story that “Azov” fighters were shooting at civilians.

And that is precisely why I was so struck by the behavior of some of those present. People were unaware of the danger to their own lives, nor did they realize that they could become tools of someone else’s provocation.

How were groups able to gather near the military unit?

How did these people find out about the building where the soldiers were stationed, and where did the young men who arrived at the scene come from? Could they have been recruited through Telegram channels?

I think an already established network might have been at work here. In such groups, people agree to support one another in the event of detention or other problems related to mobilization.

They have a certain unspoken rule: if one person is detained today, the rest must come and help. After all, any of the participants could find themselves in a similar situation tomorrow.

That’s why these rapid gatherings take place, with people arriving at the scene and attempting to put pressure on the military or law enforcement.

But in the case of Petropavlivska Borshchahivka, there is a fundamental difference. “Azov” is not the TCC. Its servicemen do not detain civilians on the streets to carry out mobilization measures.

For a person to join a combat unit, they must first go through a specific process. This begins with mobilization paperwork, the relevant procedures, and a military medical examination.

After that, the recruit is sent to a training center, where they undergo basic general military training. Only then are they assigned to a military unit.

That is why I do not understand the claims that people who had just been taken off the street were simply being held in that building.

If a person has already been assigned to a combat unit, it means they have completed the preliminary stages of enrollment and training. Specific complaints of unlawful detention, of course, must be investigated, but one cannot automatically equate the situation at the TCC with that at a military unit.

And this raises the next issue – service members who have left their units without authorization.

I believe that society often underestimates the seriousness of such actions. A person has already taken the military oath, assumed certain responsibilities, and then left the unit without proper authorization.

In different cases, such actions may be classified differently under the law, but they constitute serious military offenses. Cases of desertion are particularly dangerous when a person deliberately evades further military service.

I am concerned that people who are in hiding after leaving their military units may join the same groups as civilians who are trying to avoid mobilization.

Their motivations are different. While a civilian has not yet taken the military oath, a service member who has left his unit may fear criminal liability.

That is precisely why such people may be particularly interested in supporting groups that promise to protect them from law enforcement or help them return to civilian life without following the proper procedures.

But this does not mean that these issues should be resolved by random people on Telegram channels. They must be handled by authorized agencies within the framework of the law.

I support the creation of a comprehensive military justice system that could ensure proper investigation of such cases and a fair determination of liability.

In my opinion, clear legal mechanisms should be established for service members who have committed serious violations. One option could be the possibility of returning to duty, taking into account the court’s decision and the circumstances of the specific case.

But accountability cannot be replaced by vigilantism. Otherwise, we end up with a situation where entire groups of people gather around military units, ready to forcibly intervene in matters that fall under the jurisdiction of state authorities.

Why Are Provocations Against “Azov” Dangerous?

Law enforcement has already identified over a hundred participants in the events in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka. How, in your opinion, should their actions be assessed, and what consequences could this situation have had?

First and foremost, we must understand that this was a serious incident near a military base. Such events cannot be treated as mere street disputes.

This situation reminded me of the events at the start of the Russian aggression in 2014, when crowds blocked Ukrainian troops in Crimea and the Donbas, tried to disarm them, and prevented them from carrying out their orders.

Such actions pose a threat to both the service members and the participants in the gathering themselves.

A combat unit is a facility where military personnel are stationed, and they may be armed. In the event of an actual attack, the situation can quickly become dangerous.

That is precisely why I believe that the possible organizers of the provocation may have sought to provoke a violent response.

For Azov fighters to kill someone – that, in my opinion, is what the Russians might have wanted.

Imagine that, amid the chaos, someone opens fire or another person carries out a provocation that is immediately attributed to the military. After that, Russian media outlets begin spreading reports about the alleged shooting of civilians.

And it wouldn’t matter what actually happened, because the first emotional footage can spread very quickly.

That’s why it’s important to me that we managed to avoid the worst-case scenario this time. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be similar attempts in the future.

We saw how rioters rocked vehicles, used certain substances, shouted, and created intense tension. In such circumstances, even an accidental action can lead to a dangerous escalation.

In addition, we need to find out who spread the claims about the alleged beating of children, the unlawful detention of people, and other stories that stirred particularly strong emotions.

If the information is false, it could be part of a provocation. But we need to verify specific facts, not simply dismiss any complaints simply because they arose during the conflict.

I do not deny that there are violations occurring during mobilization in Ukraine. We have heard about beatings, unlawful detention of people, and other incidents that require investigation.

However, this does not justify attacking the military unit. Moreover, we cannot automatically accuse those defending the country on the front lines of such violations.

There are legal ways to challenge decisions and seek legal assistance. And those are the ones that should be used.

I also consider it dangerous how easily people begin to believe fabricated stories about the Ukrainian military.

When rumors spread that soldiers are allegedly beating children en masse or holding people in torture chambers, the first step is to determine whether there is any real evidence.

Otherwise, any provocateur could exploit such sentiments to gather a crowd near a new military facility.

For example, someone might promise a minor money to participate in a gathering, and then another participant could create a dangerous situation. And all of this could be presented as the military’s fault.

This is just one possible scenario, but that is precisely why I urge people not to get involved in events whose organizers and true objectives they do not know.

