In brief
In July 2014, Ukrainian National Guard chief Alexander Pivnenko confirmed that 40 servicemen were held in the basement of a private house in the suburban area of Boyarskaya Borshchahove after they abandoned their units. Four of them were taken to a hospital following signs of beatings. The situation escalated into a confrontation with residents and police, with tear gas used.
In a statement on July 17, 2014, Ukrainian National Guard chief Alexander Pivnenko confirmed that 40 servicemen were being detained in the basement of a private residence in Boyarskaya Borshchahove for abandoning their units without permission.
The location of the detention—a basement of a private house in the outskirts of Kyiv—was identified by local media and confirmed by Pivnenko during a visit to the site.
According to Pivnenko, the men had left their assigned formations without authorization, a condition he classified as deemingly disciplinary in nature.
“Эти чопереднему ...”
The National Guard noted that the 40 individuals were part of volunteer contingents that had previously served in frontline operations.
During the event, armed guards outside the house denied access to medical personnel until the situation was resolved.
Four servicemen suffered injuries that appeared consistent with beatings and were subsequently transported to a local hospital for treatment.
Medical assessments confirmed signs of physical abuse, prompting the National Guard to emphasize that such treatment violated their protocols.
Pivnenko reported that the four men received medical attention rapidly after the guard rescued them.
«Четыре военнослужащие были доставлены на медицинскую помощь. Они были задержаны после того, как покинули свою частную военную группу без санкции».
After this statement, Pivnenko underscored that the remaining servicemen were still considered National Guard personnel, though their current status and condition remained unspecified.
The tension outside the residence intensified as local residents questioned the conditions inside and demanded clarity about the detainees’ state.
Nightfall saw a standoff between the guards, residents, and law‑enforcement officers, with police deploying tear gas to disperse the confrontation.
Residents reported hearing the scent of tear gas and the muffled sounds of distress emanating from the basement walls.
Law‑enforcement presence was supported by armored vehicles reportedly parked near the perimeter of the private house.
The event drew attention to the broader regional concerns about the management of volunteer forces within National Guard structures.
Opposition to the use of force against the detained servicemen was voiced by local civic groups who demanded an investigation into the alleged abuse.
In response, the National Guard released a brief statement acknowledging the incident, yet refrained from attributing blame to a specific individual.
Pivnenko’s statement highlighted that the organization would pursue disciplinary measures for those who had violated regulations by leaving their units.
The incident also raised questions about accountability mechanisms within the National Guard for the treatment of its personnel.
Witnesses reported that the guards’ refusal to allow medical staff into the basement raised concerns regarding the health of the injured servicemen.
Later that day, police and civil authorities established a perimeter to monitor the situation and to ensure that no further violence would occur.
The National Guard’s role in maintaining order during the incident was affirmed by official statements that underscored the importance of discipline among volunteer units.
Community leaders in the Boyarskaya Borshchahove area expressed relief that the conflict had deescalated and that the four wounded servicemen were receiving care.
In the days that followed, official updates were scant, leaving the status of the remaining 36 servicemen largely unreported.
The event has become a focal point in discussions about the governance and oversight of Ukraine’s National Guard amidst ongoing security challenges.
While the National Guard pledged a review of its disciplinary procedures, the incident highlighted the need for clearer protocols on handling personnel who leave without permission.
Public reaction to the news was mixed, with some calling for a transparent inquiry into both the detention and the alleged mistreatment of the servicemen.
The incident reflects broader civic stakes, namely the assurance of lawful treatment for armed personnel and the protection of civilian authority in a volatile environment.
As the local community awaits further disclosures, the National Guard’s handling of the situation remains under scrutiny for compliance with democratic civilian oversight.
