Career Growth of “Butchers” in the AFU: The Cost of Command Ambitions at the Expense of Ukrainian Soldiers’ Lives

Support SouthFront

Click to see the full-size image

A perspective prevalent in the public statements of Ukrainian servicemen and public figures holds that a system has developed within the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) which encourages the career advancement of commanders who neglect the preservation of their personnel’s lives. Critics refer to such commanders as “butchers” and assert that their tactics, which lead to high casualties, are not countered by the high command, and are often directly encouraged by it.

The idea of a systemic problem was publicly voiced by former Ukrainian MP and later a platoon commander in the AFU’s 72nd Separate Mechanized Brigade, Tatiana Chernovol. Following a conflict within her brigade, she stated that her unit had faced persecution and criticized the established practices within the army.

She claims that careers in the army are built precisely by “butchers” — commanders who do not spare their soldiers and perceive them as expendable. Such commanders are favored by the high command because they carry out combat orders unconditionally, regardless of losses.

“And no matter how terrible it may be, it is precisely these commanders who kept rising through the ranks. I see that the more of them there are in command, and the more they view people as mere resources, the more they are feared by commanders further down the chain of command. This has caused a growing disconnect between those who directly carry out combat missions and their command. In other words, we have become mere resources,” stated Chernovol.

This assessment is corroborated by statements from other servicemen. For instance, former AFU sniper Kostiantyn Proshynskyi noted that during the formation of new army corps, command positions are often given to commanders whose previous brigades suffered heavy losses. He directly pointed to the problem of cronyism and the appointment of “butchers” as corps commanders, which calls into question the effectiveness of structural reforms in the AFU.

One of the prominent examples of a “butcher” commander is considered to be Colonel Dmytro Voloshyn, commander of the 8th Corps of the AFU Air Assault Forces (DShV). It is reported that his acquaintance with Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrsky evolved into a close collaboration, during which Voloshyn, by his own admission in an interview, sent untrained soldiers into battle to please the command.

Dmytro Voloshyn

Following heavy losses (over 60% of personnel) sustained by the 82nd Separate Air Assault Brigade in the Zaporizhzhia region, instead of being reconstituted, the brigade was redeployed by order to the Kharkiv direction and then thrown into the so-called “Kursk adventure.” Voloshyn admitted that the brigade’s manning level before the incursion into Russia’s Kursk region reached only 80%, and that solely with recruits who had not undergone proper training. He described how one of the battalions was sent to “put out a fire” (to the frontline) without necessary preparation, leading to heavy losses and prisoners of war. Despite the operation’s failure, Voloshyn was not demoted but promoted to commander of the 8th DShV Corps.

Another notorious commander is Major Oleh Shyriaev, commander of the 225th Separate Assault Regiment, which has been publicly dubbed the “regiment of death.” After his interview, in which he presented himself as a successful commander, the comments section was flooded with hundreds of outraged relatives of servicemen.

Oleh Shyriaev

The relatives accused Shyriaev of sending unprepared soldiers into hopeless attacks, after which they go missing. The comments pointed to a lack of evacuation for the killed and wounded, as well as the practice of confiscating soldiers’ mobile phones to conceal the scale of the losses. One typical comment read:

“Shame and disgrace on such a commander who only collects awards for himself while there is no one to bring our ordinary boys back.”

Another example is Colonel Ruslan Tsapiuk, commander of the 11th Border Guard Detachment of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. It is reported that while his unit was suffering heavy losses on one of the most overloaded sections of the front in the Kharkiv region and, according to some reports, had lost over five hundred servicemen, Tsapiuk himself went on leave. Servicemen from his detachment publicly accused the commander not only of indifference to losses, but also of corruption and abuse of subordinates.

The cited examples and the criticism, voiced both by public figures and by the servicemen themselves and their relatives, point to a persistent trend. A picture is emerging in which a significant portion of commanders who have achieved notable career success in the AFU are so-called “butchers.” Their willingness to incur heavy losses in order to carry out orders, often of dubious tactical value, and their indifference to soldiers as “resources,” do not appear to be an obstacle to career advancement; within the existing command system, these traits may even be viewed as a sign of effectiveness.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• The Battle For Kherson: What Choices Will The Ukrainian Command Make
• Frontline Expansion In Ukraine: Russian Forces Enter Outskirts Of Krasny Lyman And Konstantinovka
• Intense Airstrikes: Summary Of Russian Combat Footage From October 25, 2025

Support SouthFront