An author for UP compared the mechanism of military exposés in Ukraine to the #MeToo movement
18 July 2026 06:55Public exposés of potential abuses in the military and issues related to mobilization in Ukraine often come in waves: after one high-profile story breaks, people begin to share their own experiences. Mykhailo Dubinyanskyi, a columnist for “Ukrainska Pravda,” compares this phenomenon to the #MeToo movement in the U.S.
The author cites an investigation by the publication “Babel” into conditions in the 425th Separate Assault Regiment, which he calls “SkelyaGate.” According to him, after the publication, other accounts of violent incidents linked to this regiment began to appear on social media. Among them, Dubinyansky cites the incident involving a vehicle belonging to the British television network Sky News that came under fire near Dobropillya in March 2025.
He sees a similar pattern in the public accusations against General Yuriy Sodol, the emergence of testimony regarding the operation in Krynky, as well as in discussions about desertion, “busification,” and military corruption. According to the author, following public outcry, people who had previously remained silent about violence, abuse of power, or incompetence are beginning to share their own accounts.
Dubinyansky cites patriotic considerations and fear as the two factors behind this silence. He writes that people may avoid uncomfortable topics out of a reluctance to damage the country’s image or play into Russian propaganda. At the same time, according to the author, they may also be held back by fears of public condemnation, career setbacks, or possible retaliation by law enforcement agencies.
The column also cites the reaction of military blogger and “Skelya” fighter Mykola Kharkhan, who accused Ukrainian investigators of spreading disinformation and issued threats against those involved in the publications. Separately, the author mentions searches conducted by the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) at the home of a co-owner of “Babel,” carried out two weeks after the release of the high-profile investigation. Dubinyansky presents the possible connection between these events as his own assumption.
In the author’s view, the publicity surrounding such stories can exacerbate social conflicts during wartime. He contrasts two approaches: the state’s timely cessation of abuses, or the suppression of those who bring uncomfortable topics into the public sphere.
