On October 17, 2025, a military court in Rostov-on-Don, southern Russia, handed down prison sentences to 15 captured Ukrainian soldiers from the Aidar battalion, convicting them on terrorism charges. The verdict, which sent shockwaves through diplomatic and human rights circles, has been denounced by Ukrainian officials and international organizations as a violation of international law and a breach of the Geneva Conventions.
The sentences, ranging from 15 to 21 years in a maximum-security penal colony, mark the second mass trial of Ukrainian prisoners of war in Russia this year. In March, a similar process saw 23 members of Ukraine’s Azov brigade convicted on comparable charges—another case that drew widespread condemnation. According to TASS and Reuters, as cited by BTA, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office confirmed the sentences and their severity, underscoring Russia’s hardline stance on what it labels as terrorist groups within Ukraine’s armed forces.
The trial, held mostly behind closed doors in the city of Rostov-on-Don—about 100 kilometers east of the Ukrainian border—has been shrouded in secrecy. Journalists were permitted to witness only the opening sessions and the delivery of the verdict, leaving much of the proceedings out of public view. This lack of transparency has fueled further criticism from Kyiv and human rights observers.
Ukraine’s human rights envoy, Dmytro Lubinets, minced no words in his assessment of the proceedings. Calling the trial “shameful,” he argued that “Russia is making criminals out of those who defended their native land.” His remarks, reported by BBC and other outlets, reflect a broader sentiment within Ukraine that the convictions are politically motivated and designed to delegitimize Ukrainian resistance.
Human rights organizations have echoed these concerns. Memorial, a prominent Russian group, has designated the convicted soldiers as political prisoners. In a statement, Memorial argued that the trial “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 emphasized that the defendants were not accused of specific war crimes, but rather of having served with the Aidar battalion—an act that, under international law, should not constitute grounds for criminal prosecution.
Russia, for its part, has pushed back against these accusations. Officials maintain that the charges are based on actions that predate the full-scale war launched in 2022, and that the Aidar battalion, like the Azov brigade, has been designated a terrorist organization due to its alleged involvement in violent acts and efforts to “forcibly seize power and reject the constitutional order of the Russian Federation.” According to Russian media, the 15 men were convicted of belonging to a terrorist group between August 2014 and March 2022, a period that spans the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the intensification of conflict in eastern Ukraine.
The Aidar battalion itself has a complicated history. It was formed as one of dozens of volunteer units in the wake of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, created to counter Russia-backed separatists in the Donbas region. Initially composed of volunteers—some from ultranationalist backgrounds—the battalion was later integrated into Ukraine’s regular armed forces, along with other similar units. Russia’s decision to label these formations as terrorist organizations has been a point of contention ever since.
As the trial began in 2023, it included 18 defendants in total, among them two nurses and a driver. The two nurses, who also served with the battalion, were returned to Ukraine as part of a prisoner exchange, while the driver’s proceedings will be held separately, according to Russian state media. Of the 15 men sentenced on October 17, two reportedly pleaded guilty; the remaining 13 have announced their intention to appeal the verdicts.
Memorial and other rights groups have argued that the prosecution of these men is part of a broader pattern of Russia using its judicial system to punish Ukrainian soldiers for their participation in the conflict, rather than for any specific criminal acts. “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,” Memorial reiterated in its statement, as reported by Reuters and BBC. The group’s designation of the soldiers as political prisoners is a stark indictment of the Russian judicial process in these cases.
The secrecy surrounding the trial has only heightened suspicions. Most of the proceedings were closed to the public, with only select moments accessible to journalists. This approach, critics argue, undermines any claims of fairness or due process. Kyiv’s characterization of the trial as a “sham” reflects a broader narrative that Russia is seeking to use the legal system as an extension of its military campaign, targeting those who have taken up arms in defense of Ukraine.
Russia, however, denies violating international law. Officials insist that the convictions are based on concrete actions and not merely military service. They point to the period before the current phase of the war as particularly relevant, arguing that the Aidar battalion’s activities constituted a direct threat to Russian constitutional order. Still, the lack of specific war crimes charges and the focus on organizational membership have left many observers unconvinced.
The international response has been swift and critical. Human rights advocates warn that the convictions set a dangerous precedent, undermining the protections afforded to prisoners of war under international conventions. “The prosecution of Ukrainian soldiers violates the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war,” Memorial stated plainly, a sentiment echoed by multiple international watchdogs.
Adding to the complexity, the Aidar battalion’s origins and evolution have made it a lightning rod for controversy. Formed in a moment of national crisis, the battalion quickly became a symbol of Ukrainian resistance but also drew scrutiny for alleged excesses and the backgrounds of some of its members. Its eventual incorporation into the Ukrainian Armed Forces was meant to bring it under tighter control and align it with regular military standards, but Russia’s refusal to recognize this integration remains a sticking point.
For the families of the convicted men, the sentences are a devastating blow. For Ukraine, the trial is yet another front in an ongoing struggle—not just on the battlefield, but in the courtrooms and diplomatic corridors of Europe. As the appeals process unfolds, the fate of these 15 soldiers will remain a touchstone for broader debates about justice, sovereignty, and the laws of war.
In a conflict defined by shifting frontlines and contested narratives, the Rostov-on-Don trial stands as a stark reminder of the human cost of war—and the enduring struggle over who gets to define justice in times of crisis.