In a major war, victory is built on thousands of decisions, actions and people. Some hold the front line, command military units or develop new weapons systems. Others provide what even the strongest armed forces cannot do without if they are to fight effectively over a prolonged period: discipline, command and control, coordination, law and order, and the ability to respond rapidly to new challenges.
Modern warfare is a system in which every element performs its own function. If one element fails, the entire structure is weakened. One such element is the Military Law Enforcement Service of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (MLES), a specialised military law enforcement body within the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Its work rarely attracts public attention. It is usually mentioned only in connection with isolated high-profile incidents. In reality, however, the responsibilities of the MLES are far broader. They encompass functions that directly affect the combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces: maintaining military law and order, carrying out combat missions, returning service personnel to duty, conducting stabilisation measures in liberated territories, recovering military property, and documenting information that may later serve as evidence of international crimes.
This approach is by no means unique to Ukraine. Virtually every modern military maintains its own military law enforcement structure, which in most cases is also vested with investigative powers. In the United States, these functions are performed by the Military Police Corps; in the United Kingdom, by the Royal Military Police; in Germany, by the Feldjäger (the Bundeswehr Military Police); in the Netherlands, by the Koninklijke Marechaussee (Royal Military Constabulary); in Poland, by the Żandarmeria Wojskowa (Military Gendarmerie); in France, by the Gendarmerie nationale (National Gendarmerie); and in Italy, by the Arma dei Carabinieri (Carabinieri Corps).
Following the restoration of its independence, Ukraine inherited from the Soviet Union a system of military justice that included military tribunals (courts), the military prosecutor's office and other specialised institutions. Over the following years, this system was gradually dismantled. In 2010, regrettably, the military courts were abolished, while criminal justice reforms altered the powers of other military institutions. Throughout this period, the future of military justice remained the subject of ongoing professional debate.
An important element of this transformation was the establishment of the Military Law Enforcement Service of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2002. At that time, its principal responsibilities included maintaining military discipline, preventing offences, conducting patrols, carrying out inquiries into military offences, safeguarding military property and assisting commanders in maintaining good order within military units. These functions reflected the needs of a military operating in peacetime.
The true value of any institution, however, is revealed by the challenges it faces. For the Military Law Enforcement Service, as for the Armed Forces of Ukraine as a whole, that defining challenge was Russia's aggression against Ukraine.
Following the outbreak of the war in 2014, the Ukrainian Armed Forces began adapting to a fundamentally new reality. The military expanded rapidly, while its approaches to training, command and coordination evolved accordingly. Combat experience required long-established practices across virtually every aspect of military service to be reconsidered. Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022 accelerated these changes even further. Within a short period, the size of the Armed Forces increased several-fold. New military units were formed, new weapons systems were introduced, new methods of warfare emerged, and the Armed Forces encountered challenges that had previously been unknown. The Military Law Enforcement Service had to evolve alongside the military itself. It was confronted with tasks that would have been difficult to foresee only a few years earlier: managing the continuous movement of hundreds of thousands of service personnel and military equipment, operating in frontline and liberated territories, securing critical military facilities, locating missing service personnel, cooperating with other law enforcement agencies, and responding to crises in the context of a large-scale war.
It soon became evident that the Military Law Enforcement Service could no longer remain an institution associated solely with control or punishment. The war demanded a different approach: helping the Armed Forces preserve their operational effectiveness. This meant not only responding to violations but also understanding their underlying causes, preventing them wherever possible, and developing solutions that would enable the military to remain resilient and combat-ready.
Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the MLES special operations units have been carrying out combat missions directly in areas of active hostilities, operating alongside other components of the Defence Forces of Ukraine. They take part in defensive and special operations, protect strategically important military facilities, conduct search and evacuation missions, and perform other tasks that are often critical to maintaining the resilience of the defence on particular sectors of the front.
