Archpriest Yaroslav Kruhlenko. Unlawful Mobilization
Archpriest Yaroslav Kruhlenko, rector of the Alexander Nevsky UOC Church, Kyiv.
February 24, 2026
🔴 On February 24, 2026, at approximately 5:00 PM in Kyiv, personnel of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRC) detained Archpriest Yaroslav Kruhlenko, rector of the Alexander Nevsky UOC Church.
The clergyman was stopped on Polyarna Street, near the Leroy Merlin store. After his detention, he was taken to the TRC at 26 Iordanska Street, where he was held without the ability to contact his family.
Later, according to available information, Archpriest Yaroslav was transferred to the Darnytsia district of the capital. No contact with the clergyman was possible until midnight.
At approximately 00:00, Father Yaroslav was briefly able to contact his wife and reported that he was to be sent to Dnipropetrovsk during the night.
As of February 26, his relatives had no information regarding his whereabouts or condition.
The family emphasized that there had been no further contact with the priest since that last call.
🔴Current Status
The current whereabouts and status of the clergyman remain unknown.
(Source: UOJ)
The situation contains signs of procedural violations by TRC and police officers, and also reflects the restricted legal status of the clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) in Ukraine as of May 2026. Below is a structured legal analysis of the incident from the perspective of current legislation. Legality of detention and transfer to the TRC The forced detention of a citizen (“busification”) and his transportation to the TRC by the staff of the recruitment center itself is unlawful. According to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization,” and the Procedure for Conscription of Citizens (Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560), TRC employees do not have the authority to administratively detain or forcibly transport citizens. Only the National Police of Ukraine has the authority to forcibly bring a citizen to the TRC, and only if the person is officially wanted for violating military registration rules (listed in the “Oberih” / “Arsenal” databases). Legal conclusion: If the clergyman was detained directly by TRC representatives without police involvement and without a formal administrative detention protocol, such actions qualify as unlawful deprivation of liberty under Article 146 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. ________________________________________ The issue of deferment or reservation rights, where the UOC faces discrimination (as of May 2026) Ukraine has a system for reserving clergy liable for military service, but in practice it does not apply to the clergy of the UOC. Position of the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (DESS): In May 2026, DESS officially clarified that UOC religious organizations are not included in the list of critically important institutions that grant the right to employee reservation. Official reason for denial of reservation: The UOC allegedly failed to comply with the requirements of the controversial Law of Ukraine No. 2662-VIII “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations” concerning the change of its official name (due to ties with a governing center located in an aggressor state), adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on December 20, 2018, as part of the pressure campaign against the UOC during the presidency of Petro Poroshenko. In practice, this controversial legislative act — whose legality continues to be challenged by the UOC and legal experts — effectively forces the Church to change its legally registered 1990 name into a form containing a reference to Russia. For seven years, the UOC has refused to comply with this requirement, viewing it as a violation of freedom of conscience and the principle of separation of church and state. This gives the authorities formal grounds to claim that, due to the absence of the prescribed amendments to the statutes of UOC communities and structures, these statutes have partially lost legal force, which in turn may block the inclusion of UOC organizations in the state reservation system through the “Diia” platform. This effectively constitutes a form of religious discrimination given an appearance of legal legitimacy. Legal conclusion: From the perspective of the TRC within Ukraine’s current distorted legal environment, this clergyman did not possess legal immunity (reservation/deferment) from mobilization on general grounds unless he had other civilian exemptions (disability, three children, etc.). At the same time, current Ukrainian legislation guarantees citizens the right not to perform military service or bear arms on grounds of conscience (for religious reasons), providing for alternative non-military service. However, in practice, the implementation of this right is significantly restricted. While other denominations (most officially registered religious groups) have been offered mechanisms to avoid front-line deployment and military service through reservation procedures, the UOC — the country’s largest denomination — has effectively been excluded from such opportunities. This demonstrates a clear discriminatory approach and a form of pressure against believers.
2.The fact of holding a citizen on the territory of a TRC
From a legal standpoint, the forced detention of a person on the territory of a TRC for several days without a court decision, without police involvement, and without proper procedural documentation constitutes unlawful deprivation of liberty.
TRC employees are not vested with the authority to administratively detain citizens, hold them under guard, or restrict their freedom of movement. Such powers may be exercised exclusively by authorized law enforcement agencies and only in the manner expressly provided by law.
If a person was effectively unable to freely leave the territory of the TRC and was held against his will, such actions fall under the elements of a criminal offense предусмотренного Article 146 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — unlawful deprivation of liberty or kidnapping.
Additionally, the actions of officials may contain elements of abuse of official authority (Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), and in cases involving violence, other criminal offenses as well.