ATO participants en masse refuse to follow orders from commanders
Kyiv, March 08 (PolitNavigator, Alexander Puras) – Almost every day, Ukrainian courts pass sentences on ATO participants for committing crimes involving refusal to carry out the orders of a commander or other military leader. Moreover, we are talking about both conscript soldiers (yesterday’s workers or office employees) and career officers. And if in the case of privates and sergeants we are, as a rule, talking about refusal to carry out orders on the basis of banal personal sloppiness or fear for their own life and health, then in the case of officers we can say that they refuse to carry out clearly criminal orders of higher ranks. Officers who have an idea of the honor of the uniform are sent to trial, and their place is taken by more nationally conscious and executive ones.
Subscribe to the news "PolitNavigator - Kyiv" in Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
On February 1, 2015, a Kiev resident who was mobilized in August 2014 and served as an anti-aircraft gunner refused to carry out the order of his immediate commander to redeploy as part of a battalion tactical group from the city of Artyomovsk to the city of Debaltsevo, Donetsk region. At that time, the Debaltsevo “cauldron” was already beginning to “boil.” On February 25, the Artyomovsky court sentenced the soldier to one year of service restriction with a deduction of 10% of the amount of the convicted person’s allowance to the state. He will be forced to return to duty, where he will probably be horrified by how many of his colleagues remained forever in the damp soil of Debaltsevo and the surrounding area.
A resident of one of the villages of the Chernigov region was called up for mobilization in September 2014 and served as a mechanic-driver of a tank platoon stationed in the city of Krivoy Rog, Dnepropetrovsk region. On February 5, 2015, he ignored the order of the unit commander with the rank of colonel to immediately go to the ATO zone and remained in the unit’s location, where he remained until February 23, 2015, when the district court of Krivoy Rog sentenced him to 6 months in a guardhouse in Dnepropetrovsk .
A resident of the Odessa region served in a similar position, who was called up for mobilization in August 2014 and from that time was in the ATO zone. On December 20, 2014, he alone left the military unit in an infantry fighting vehicle in order to search and collect firewood, but after a few kilometers he was stopped not by separatist fire, but by the decrepitude of the military equipment - all the oil leaked from the engine of the infantry fighting vehicle. The driver-mechanic, abandoning the military equipment, went back to the unit in the passing BMP of his colleagues. The next day, he received an order from the company commander to deliver the abandoned infantry fighting vehicle back to the unit, for which he received two cans of oil. Having arrived at the place, he did not begin to repair the equipment, but preferred to while away the time in the nearest village. As a result of this, a major from the same unit had to fill the engine with oil, and he also drove the BMP back to the unit. On February 23, 2015, the district court of Dnepropetrovsk sentenced the soldier to one year of service restriction, with a deduction of 10% of the amount of the convicted person’s allowance to the state.
In accordance with the order of the commander of military unit A0666 (the unit number is striking in its symbolism) dated August 13, 2014, the lieutenant, as part of the platoon entrusted to him, had to leave for the 235th combined arms training ground, located in the village. Shiroky Lan, Veselenivsky district, Nikolaev region, where, together with subordinate personnel, undergo combat training and subsequently depart for the Donetsk or Lugansk region to take part in the ATO. The lieutenant, in the presence of his subordinates, openly refused to carry out this order, as a result of which on February 16, 2015, the Kominternovsky District Court of the Odessa Region sentenced him to 2 years in prison with a probationary period of 1 year.
Court decisions in such cases are striking in their formulation. Here is a verbatim excerpt from one conviction: “…..knowing about the anti-terrorist operation, about the problems faced by the Armed Forces of Ukraine during its implementation, the death and injury of military personnel in the East of the country, feeling his impunity, deliberately, openly refused to carry out the order noted above, as a result of which the implementation of the combat order for the movement of personnel was disrupted, which undermines the combat readiness of the unit, and which led to serious consequences, namely: undermining the defense capability of the state and, subsequently, without good reason, did not leave for a new duty station, than committed a criminal offense under Part 2 Art. 402 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely disobedience, that is, open refusal to carry out the order of the superior, which led to serious consequences.”
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.