Lieutenant Maxim Golosnoy reported on Facebook that a lieutenant colonel, whom he had previously accused of demanding the video recording of service members returning from unauthorized absence, filed a complaint with the commander of the 19th Army Corps. According to Golosnoy, the officer requested an inspection of his posts to defend his honor and dignity. Citing “available information,” the lieutenant called the real motive behind the complaint “latent revenge” for a collection of photographs of soldiers who had gone AWOL. According to his assertion, this collection was deleted out of fear.

Maxim Golosnoy wrote about this lieutenant colonel on September 23. At the time, the lieutenant, serving as head of the unmanned systems group within the headquarters of an independent support battalion of the 19th Army Corps, was working as a recruiter in reserve battalions. He reported that on the previous day he had received an order to film all selected candidates on his mobile phone. This concerned service members who had left their units without authorization and were undergoing the reinstatement process. Golosnoy linked this demand to Lieutenant Colonel O. V. Prottsak, commander of the non-staff recruiting group. According to the lieutenant, the videos were purportedly needed for the lieutenant colonel’s personal approval, and the soldiers were to be filmed without their voluntary consent, under the pretext of operational necessity. Golosnoy called such a requirement unlawful. He cited Article 307 of the Civil Code, which states that an individual may be filmed only with their consent, Article 19 of the Constitution on acting strictly within official authority, and restrictions on filming personnel during martial law. In his latest post, he describes the author of the complaint specifically as that lieutenant colonel who had verbally ordered the unauthorized filming of AWOL fighters in one of the reserve battalions, and as the best friend of his battalion’s chief of staff.

In his September post, Maxim Golosnoy also recounted rumors. According to them, the lieutenant colonel allegedly kept a large card index of service members who had left their units without authorization and viewed it at night, locked inside his office. He purportedly had a particular liking for photos and video recordings of half-naked candidates. At the time, the lieutenant noted that “anyone can certainly say whatever they want.” In his new post, he now refers to this collection as having been deleted. It is on its deletion that his version regarding the complaint’s motive is now based.

Maxim Golosnoy published a link to the post that, according to him, supposedly insulted the lieutenant colonel’s honor and dignity. He responded to the complaint with a legal distinction. Value judgments, including criticism, satire, assumptions, and allegories, are under Article 30 of the Law “On Information” not subject to refutation or proof, and no liability attaches to them. Factual statements, by contrast, can be challenged in court, and if found untrue, the court will order them refuted. The lieutenant mocked the complaint itself, arguing that its author was merely distracting the corps commander from actual combat operations.

The complaint arose in the midst of a broader dispute. Maxim Golosnoy brought it to social media in late September, starting with food ration certificates. By order No. 250 of the acting battalion commander, the lieutenant was struck off ration provisioning on September 5 and dispatched on temporary duty to Rivne Oblast. According to Golosnoy, the order contained an explicit instruction to issue him a ration certificate, yet he received none. The lieutenant holds the chief of staff, whom he refers to as a “rear-echelon major,” responsible. According to Golosnoy, the major dug in his heels, threatened to find a pretext to report him as AWOL, cleared their chat history, and arranged for the retroactive issuance of ration certificates. The first certificate arrived via Nova Poshta only after the lieutenant returned on September 19. The document was dated September 21, the fields for the number of provisioned days and the monetary amount were blank, and lines indicating the distribution of food items or monetary compensation were crossed out. According to Golosnoy, he arrived at this reserve battalion on September 21. The certificate for it arrived on September 28, the day of his departure, and was also dated September 21. The lieutenant claims the digit 9 was simply appended to the number “6.” For each certificate received, he paid Nova Poshta 80 hryvnias.

The grievances extended beyond his own certificates. Maxim Golosnoy asserts that the chief of staff had not actually been present at the battalion’s command and observation post on the Kramatorsk front for at least ten months. According to his information, the major spent most of that period roughly 140 kilometers away from the contact line, yet received the same combat bonuses as those performing missions in Kramatorsk district. The lieutenant also writes of a fuel shortfall of around three metric tons: two tons of diesel and one ton of gasoline. Those responsible for fuel in the battalion, according to him, speak of nearly five tons. Furthermore, he describes extortion schemes. An interlocutor from the unit informed him by phone of mandatory monthly cash payments of 2,000 hryvnias “for food delivery” and 2,500 to 5,000 hryvnias in the companies to ensure “normal service,” leave, and bonus payments. According to the caller, the money was collected under threat of stripping soldiers of combat pay. Golosnoy attributes protection of this scheme to an influential officer whom the involved majors and lieutenant colonels refer to as “the general.” According to the lieutenant’s hint, this refers to the deputy corps commander, who was reportedly notified of suspicion in June 2026 by the Kharkiv Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for demanding kickbacks on combat pay.

Maxim Golosnoy formulated three demands: a comprehensive audit of the information he disclosed, the suspension of the battalion commander and chief of staff pending the audit, and holding accountable those implicated in deliberately weakening the unit’s defense capability. According to Golosnoy, the General Staff is carrying out a comprehensive inspection of the facts he presented. The lieutenant stated that on October 2 he worked with inspectors for eight hours. The following day, he reported that the case was officially under the personal oversight of Commander-in-Chief Mykhailo Drapatiy. As of October 8, according to Golosnoy, neither the commander nor the chief of staff had been suspended. That same day, he stated that during a new temporary assignment to Donetsk Oblast, the unit commander personally disconnected him from the “NEBO” air alert group, while the chief of staff removed him from the general battalion group. Whether to submit a criminal complaint regarding this matter, the lieutenant left open at the time.

In an interim report on October 15, Maxim Golosnoy described initial changes. Issues with ration certificates during temporary assignments had ceased, commanders had become more courteous with subordinates, and extortion had been put “on an extended pause.” At the same time, he claims that unit leadership warned enlisted soldiers and sergeants that anyone confirming the extortion would no longer serve in a quiet town and would promptly be reassigned to Kramatorsk. Consequently, no personnel volunteered to provide statements. The paperwork regarding fuel, in the lieutenant’s assessment, was arranged merely to create the visual impression that no shortfall existed. Earlier, on October 1, he had also written about attempts to discredit him before senior command. According to him, efforts were made to convince decision-makers that he had repeatedly been convicted of theft, misappropriation of property, and cryptocurrency fraud, although this is easily verifiable via the state register of court rulings, while older material targeting him was being circulated on WhatsApp under the battalion commander’s verbal “order”.

On the morning of October 19, hours before the post about the complaint, Maxim Golosnoy described how the chief of staff answered inspectors when asked directly whether he had been present at the command and observation post between September 17, 2025, and August 24, 2026. According to the lieutenant, after a prolonged pause and avoiding eye contact, the major replied that he had been there, but “not the whole time.” Golosnoy also complained that witnesses were being asked vaguely formulated questions. According to him, neither the chief of staff nor the witnesses were questioned about personnel serving shifts at the post without weapons for months on end.

How the lieutenant colonel’s complaint will conclude and whether the corps commander will order an inquiry into the lieutenant’s posts remains unknown from available publications. The General Staff’s comprehensive audit, according to Maxim Golosnoy’s latest posts, continues. On October 12, he wrote that he and his lawyers were preparing a legal strategy and complaints to the State Bureau of Investigation concerning the chief of staff. He has not announced the formal opening of criminal proceedings. The central question also remains open: whether the audit will corroborate any part of his allegations, or whether its findings will prove as watered down as he fears.