Russia’s full-scale armed aggression against Ukraine has brought to the forefront the issue of striking a balance between a strict criminal policy toward military personnel and adherence to the principles of justice, proportionality, and humanity. This problem has become particularly acute in the area of liability for military criminal offenses—such as unauthorized absence from a military unit, desertion, and failure to obey orders. 

Law No. 2839-IX of December 13, 2022, amended Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter—the Criminal Code of Ukraine), as a result of which courts lost the ability to:

• impose a lighter sentence than that provided for by the article;

• grant probation
  for a number of military criminal offenses, in particular those provided for in Articles 403, 405, 407, 408, and 429 of the CC of Ukraine. 

It was expected that such a “strict” model would strengthen military discipline and reduce the number of offenses. However, statistics show the opposite: the number of criminal proceedings under the relevant articles has not decreased but continues to rise. This means that the preventive goal of the previous amendments has not actually been achieved, and the mechanism for individualizing punishment has proven to be overly restrictive. 

The human dimension is also emphasized: a significant portion of service members who left their units without authorization wish to return to service, but the current provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine do not allow the court to take into account the specific circumstances and motivations behind such behavior. 

Purpose and Concept of Draft Law No. 14213

Bill No. 14213 aims to restore the courts’ ability to tailor sentences for military personnel who have committed certain military criminal offenses, — taking into account their personal characteristics, the circumstances of the offense, the degree of danger to society, and mitigating circumstances. 

The key objectives of the bill can be summarized as follows:

• To enable the consideration of mitigating circumstances and the actual conditions of service (including extreme psychological and physical stress in a combat zone) when imposing penalties under Articles 403, 405, 407, 408, and 429 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

• To restore the court’s right, in exceptional cases, to impose a lighter sentence than that provided by law, or to grant probation.

• Humanize criminal legislation regarding military offenses without undermining military discipline—this is not about impunity, but about the ability to respond flexibly to individual situations. 

At the same time, the bill does not abolish disciplinary liability nor does it establish grounds for unconditional exemption from liability for military personnel—it merely seeks to expand the scope of judicial discretion where justified by the circumstances of the case. 

Amendments to Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

The current version of Part 1 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine contains a list of exceptions under which a court may not impose a principal punishment below the lowest limit of the penalty range or impose a more lenient form of punishment. Following the 2022 amendments, these exceptions included, in particular, military criminal offenses under Articles 403, 405, 407, 408, and 429 committed under martial law or in a combat situation. 

Bill No. 14213 proposes to remove the reference to Articles 403, 405, 407, 408, and 429 from this list. As a result:

• military criminal offenses provided for by the aforementioned articles will no longer be exceptions to the general rule governing the application of Article 69;

• the court will once again have the right, in the presence of mitigating circumstances that significantly reduce the severity of the offense, to impose a more lenient punishment on a military servicemember than that provided for by the statutory penalty.

It is important to note that other restrictions under Article 69 remain in effect:

• the impossibility of mitigating punishment for criminal offenses involving corruption and offenses related to corruption;

• the preservation of exceptions regarding crimes against peace, the security of humanity, and the international legal order (Articles 437–439, 442, and 442-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine);

• a specific prohibition on mitigating punishment for torture committed by a state official. 

Thus, the draft law does not extend the possibility of a more lenient punishment to the most serious forms of criminal offenses, which serves as an important safeguard for maintaining strict accountability.

Amendments to Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

A similar logic underlies the amendments to Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Currently, Part 1 of this article sets forth a list of cases in which a court is not authorized to release a person from serving their sentence on probation. This list includes, among other things, military criminal offenses under Articles 403, 405, 407, 408, and 429 committed under martial law or in a combat situation. 

The bill removes references to these articles from the list of such exceptions. Once the amendments are adopted, a court will be able, if the grounds provided for in Article 75 are met, to issue a decision exempting a military servicemember from serving a sentence with probation. 

However:

• the prohibition on applying probation in cases involving criminal corruption offenses remains in effect;

• the exception regarding violations of traffic safety rules while intoxicated remains in effect;

• as well as for torture, as provided for in Part 3 of Article 127 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. 

Thus, this is not a universal “mitigation” of liability, but rather a restoration of the court’s ability, in specific, well-founded cases, to apply probation in lieu of actual imprisonment.

Balancing Military Discipline and Humanitarian Considerations

The proposed changes are not intended to weaken military discipline as such. Disciplinary liability remains in place, and criminal liability for military offenses continues to exist. The aim is simply to give courts the ability to respond in a differentiated manner, based on the specific circumstances of each case. 

Thus, the bill implements the idea of preserving the inevitability of accountability while allowing courts to avoid “automatic” imposition of the most severe sanctions in cases where this clearly does not correspond to the degree of guilt and the circumstances.

Also noteworthy is the emphasis on preserving the human and personnel resources of the Armed Forces of Ukraine; the reinstatement of service members who committed offenses due to extreme conditions, but who are willing to continue performing their duties is viewed as a socially desirable outcome, provided it does not threaten the safety of others or the state’s defense capability. 

Conclusions

Bill No. 14213 of November 14, 2025, proposes targeted but conceptually important amendments to Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. They do not undermine the system of criminal liability for military personnel nor do they create a “special regime of leniency” for the military, but rather restore to the courts the tools that are standard in a democratic state governed by the rule of law—individualized sentencing, consideration of mitigating circumstances, and the possibility of probation. 

Against the backdrop of war and extraordinary challenges facing the defense sector, these changes appear to be an attempt to strike a more balanced approach between the interests of national defense, disciplinary requirements, and human rights. The final answer to the question of these amendments’ effectiveness will depend on judicial practice—on how responsibly and reasonably the courts use the tools provided to them. However, it is already clear that the bill restores room for justice—and not merely for repression—within the sphere of military criminal justice.