On October 17, 2025, a military court in Rostov-on-Don, southern Russia, handed down a verdict that has sent shockwaves through international legal and diplomatic communities. Fifteen captured Ukrainian soldiers from the Aidar battalion were convicted on terrorism charges and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 15 to 21 years. The trial, which Kyiv and several human rights organizations have denounced as a violation of international law, marks the second mass sentencing of Ukrainian prisoners of war in Russia since March this year.
The Aidar battalion, originally a volunteer force, has been designated a terrorist group by Russian authorities. According to Reuters, the convicted men were tried in the city of Rostov-on-Don, which sits about 100 kilometers east of the Ukrainian border and serves as the headquarters for Russia’s Southern Military District. While most of the proceedings occurred behind closed doors, journalists were permitted to attend the opening sessions and the announcement of the verdict.
This case follows a similar mass trial in March 2025, when 23 members of Ukraine’s elite Azov brigade were convicted on comparable charges. That trial, too, drew condemnation from Ukraine and international observers, who argued that Russia was flouting the Geneva Convention by prosecuting prisoners of war for their participation in armed conflict.
Ukraine’s human rights envoy, Dmytro Lubinets, was unequivocal in his criticism of the process. When the trial of the Aidar members began in 2023, he called it “shameful” and asserted, “Russia is making criminals out of those who defended their native land.” This sentiment was echoed by Ivan Zadontsev, spokesman for the Aidar battalion, who described the trial as “a political show trial to punish our servicemen” and pledged that the battalion would “continue to lobby for the release of our prisoners of war.”
Human rights advocates have also weighed in. Memorial, a prominent Russian rights group, has designated the convicted soldiers as political prisoners. The organization insists the trial violated international conventions protecting prisoners of war. Memorial stated, “This grossly violates the provisions of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the prosecution of prisoners of war solely for their participation in an armed conflict.” The group further argued that the men were prosecuted not for any specific war crimes, but simply because they served with the Aidar battalion.
To understand the significance of these trials, it helps to look at the origins of the battalions involved. Both the Aidar and Azov groups were formed in the wake of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. These volunteer units quickly became active in the fighting against Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Over time, they were incorporated into the formal structure of the Ukrainian military. While both battalions have faced criticism over their early recruitment of individuals from far-right circles, current members have consistently rejected allegations of extremism or ties to ultra-nationalist movements.
The most recent trial began in 2023, initially involving 18 members of the Aidar battalion. Notably, two nurses who served with the battalion were also put on trial but were later returned to Ukraine as part of a prisoner swap. Proceedings against a driver from the battalion are set to be held separately, according to multiple reports.
Russia’s designation of both the Aidar and Azov battalions as terrorist organizations has provided the legal framework for these prosecutions. Russian authorities have accused members of these groups of war crimes, although the specific charges in these mass trials have centered on terrorism rather than individual allegations of criminal conduct during the conflict.
Kyiv has consistently rejected these proceedings as illegitimate. Ukrainian officials argue that Russia is using its judicial system to criminalize those who fought in defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty. The Ukrainian side maintains that such trials are not only legally dubious but also serve as a tool of psychological warfare, intended to demoralize Ukrainian forces and their families.
The international response has been similarly critical. Human rights organizations point to the Geneva Convention, which stipulates that prisoners of war cannot be prosecuted simply for participating in hostilities. The fact that the Russian court’s verdicts have focused on the soldiers’ membership in the Aidar battalion, rather than on specific acts of wrongdoing, has only intensified concerns among legal experts and advocacy groups.
The closed nature of the trial has also raised eyebrows. While journalists were allowed limited access, most of the proceedings took place behind closed doors, making it difficult for outside observers to assess the fairness and transparency of the process. This secrecy has fueled suspicions that the trials are more about political theater than genuine justice.
For Russia, these convictions serve multiple purposes. Domestically, they reinforce the narrative that Moscow is combating terrorism and defending its citizens from external threats. Internationally, they send a message to Ukraine and its allies that Russia is willing to use every tool at its disposal, including its courts, to pursue its objectives in the ongoing conflict.
For Ukraine and its supporters, however, the trials are a stark reminder of the challenges facing those captured by Russian forces. The prospect of long prison terms in Russian penal colonies hangs over Ukrainian soldiers, raising the stakes for those still fighting and those who may be taken prisoner in the future.
As the war between Russia and Ukraine grinds on, the legal battles over the status and treatment of prisoners of war are likely to become an increasingly important front. The verdict in Rostov-on-Don underscores the deeply contentious nature of the conflict—not just on the battlefield, but in the courtroom as well. Both sides remain entrenched, with little sign of compromise or resolution in sight.
As families of the convicted soldiers await news and advocacy groups continue their calls for justice, the fate of these men—and others like them—remains uncertain. The story of the Aidar battalion’s trial is far from over, and its outcome will likely echo through future debates about the laws of war and the treatment of combatants on all sides.