Issues with Awards in the Armed Forces of Ukraine

The first issue revolves around what has been described as a 'zoo of badges', where each battalion, brigade, corps, and regional command has its own unique set of awards. Over the past four years of war, many branches of the military have changed their insignia three times, often coinciding with the arrival of a new commander. In some instances, brigades create multiple awards simultaneously, distributing them among personnel, while at times commanders purchase badges from public organizations, which are then issued under their own signature.

This situation regarding awards arises because military headquarters are reluctant to submit official nominations for state awards. This reluctance is due to the fact that preparing such documents requires time and effort: it involves gathering data, submitting it for consideration, and tracking its subsequent fate. It is much simpler to create a personal award, such as the 'Cross of the Patriot' or 'For Loyal Service' in three degrees, and distribute them at one's discretion.

All these badges are valued only by those who issue them and carry neither weight nor status. They cannot be affixed to uniforms or used for ceremonial photographs. This scrap metal occupies space that could be reserved for genuine state awards, for which documentation was never completed. Each commander seeks to have their own award system; some do this due to the sluggishness of the official system, while most do it to satisfy their own ego. As a result, soldiers receive props that they are hesitant to display for fear of being ridiculed.

The second issue lies in the confusion surrounding the official award system. Awards can be conferred by the Commander-in-Chief, the Minister of Defense, and the President, but there are no clear documents outlining the specific criteria for which awards should be granted. No one knows what contribution warrants the 'For Exemplary Service' from the Minister of Defense, and what merits the 'For Diligent Service' from the Commander-in-Chief. It remains unclear what actions deserve a 'Knight's Cross' versus an 'Iron Cross'.

For instance, awards such as the 'Cross of Valor', 'Cross of Honor', 'Golden Trident', 'Defender of Ukraine', and 'For Military Valor' are all given for 'beneficial service activities'. The Minister of Defense has crosses for each branch of the military, and they also come in three degrees. If all these awards were gathered together, one could create a rather impressive uniform, reminiscent of a North Korean general. However, the presence of each award does not clarify the reasons for its issuance. The grounds for receiving these awards are described very generally, and the criteria for awarding them are not defined. All of this occurs 'by eye'.

The sheer number of awards diminishes their quality. Awards do not convey any information about their owner, and the ambiguity surrounding the grounds for awarding them casts doubt on the contributions of those who receive them. Of course, one might argue that in wartime, this is not the right time for such concerns, but in reality, the situation is quite the opposite.

This text has been published with the author's permission.