Why are generals being prosecuted?

What is striking is the manner in which the detention and court proceedings were conducted. The treatment of the officers is particularly notable. One hopes that the court will approach these cases objectively and carefully, thoroughly investigating all causes and consequences, and drawing the correct conclusions in the interest of enhancing our combat capability. The goal should truly be to address and improve the military system, correct mistakes, and not simply assign blame for our failures.

The prosecution of generals and officers during wartime for negligence and errors in decision-making has become a sharp issue today. The outcome may bring both positive and negative consequences for the military, the state, and the country as a whole.

"With the right approach, such prosecutions could strengthen justice; however, they might also weaken the front. On one hand, it sends a signal of accountability to others; on the other, it risks undermining trust between the army and the state, lowering morale and reducing the effectiveness of command."

Regarding the negative side, first, prosecuting commanders could significantly undermine morale, creating an atmosphere of fear among other officers and generals. As a result, out of fear of criminal liability for potential mistakes, military leaders may avoid decisive actions, which are so necessary today. This could reduce initiative and the willingness to take responsibility in critical situations.

It is important to remember that war is a realm of constant uncertainty, chaos, where it is impossible to calculate all consequences, and mistakes are inevitable. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. Army faced significant criticism for its failures, yet there were no large-scale prosecutions of commanders. Senior leadership avoided direct persecution of generals and senior officers because the strategy for waging war proved flawed. Instead, efforts were focused on analyzing mistakes to prevent their recurrence. If we punish our officers for every wrong decision, it could lead to a “freezing effect,” where commanders will shy away from initiative for fear of consequences. This is especially dangerous when the Russians act aggressively and unpredictably, when weapons, methods, and tactics change so quickly that victory will go to those who adapt faster—those who are not afraid to make mistakes.

Second, military personnel may perceive such actions as unfair. This, in turn, would undermine trust in the justice system and the political leadership of the state.

Third, during wartime, commanders and leaders are key figures, and any changes or removals from their posts could destabilize command chains, especially if there are no better-trained replacements—something we are certainly struggling with now.

Fourth, the enemy can and will use these stories in their propaganda. This could become a powerful tool in their hands to demoralize both our military and society.

Finally, prosecutions based on insufficiently substantiated accusations could set a dangerous precedent and an example of a “witch hunt.” In military conditions, it is often very difficult to objectively assess whether a commander could have acted differently. Often, holding military personnel accountable may be driven not by real crimes but by political objectives.

"War is a time when the government faces significant pressure from society. In the search for “culprits,” the authorities may use courts as a tool to satisfy public opinion, even if this harms the army."

An example of how politically motivated persecution of the military can have catastrophic consequences is Stalin’s purges, during which a significant portion of the Red Army’s command staff was destroyed. Many talented officers were repressed, significantly weakening the country’s combat readiness in the early years of the war.

Speaking of the other side, it is worth noting the following:

First, holding individuals accountable can demonstrate that even in challenging times, the rule of law prevails and officials are responsible for their actions or inactions.

Second, if there is real negligence or criminal inaction, it can serve as a signal for other officers to act responsibly and honestly. At the same time, citizens demanding justice may feel that their concerns are being considered and that the state acts in the interest of society. During the 2006 Lebanon War, Israeli ground forces commander Udi Adam faced criticism for indecision and ineffective leadership. While he was not criminally prosecuted, his resignation served as a lesson for other commanders: the system showed that negligence or planning mistakes have consequences. This prompted reforms that strengthened Israel’s defense capabilities. Ukraine is now living through a historic moment where the effectiveness and transparency of its military system define its future. Therefore, if military leadership is held accountable for its actions, it will strengthen people’s trust in the state and the army.

Third and most importantly, with the right approach, if the process is transparent and fair, it can contribute to improving the command system and reducing the risk of repeated mistakes. For example, in many countries, military errors are analyzed after the conflict ends when events can be assessed without emotional pressure. This makes it possible to differentiate between criminal negligence and strategic miscalculations. During the First World War, British General Douglas Haig faced widespread criticism for the enormous losses during the battles of the Somme and Passchendaele. He was accused of using ineffective, outdated tactics that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. However, no prosecution followed. Only after the war did the government evaluate his actions and acknowledge that some decisions, although controversial, were the only viable ones under the conditions of that time.