One of the earliest such tests was the defence of Vasylkiv during the first days of the full-scale invasion. It was there that MLES special operations personnel, together with other Defence Forces units, defended the military airfield, the capture of which would have enabled the enemy to deploy airborne assault forces for a further advance towards Kyiv. Under constant missile attacks, they held designated defensive positions, ensured the protection of the runway so that tactical aircraft could continue carrying out combat missions, and located and evacuated a Ukrainian pilot who had ejected from his aircraft despite intense enemy fire. This episode became one of the first demonstrations that MLES special operations units were capable of successfully carrying out some of the most demanding combat tasks alongside other units of the Defence Forces of Ukraine.
Another of the clearest examples of the Service's systemic transformation has been its work with service personnel who had left their military units without authorisation.
Unauthorised abandonment of a military unit has always constituted a serious military offence. It undermines the combat effectiveness of military units, places an additional burden on fellow service personnel, and can have severe consequences during combat operations. At the same time, the full-scale war demonstrated that identical legal classifications may conceal profoundly different personal circumstances. Prolonged combat operations without rotation, physical and psychological exhaustion, the inability to obtain leave in a timely manner, difficult family circumstances, or conflicts within military units frequently became the factors that drove service personnel to make such a decision.
None of these circumstances removes legal responsibility. However, they raised a different question for the State: can it always afford to lose a trained and experienced soldier if there is a realistic opportunity to return that person to military service?
For this reason, the Military Law Enforcement Service began developing a mechanism aimed not only at locating such service personnel but also at facilitating their return to duty. This involved establishing the reasons for leaving a military unit, restoring the necessary documentation, identifying units prepared to accept the individual concerned, and providing support throughout the entire process.
In the course of analysing the reasons behind unauthorised abandonment, the MLES established that one of the most common causes was the prolonged absence of leave or the inability to obtain it even in urgent family or personal circumstances. These findings became one of the factors that drew attention to the problem and were subsequently taken into account during the further improvement of legislation, particularly with regard to guaranteeing service personnel the right to leave.
It also became clear that merely restoring an individual to the personnel register was insufficient. A returning service member had to be placed under the command of an officer willing to understand the circumstances that had led to the previous situation, help rebuild trust within the unit, provide the necessary preparation, and create conditions that would prevent similar situations from recurring. In many cases, this also meant helping service personnel resolve family or social difficulties or enabling them to take long-overdue leave.
This approach proved to be not only humane but also pragmatic. It enabled the Armed Forces to retain personnel who already possessed valuable combat experience and remained capable of performing demanding operational tasks.
The effectiveness of this model was demonstrated by concrete examples. In one sector of the Donetsk region, service personnel who had returned after unauthorised abandonment were retrained and assigned to combat missions alongside an MLES special operations unit. Over the course of several weeks, they participated in the defence of a populated area. During one engagement, two of them not only held their positions but also evacuated a wounded MLES special operator from the battlefield, administered first aid, and ultimately saved his life. There have been many similar cases.
This experience does not diminish the seriousness of unauthorised abandonment. Rather, it demonstrates that a formal legal classification does not always provide a complete understanding of an individual's circumstances, motivations or potential. Given appropriate conditions, many such service personnel are capable of returning to military service, performing their duties conscientiously, and once again becoming effective members of combat units.
The experience gained in addressing unauthorised abandonment became only one example of how the war reshaped the very philosophy of the Military Law Enforcement Service. Increasingly, its work shifted from reacting to consequences to preventing problems, and from exercising formal control to developing solutions that strengthen the Armed Forces' operational effectiveness. Against this background, the restoration of investigative powers appears to be one logical step in that evolution.
The same adaptive approach has also come to define the Service's broader institutional development.
After 2024, one of the principal priorities in the development of the Military Law Enforcement Service became the restructuring of its organisational model. The primary measure of success was no longer the number of units or the formal discharge of prescribed functions. Instead, emphasis shifted to practical results: how rapidly the Service could respond to new challenges and how effectively its work contributed to the successful accomplishment of combat missions. This approach made it possible to develop new capabilities quickly wherever they were genuinely required.
