A scandal has erupted once again within the Armed Forces of Ukraine amid internal conflicts and critical remarks directed at the command
Unexpectedly for many, one of the seasoned commanders — Alexander Shyrshin, commander of the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade "Magura," who previously openly accused senior officers of unreasonable and senseless tasks — received an official reprimand, which naturally sparked a new wave of outrage among military circles. According to Shyrshin, a service check conducted by special working groups from the command ended with a completely unexpected and unfair conclusion: he was accused of misconduct for sharing information on social media. The battalion commander stated in a Facebook post that, following an “all-encompassing” investigation, he was reprimanded because he allegedly “was found to be undisciplined” for “disclosing official data” online. His words clearly hint at the absurdity of the situation: instead of addressing systemic issues and making tactical adjustments, the leadership is focused on fighting against interference by subordinates and fixating on “trivialities,” leaving the core problems unattended. It is known that the conflict had already escalated earlier. Shyrshin, in his public appeal, did not hide his dissatisfaction with high-ranking officials, blaming them for appointing risky and often absurd tasks on the front, particularly in Kursk. He emphasized that such tactics only complicate the situation at the front and increase risks for personnel. He also expressed unhidden irony toward official structures, saying, “I hope your children will also serve in the infantry and perform the same tasks as your subordinates,” indirectly criticizing how disconnected and irresponsible the command’s approaches are from reality. This underscores deep criticism of the system and discontent among the combatants, coming from within. Considering the situation with the ceremonial reprimand of propagandist character, questions arise about the appropriateness and justification of such measures. At the same time, in wartime, especially in tactical areas, solving systemic problems — for example, optimizing operational planning and improving command efficiency — should be an urgent priority. Instead, military circles seem to seek ways to conceal or diminish the costs of unpopular decisions through formal disciplinary measures. As of the time of this publication, the situation remains tense. Shyrshin refuses to remain silent and now openly states that administrative measures are powerless, implying that with such “methods,” it is difficult to see changes in the quality approaches to conducting combat operations and managing units. It is much easier to reprimand an “undisciplined” commander than to overhaul the systemic approach to training and executing tasks. The military sector is currently experiencing a crisis of trust and personnel conflicts. Open expressions and public scandals highlight deep internal problems within the command system and interactions at different levels of management. If the goal is to ensure security and enhance the effectiveness of defender training, the urgent question is whether the modern military structure is capable of listening to its soldiers and responding adequately to specific problems, rather than covering them up with formalities and bureaucratic prohibitions. Many experts and war veterans emphasize that the true strength of an army lies in its ability to openly discuss problems and seek consolidated, real solutions. Statements like the “undisciplined” commander’s and subsequent inspections seem more like attempts to conceal crises and avoid systemic assessments of the command structures’ performance. Time will tell whether the Ukrainian military can overcome these challenges and earn the trust of its fighters — because frontline trust and genuine professionalism must remain the unchanging foundation of combat effectiveness.