Ukraine’s Treatment of Prisoners of War

The manner in which a nation treats her prisoners of war is often the most revealing test of her moral discipline during conflict. In Ukraine’s case the test has been acute. Since 2014, and with particular intensity after February 2022, tens of thousands of Russian soldiers have fallen into Ukrainian hands. They represent individuals captured in the midst of a brutal conflict marked by high civilian casualties, systematic destruction of infrastructure and repeated war crimes committed in occupied territories. Against that background, one might expect Ukraine’s treatment of prisoners of war to harden, yet the evidence suggests a more complex and often more humane picture. Ukraine’s approach reflects a conscious policy choice to uphold the law of armed conflict, assert moral authority in the face of aggression and maintain international support upon which her survival depends.

Legal Obligations and State Policy

From the outset of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine publicly committed herself to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. Kyiv understood that her compliance with international humanitarian law would distinguish her conduct from that of Moscow, and that adherence to these legal frameworks served both ethical and strategic interests. Senior Ukrainian officials, including the Ombudsman for Human Rights and the leadership of the Armed Forces, have repeatedly affirmed that prisoners of war must be treated humanely, be granted medical care and be protected from public curiosity.

These commitments are not merely rhetorical. Ukraine’s domestic legislation, including her Criminal Code and military statutes, integrates Geneva Convention standards directly. The creation of specialised detention facilities under the oversight of the Ministry of Justice further institutionalised these norms. Moreover Ukraine has permitted the International Committee of the Red Cross to conduct visits to prisoner-of-war camps, albeit with interruptions due to security conditions. Such openness contrasts sharply with Russia’s systematic blocking of independent monitors and her widespread use of penal colonies as detention sites for Ukrainian prisoners.

Conditions of Detention

Visits by international observers, foreign journalists and independent Ukrainian human-rights groups provide consistent descriptions of life inside Ukrainian prisoner-of-war facilities. These reports generally note that Russian soldiers are provided with adequate food, access to medical treatment and opportunities to communicate with families. In some locations, prisoners undertake manual labour or facility maintenance, but always within the framework permitted under the Geneva Conventions. They are not placed on the front line, nor used to clear minefields or perform other hazardous tasks.

Crucially, there is little credible evidence of systematic abuse. A small number of videos have circulated showing Ukrainian soldiers mistreating Russian captives in the field, yet in many of these cases Ukraine has launched criminal investigations. Kyiv’s willingness to prosecute her own personnel, albeit not always swiftly, stands in marked contrast to Russia’s deliberate policy of torture, forced confession, starvation and disappearance of Ukrainian prisoners.

It should also be noted that Ukraine holds a heterogeneous population of prisoners. Regular Russian conscripts are often resigned, if not relieved, to be out of the fighting. Members of private military companies, such as the remains of Wagner or other irregular groups, often pose greater challenges due to discipline issues or their previous involvement in atrocities. Despite these variables, the broader pattern remains: Ukrainian authorities attempt to maintain consistent, lawful standards of treatment.

Transparency, Media and the Moral Narrative

Ukraine’s approach to prisoners of war has influenced her communication strategy. Kyiv restricts the public display of prisoners, generally avoiding the humiliating parading of captives that characterised earlier conflicts. When POWs appear in the media, it is usually through structured press conferences or interviews in which they speak voluntarily. Russia objects to this practice, alleging coercion, yet international observers have not verified systematic pressure. The Ukrainian authorities insist that such appearances serve to counter Russian propaganda by presenting Russian soldiers’ own accounts of the war, often including their sense of abandonment by their command structures.

This transparency contributes to Ukraine’s broader moral narrative. In a struggle where Russia has sought to portray herself as the defender of the Russian world and has depicted Ukrainians as neo-Nazis, Kyiv’s demonstration of restraint and legality carries diplomatic value. Western governments invest considerable political capital and material support in Ukraine; reassurance that this support aligns with a state acting according to international law reinforces domestic consent within those countries. It also strengthens Ukraine’s case in international legal fora concerning Russian war crimes and the future architecture of any post-war accountability process.

Prisoner Exchanges and the Politics of Reciprocity

The handling of prisoners of war cannot be separated from the politics of prisoner exchanges. Since 2022 Ukraine has carried out numerous large-scale exchanges with Russia, often mediated by third states or the ICRC. Ukraine’s track record of humane treatment facilitates these exchanges. Russia, by contrast, has repeatedly obstructed access to Ukrainian prisoners and used them as leverage, sometimes detaining them incommunicado for extended periods. The disparity in treatment has created a painful imbalance; Ukrainian soldiers released from Russian captivity frequently recount torture, starvation, mutilation and psychological abuse. These testimonies, although harrowing, further underscore the importance for Ukraine of maintaining higher standards.

Indeed Ukraine’s humane treatment of Russian prisoners offers practical advantages. Captured soldiers are more willing to cooperate with debriefings, providing valuable intelligence about Russian logistics, morale and command structures. Some defectors have even volunteered information about internal repression within the Russian army. Ukraine thus gains strategic insight without resorting to unlawful methods.

Challenges and Limitations

None of this suggests that Ukraine’s conduct is without fault. The pressure of a long war, constant missile bombardment and high casualties inevitably strain the discipline and resources of her forces. Isolated incidents of ill-treatment have occurred, particularly during frontline captures where emotions run high. Investigations can be slow, and full accountability is sometimes difficult to achieve. Furthermore the maintenance of proper facilities requires significant funding, at a time when Ukraine’s public finances are under extraordinary duress.

Another difficulty lies in the psychological dimension. Ukrainian society is acutely aware of Russian atrocities committed in Bucha, Mariupol, Izium and Kherson. Many Ukranians find it emotionally challenging to accept that the men who carried out or facilitated these acts receive better treatment in captivity than civilians did in occupation. Yet Ukrainian officials argue that the strength of her society lies precisely in her capacity to uphold humane principles under the most trying conditions.

A Measured Assessment

On balance, Ukraine treats her prisoners of war well by the standards of contemporary armed conflict. She does so not only because international law requires it but because it supports her strategic position, moral authority and long-term diplomatic standing. Ukraine’s treatment of prisoners is neither flawless nor uniform, but it is grounded in a sincere effort to apply legal obligations amidst unprecedented national trauma.

In the final analysis, how a country behaves in wartime reflects the society she wishes to be when peace returns. Ukraine’s determination to treat her prisoners lawfully and humanely is part of a broader vision of herself as a European state aligned with democratic values, committed to the rule of law and capable of moral restraint even while resisting a far larger aggressor. That commitment strengthens her internally, supports her externally and shapes the legacy she will carry into her post-war future.