In the war against Russia for Ukraine’s independence and existence, not only military strength but also the ability to effectively manage troops and make the right decisions is of utmost importance. At the same time, the ability to learn from mistakes is critically vital. The problem of weak managerial skills among some generals and senior officers is often due to deficiencies in military education and systemic issues that challenge the state and all of us. Therefore, we must act in such a way as to strengthen the military, not destroy it.

Problems of military education and training

In many armies of the world, professional training of leaders (commanders) is the foundation of military effectiveness. Ukraine, like many other post-Soviet countries, inherited a military education system oriented toward Soviet approaches, which often ignore flexibility, modern tactics, critical thinking, and initiative. The war that has been ongoing since 2014, and especially since 2022, has demonstrated the urgent need to change these approaches.

Israel, being in a constant state of war, has made military education one of its priorities. In the Israeli army, commanders are trained to act autonomously and make decisions in conditions of uncertainty and resource shortages. For instance, Israeli officers regularly undergo high-quality advanced training courses even during wars. A key element is the exchange of experiences after every battle and operation to minimize repeated mistakes. Thus, we need to implement a military education and training system that focuses on modern tactics, resource management in conditions of scarcity, and developing initiative at all levels of command. We must learn during the war, learn constantly, and learn effectively. Regular training for commanders should be conducted directly on the front lines, enabling experience sharing and analysis of real situations. It is especially important to use NATO countries’ experience to update training methods and establish a new “learning culture” within the military.

Working on mistakes, not punishing for them

During wartime, even the best commanders make mistakes, especially in conditions of resource shortages or enemy superiority in numbers. Mistakes should be analyzed, but punishment for them should not destroy the army. After the failed operation in Somalia in 1993 (the Battle of Mogadishu), U.S. military leadership did not punish the officers. Instead, a large-scale analysis was conducted, leading to a revision of tactical approaches to special operations. This allowed similar miscalculations to be avoided in the future.

The concept of after-action review (AAR) has been discussed extensively, but it is absolutely critical that we implement this tool at all levels. After every battle, every operation, groups and commissions should be created to analyze the actions of commanders and determine the causes of successes and failures. As for criminal cases, they should only be opened in cases of deliberate negligence or treason, not due to miscalculations in complex conditions.

"Lastly, but equally importantly, commanders must be provided with resources, equipment, and information to successfully fulfill their missions. A lack of coordination, poor interaction between units, or even between commands leads to a misunderstanding of the overall picture and, consequently, actions that are less effective."

Strengthening trust between army and state

Trust between the military and political leadership is a fundamental basis for success in war. If commanders fear political persecution, internal investigations, or punishment for mistakes, it destroys the army’s combat capability. During World War II, Winston Churchill, even in the most critical moments, did not destroy trust in his generals. When British forces were defeated in France in 1940, Churchill did not blame the command but focused on consolidating efforts for a future counteroffensive. Thus, we should focus on explaining to society the full complexity of war. 

"Political leadership must communicate to the public that mistakes in war are inevitable, but they do not necessarily indicate treason or negligence. Commanders’ actions must also be objectively analyzed to understand higher-level errors, rather than turning this into witch hunts."

Even more so, public trials that humiliate the dignity of our soldiers while giving the enemy an opportunity to exploit the situation must be avoided. It is equally important to reward successful commanders and recognize their contributions, which motivates others to work effectively.

To conclude, Ukraine has a unique opportunity to transform its military during the war. It is essential to remember that the strength of military leadership depends not only on professionalism but also on trust in it. Punishing for miscalculations during wartime, especially without thorough analysis, is a risky strategy that can weaken morale and command efficiency. Instead, it is worth investing in military education, error analysis, and strengthening trust between the state, the army, and society. Only in this way can we build an army capable not only of winning but also of ensuring peace for decades to come.

Source

About the author: Serhiy Sobko, Brigadier General, Chief of Staff of the Luhansk Operational Tactical Unit.

The editorial board does not always share the opinions expressed by blog authors.