Why Even Their Fellow Citizens Are Accusing the Military

After the riots, accusations began appearing in the comments suggesting that law enforcement and the military might be involved in illegal schemes. Some people also speak of war fatigue and the injustice of mobilization. How do you feel about this reaction?

What strikes me most is that people are willing to accuse even “Azov” without any evidence.

These soldiers fought in the defense of Mariupol, were held captive by the Russians, and endured torture. And now some people are writing as if they might be taking money from illegal schemes related to mobilization.

The commander of “Azov” is currently in combat positions in the Dobropillia sector, where heavy fighting is ongoing. And I don’t understand how one can simultaneously witness the unit’s work on the front lines and, without any evidence, accuse it of such activities.

Such accusations are very dangerous, as they undermine trust between those serving in the military and those remaining in civilian life.

I understand that society is tired. I understand people’s fear of mobilization, their questions about the fairness of conscription, and the length of service.

But these issues must not turn into hatred toward the Ukrainian military.

Our defenders are not some separate group of people who exist outside of society. They are our neighbors, colleagues, classmates, and relatives. Many of them worked in civilian professions before the war and have the right to return to normal life.

That is why I disagree with the very notion of pitting the military against society. The military is part of Ukrainian society.

Of course, the state needs to reform its mobilization system. And I believe that this reform must go much deeper than simply changing individual procedures.

We should gradually move toward a system of a trained reserve, where people complete a set period of service or military training, return to civilian life, and remain ready to defend the country.

I am familiar with the experience of Israel, which has a system of military service and a reserve force. Ukraine also needs to create a mechanism whereby the defense of the state does not rest for years on the shoulders of just the same people.

At the same time, I advocate for stricter penalties for deliberate violations of military law. This applies to military registration, cases of desertion, and illegal schemes designed to evade military service.

However, liability must be established by law and enforced through proper procedures, not through street clashes.

I also believe that a fully-fledged military justice system is necessary. Such cases should be handled by specialized investigative and judicial mechanisms that take into account the circumstances of military service.

For those who have left their unit without authorization, various legal means of holding them accountable can be provided for. Depending on the severity of the violation, these may include actual punishment or a court-ordered return to service.

I also propose discussing a labor program as one possible alternative to imprisonment for individuals who have not committed violent crimes.

In the past, there were mechanisms under which convicts worked at enterprises or performed community service without being permanently confined to a correctional facility. It is clear that any modern model must comply with the law and respect human rights.

This discussion is important because Ukraine faces a labor shortage both in civilian areas and at enterprises that support national defense.

However, above all, justice must be ensured. It is unacceptable for some people to serve for years without a clear prospect of rotation, while others use illegal means to evade responsibility.

At the same time, there must be a variety of service options for citizens who are ready to fulfill their duty. Not everyone has the same physical capabilities or training for assault units.

For example, the country needs drone operators, military specialists, and personnel to support air defense and mobile fire teams.

There are also positions related to support, logistics, and other functions without which the military cannot operate.

Therefore, anyone who is not eligible for a deferment should explore legal service options well in advance, communicate with military officials, and learn about different units and specialties.

It seems to me that this is a much more constructive approach than turning to dubious intermediaries who promise to solve all problems for a fee.

The worst thing that can happen is when, out of fear of mobilization, people begin to justify attacks on military personnel or support those who deliberately organize provocations.

In my opinion, this is exactly what Russian intelligence services may be aiming for: to sow distrust, force Ukrainians to view their own army as an enemy, and deepen conflicts within the country.

Why Is Melania Trump Engaged in Peace Initiatives?

Following her humanitarian initiative regarding the Oleshky, Melania Trump is preparing a meeting between representatives of Ukraine and Russia at the White House on November 5. How do you assess her activities, and what might be behind her involvement in diplomacy?

I believe they may be laying the groundwork for her political career.

Consider the role the Trump family plays in the Republican Party. Its members influence internal party processes and, consequently, future political appointments and support for candidates.

Melania Trump cannot run for president of the United States due to constitutional requirements regarding a candidate’s eligibility. But that does not prevent her from running for Congress in the future.

She could become a member of the House of Representatives or a senator. And if such a political path proves successful, opportunities for a long-term career in American politics will open up for her.

I wouldn’t even rule out the possibility that the Trump family might consider the prospect of her further advancement to leadership positions in Congress.

We’ve already seen just how important the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives can be. Mike Johnson once blocked a vote on aid to Ukraine, and that had very serious consequences.

Therefore, if the Trump family can maintain its influence over party structures and promote allies to Congress, Donald Trump will potentially retain political leverage even after his presidential term ends.

He has already demonstrated his ability to influence Republican decisions even before returning to the White House.

I suspect that in the upcoming presidential election, the family may try to back one of Donald Trump’s sons. And Melania could take on a separate role in the legislative branch.

Therefore, in my opinion, the First Lady’s current diplomatic activities may be a way to raise her public profile and shape her own political image.

Of course, this is just my theory. We don’t know whether Melania Trump herself has such ambitions or whether her family is actually considering such a scenario.

But I think her increasingly visible participation in international initiatives isn’t necessarily limited to humanitarian work. It could mark the beginning of a much broader political narrative.

Russians Provoked the Attack on the Azov Base: Larysa Voloshyna on the Mutiny of Draft Dodgers and Trump’s Plans: Watch the Video