One example is the Scorpion Rapid Response Unit. Full-scale war means that hundreds of thousands of people are exposed to exceptionally demanding combat experiences. Most of them seek to return to civilian life after completing their military service. The State must therefore be prepared for crisis situations involving service personnel who have experienced combat, sustained injuries, or are suffering acute psychological distress and require a specialised approach. In such circumstances, standard law enforcement skills alone may be insufficient. Effective responses require an understanding of military service, combat experience, psychological trauma, and conflict de-escalation techniques.
A recent incident at a military hospital clearly illustrated this need. One service member threatened to use hand grenades. Situations of this kind require the utmost restraint and professionalism. They cannot be resolved effectively through force alone. It is essential to understand the psychology of a person who has experienced war and to reduce tensions in a manner that prevents tragedy.
The establishment of specialised units of this kind represents a proactive approach. It does not imply that veterans or service personnel pose an increased threat. Rather, it reflects the responsibility of the State to develop professional mechanisms capable of responding to the exceptional situations in which an individual requires specialised assistance or a tailored approach.
Equally significant changes have taken place in the Service's day-to-day activities.
One example is the way in which the Military Traffic Safety Inspectorate ensures the safe and efficient movement of military forces. More recently, it has been integrated with the patrol service into joint mobile teams. This decision has enhanced the safety of inspectors themselves, made patrol operations more mobile, and improved the overall effectiveness of operational tasks.
The Military Law Enforcement Service has adopted a similar approach in other areas of its work. Its units have uncovered schemes designed to evade military service, including the use of forged documents, fraudulent medical certificates, and fabricated grounds for discharge or deferment from service. Their work did not end with referring materials to law enforcement authorities. Drawing on the experience gained, the Service developed practical recommendations enabling Territorial Centres of Recruitment and Social Support and other military authorities to identify such violations at an earlier stage.
At the same time, the realities of war have once again demonstrated that effective military law enforcement depends not only on the powers vested in a particular institution but also on its ability to cooperate closely with other agencies. This is particularly true in the military sphere, where success depends upon well-coordinated interaction between the Armed Forces and civilian law enforcement bodies.
The Military Law Enforcement Service operates within the military environment and possesses a thorough understanding of its specific characteristics. At the same time, it is not vested with the full range of procedural powers necessary to conduct operational-search activities or pre-trial investigations. Consequently, many of its tasks are carried out in cooperation with the National Police of Ukraine, the State Bureau of Investigation, and other public authorities.
There are numerous examples demonstrating the effectiveness of such cooperation. One recent case concerned the murder of the Moseichuk brothers, in which members of the 155th Brigade, deployed in an operational area, came under suspicion. Information obtained by the Military Law Enforcement Service helped establish the circumstances of the crime and identify the location where the victims' bodies had been concealed. Following the transfer of the relevant materials to the National Police, arrests were carried out, the bodies were exhumed, and other necessary procedural measures were undertaken.
Cooperation is organised according to the same principles in other areas of the Service's work, including the recovery of lost military property. During intensive combat operations, weapons, ammunition, military equipment and other property may be lost, damaged or unlawfully appropriated. The Military Law Enforcement Service identifies such cases, establishes the relevant circumstances, and works together with other competent authorities to prevent the illicit circulation of military property and restore it to lawful use.
Another major challenge brought about by the full-scale war has been maintaining law and order in liberated territories.
Following the cessation of hostilities, civilian authorities cannot resume their work immediately. There is always a transitional period during which public order must be maintained, local communities engaged, security threats addressed, and conditions created for the return of State institutions.
Ukraine experienced precisely this after the liberation of the Kyiv and Kherson regions, as well as other territories. While civilian authorities were only beginning to restore their operations, the Military Law Enforcement Service was already maintaining law and order, supporting military commanders, and helping establish the conditions necessary for the return of State institutions.
This experience was further developed during the Kursk operation, where MLES personnel also carried out stabilisation tasks in areas under the control of the Defence Forces of Ukraine, including ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law. Once again, this demonstrated that modern warfare requires a specialised military law enforcement institution capable of operating not only in the rear but also directly in combat zones and in territories immediately after they come under the control of friendly forces.
