Imagine: a soldier waits for months for a referral to a medical examination, or doesn't receive proper compensation, or is transferred to a position in violation of the law. He complains. The Office of the Military Ombudsman conducts an investigation, finds a violation, sends the commander a clear conclusion with a demand to correct the situation. And then what? Nothing. The commander can simply not respond, respond formally, or ignore the document altogether. There are no penalties for this.
This is the main vulnerability of an institution that was supposed to become real protection for military personnel.
Numbers that show the scale of the problem
From the launch on January 27 to August 31, the Office of the Military Ombudsman received 14,427 complaints and appeals. 13,922 were reviewed, with 505 still in progress. Based on the review results, 2,535 investigations were initiated — meaning approximately one in five complaints proved serious enough to investigate separately.
Military personnel most frequently complain about four things:
- referral for medical examination and treatment;
- discharge from military service;
- monthly allowances and additional compensation;
- transfer to another duty station.
These are not abstract bureaucratic issues. These are matters that determine whether a wounded person receives treatment in time, whether a fallen soldier's family receives proper payments, whether a person can legally demobilize after reaching the service limit.
The mechanism exists, but there's no leverage
The procedure looks logical: complaint → investigation → conclusion with a demand → ten business days for the commander or official to respond. On paper, everything is clear. But the Office of the Ombudsman directly acknowledges that commanders and officials "not infrequently" ignore conclusions, treat them formally, or delay responses.
Legislation still does not provide for proper accountability for this
This is the key phrase. The ombudsman can establish a violation, can issue a demand — but cannot force compliance. There is no fine, no administrative protocol, no instrument of pressure except public disclosure.
A bill waiting for a year
Bill No. 13267, submitted by Zelensky at the same time as the Office's creation, was supposed to fix this. The document provides for fines from 8,500 to 17,000 hryvnias for non-compliance with the ombudsman's requirements, and for repeated violations — from 17,000 to 34,000 hryvnias with possible disqualification from office for one year. The provision would apply not only to commanders but to officials at any level — from regional governors to ministers.
Parliament passed it in first reading in October 2025. Since then — silence. On September 1, the Verkhovna Rada opened a new session and formally included the bill on the agenda, but according to deputy of the relevant committee Oleksandr Danutsa, work is still at the stage of "processing and systematizing amendments" — without specific dates for second reading.
So an institution designed to protect the rights of over a million people in uniform has been operating without a coercive tool for a year — and there are no guarantees yet when the situation will change.
What this means for a soldier who complains today
Practically speaking: it's worth filing a complaint with the ombudsman — statistics show that approximately one in five complaints leads to an investigation, and some cases are referred to other authorized bodies (3,587 complaints over the entire period). But if the commander decides to ignore even a confirmed conclusion about a violation, currently this has no legal consequences for him.
The question is simple: will Parliament pass Bill No. 13267 on second reading before the end of this session, or will the institution continue to function as a body that documents violations but cannot force their correction?
