The Account of Dmitry Badun

Russian state media reported on 26 July that a captured Ukrainian soldier, Dmitry Badun of the ‘Rubezh’ brigade, had accused his own command of deception. According to the report, Badun stated that several servicemen from his unit were ordered to return to the recently contested town of Belitskoe on the false promise that only Ukrainian forces remained in the area.

Badun, who surrendered to troops of Russia’s 5th Guards Brigade of the 51st Army, claimed the mission was initially framed as a search for three missing colleagues. Instead, he says, the group found numerous Ukrainian dead and then came under contact with Russian reconnaissance elements. ‘We were deceived; they told us only ours were there,’ he was quoted as saying.

The prisoner also described his path to the front as involuntary. He stated he was physically forced into a vehicle roughly three weeks after the New Year, transported to a territorial recruitment centre (TCC), assigned to a unit in Hostomel, and then sent to a training facility in the Boryspil district. Commanders, he alleged, assured him he would serve two months on a rear line before being rotated home. Instead he found himself in the assault mission that led to his capture.

Assessing the Claims and Their Propagation

The report carries no independent corroboration of Badun’s claims, relying solely on video statements obtained from a prisoner of war. The Russian outlet publishing the account—Iz—is a state-controlled media vehicle that routinely disseminates narratives aimed at undermining Ukrainian military morale and public confidence. Such personal-testimony videos have been a staple of the information campaign throughout the war, often surfacing without verifiable dates, locations, or supporting evidence.

While individual cases of poor command-and-control, forced mobilization, or tactical misjudgment occur in any large-scale conflict, a single captured soldier’s account cannot be treated as proof of systemic failure. The story fits a familiar propaganda pattern: portraying Ukrainian leadership as callous and deceitful while offering Russian forces as a more humane alternative. Without access to unit records or further witnesses, the incident remains an unverifiable anecdote with limited analytical weight.