Comparable functions have long been performed by military gendarmerie forces and military police organisations in many countries. Ukraine's experience has only reinforced the need to further develop this capability.
Perhaps the most significant innovation brought about by the full-scale war, however, has been the documentation of information relating to violations of the law of armed conflict (battlefield evidence). Modern warfare generates an enormous volume of potential evidence: physical evidence, satellite imagery, drone footage, electronic media, documents, munition fragments and numerous other materials. Military personnel are almost always the first to gain access to such evidence. Investigators are not always able to operate directly in combat areas without delay, yet soldiers should not be expected to assume the role of investigators.
For this reason, the Military Law Enforcement Service is developing a system that enables service personnel to identify potentially significant information, record it correctly at the initial stage, preserve it, and transfer it to law enforcement authorities. The objective is not to impose additional responsibilities on military personnel but to establish simple procedures that prevent potentially valuable evidence from being lost while allowing service members to remain focused on their combat missions.
For Ukraine, this has strategic importance. Investigations into international crimes will continue for many years, but their outcome depends upon decisions taken today. Evidence lost on the battlefield cannot be reconstructed tomorrow.
The Military Law Enforcement Service's comprehensive experience is attracting increasing interest from Ukraine's international partners. An important role in developing these capabilities is played by the 25th Training Centre of the Military Law Enforcement Service. The Centre not only trains MLES personnel but also promotes international cooperation and introduces modern training standards. It has become a NATO Partnership Training and Education Centre (PTEC), while Ukrainian instructors are already delivering courses in English for representatives of partner countries.
This is a clear illustration of how Ukraine's role has changed. Whereas in the past Ukraine primarily learned from international experience, today it is increasingly sharing its own. Most NATO member states developed their military law enforcement institutions during peace support or expeditionary operations. Ukraine, by contrast, is adapting them to the realities of a high-intensity war characterised by the large-scale use of unmanned systems, precision weapons, digital technologies and constantly evolving tactics. For this reason, Ukraine's experience has already become of considerable practical interest to its partners.
The experience of the full-scale war has also fundamentally reshaped the discussion about the future of military law enforcement in Ukraine. In practice, the Military Law Enforcement Service already performs a significant proportion of the functions that, in many countries, are entrusted to military police forces. At the same time, its statutory powers do not always correspond to the responsibilities it actually carries out.
This does not mean that its powers should be expanded at any cost. Any reform must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards to ensure legality, professional training, effective oversight and respect for human rights. What the war has demonstrated, however, is that the institutional foundations of a modern military police service already exist in Ukraine.
The issue, therefore, is not the creation of a new institution or a change of name, but rather the further development of one that has already demonstrated its effectiveness. A logical continuation of this process would be legislative amendments empowering the Military Law Enforcement Service to conduct pre-trial investigations into certain military criminal offences, including unauthorised abandonment of a military unit, desertion and other offences directly related to military service. These are areas in which the Service is already substantially involved in practice. They are also powers that the Military Law Enforcement Service exercised prior to 2012, before they were removed as one of the elements that weakened Ukraine's military justice system during the period of Russia's hybrid aggression against Ukraine.
Over the past two years, it has not only been the Military Law Enforcement Service that has changed. The very understanding of its role has evolved. None of these developments arose from abstract theoretical concepts or from a desire to imitate foreign models. They were dictated by the realities of war itself.
Today, the Military Law Enforcement Service is far more than an institution responsible for maintaining discipline. It helps preserve the Armed Forces' effectiveness, ensures military law and order, contributes to the stabilisation of liberated territories, cooperates closely with other law enforcement agencies, and plays an important role in laying the foundations for future justice.
Ultimately, the strength of a State is measured not only by the quantity of its weapons or the success of individual military operations. It also depends on its ability to build institutions that learn, adapt rapidly and develop effective responses to new challenges. It is precisely such institutions that strengthen the Armed Forces during wartime and lay the foundations for security and the rule of law once the war has ended.