Butusov on case of defense failure in Kharkiv OTG on 10.05.2024

1. The facts of the case as currently known:

According to the materials of the military tactical examination conducted by the SBI (State Bureau of Investigation), on the first day of the Russian offensive on Kharkiv on 10.05.2024, there was an unplanned withdrawal of some units of the 125th Brigade from a number of positions in the area of the OTG Kharkiv. The largest withdrawal took place in the area of the attached 415th Rifle Battalion. The attached unit of the State Border Guard Service (SBGS) was not informed about the withdrawal. As a result of the Russian attack, all units of the 125th Brigade lost 2 soldiers killed in action (KIA) on 10 May, according to the expert assessment, while the SBGS unit that remained in position lost 17 soldiers KIA. As a result, the enemy advanced from the border to the outskirts of the village of Lyptsi. The 415th Battalion, after the withdrawal, took up defensive positions on the outskirts of Lyptsi together with units of the 13th Brigade of the NGU and the 92nd Brigade of the AFU and fought to the best of its ability. Due to the absence of fortifications at this defensive line, all three of our military units suffered significant losses in the encounter battles with the enemy.

2. I support the decision of the State Bureau of Investigation to open a criminal case into the circumstances of the Russian attack on Kharkiv in May 2024 and consider it justified.

3. I support the SBI's decision to hold the commander of the OTG Kharkiv, Yurii Halushkin, the commander of the 125th TDF (Territorial Defence Forces) Brigade, A. Horbenko, and the commander of the 415th Rifle Battalion, I. Lapin, accountable and consider it justified. There are no other ways to answer the questions posed by the investigation.

4. I do not support the decision of the Pecherskyi Court and the Luhansk Regional Prosecutor's Office to detain Halushkin, Horbenko, and Lapin for the period of investigation and consider it unjustified, as the detention discredits the status of a serviceman and does not align with the nature of the alleged offence.

5. I do not support the SBI's decision not to hold accountable other officials who appointed and supervised the activities of Halushkin and Horbenko and were responsible for the construction of defensive structures in this case, namely the commander of the Khortytsia OSGT (Operational Strategic Group of Troops), Yurii Sodol; the head of the Kharkiv Civil-Military Administration (CMA), Oleksandr Syniehubov; the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Oleksandr Syrskyi; and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, V. Zelenskyy, and additionally, I consider the absence of Zelenskyy's testimony in this case unjustified.

6. I consider the SBI's decision to re-detain Yurii Halushkin after bail was posted for him, as determined by the court, to be shameful and criminal on the part of SBI Head O. Sukhachov, this confirms a direct political hit job from the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, V. Zelenskyy, aimed at shifting responsibility for the failure of defence in the Kharkiv direction from himself and shifting it to mid-level commanders. I would like to remind everyone that Zelenskyy personally inspected the state of defence of the OTG "Kharkiv" on 9 April 2024, a month before the Russian offensive, and must also be held accountable for his actions in this regard.

7. I believe that military justice institutions should be responsible for maintaining law and order within the Defence Forces, as is the case in all NATO countries. Ukraine urgently needs to establish military police, military investigation units, military prosecution, and military courts. I would like to remind you that military courts, investigations, and prosecution were abolished prior to the Russian invasion in 2012 as part of a reform carried out by Yanukovych’s Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration, A. Portnov. Portnov's lawyer and business partner, O. Tatarov, is now the deputy head of President Zelenskyy’s office, and it is Tatarov who is blocking the creation of military justice, intentionally undermining Ukraine’s defence capabilities. I consider this obstruction by Tatarov to be criminal.

8. Prosecuting the commanders as part of the criminal case is currently the only way to clarify the circumstances of what happened at the Kharkiv OTG, as Ukraine's political and military leadership does not implement NATO standards within the Defence Forces and does not follow the standard NATO After Action Review procedure, which would allow for a professional evaluation of the actions of military personnel at all levels outside of criminal proceedings.

Yurii Butusov, Editor-in-Chief of Censor.NET