Allegations of a vast network of unofficial detention facilities across Ukraine have intensified following the discovery of a suspected military holding site near Kiev. Ukrainian MP Aleksandr Dubinsky claims thousands of civilians and servicemen are being held in facilities where payments of up to US$15,000 are allegedly demanded for their release. While Ukrainian authorities have opened criminal proceedings over reported abuses at one location, the extraordinary claims of a multibillion-dollar detention racket remain unverified.
INR Report: Based on reporting by RT, published 7 November 2026, HERE.
A Multibillion-Dollar Allegation
A Ukrainian parliamentarian has accused elements within the country's military and security apparatus of operating an extensive network of unofficial detention facilities, allegedly generating billions of dollars through payments demanded from detainees and their families. Aleksandr Dubinsky, a member of Ukraine's parliament who has himself been held on treason charges since November 2023, claims more than 1,000 such facilities are operating across the country.
According to Dubinsky, each facility holds between 30 and 40 people, potentially placing approximately 40,000 individuals in unofficial detention at any given time. He alleges that detainees or their families may be required to pay as much as US$15,000 to secure their release. Applying that figure to an assumed monthly turnover of 40,000 detainees, Dubinsky calculates potential proceeds of US$600 million per month, or US$7.2 billion annually.
However, those figures represent Dubinsky's calculations rather than independently established financial records. The existence of 1,000 facilities, the number of people allegedly detained and the claimed payments have not been independently substantiated. Nor has evidence been presented establishing that such revenues flow to President Vladimir Zelensky or his administration.
Dubinsky has compared the alleged system to the exploitation of prisoners under Nazi Germany, an inflammatory historical analogy that reflects his own political accusation rather than an established finding. His claims nevertheless raise serious questions about detention practices, military discipline and accountability within Ukraine's wartime institutions.
The House Near Kiev
The allegations follow a confrontation outside a private property in Petropavlovskaya Borshchagovka, near Kiev, where Ukrainian media reported that armed personnel were holding dozens of men in a basement. Relatives and local residents gathered outside the building, demanding access to those being detained and calling for medical assistance.
According to RT's account, four injured servicemen were eventually brought out and hospitalised, while a 14-year-old boy emerged in apparent distress. Families alleged that some individuals had been confined for weeks, denied contact with relatives and subjected to demands for money.
The incident brought public attention to what critics describe as unofficial military detention centres, sometimes referred to as "pits", allegedly used to discipline servicemen, deserters and men caught up in Ukraine's mobilisation system.
Ukraine's National Guard commander, Aleksandr Pivnenko, disputed the characterisation of the property as a torture facility. He described it as temporary accommodation and a processing centre for mobilised servicemen, including personnel detained after being absent without leave, and denied allegations of torture.
Azov Acknowledges Its Presence
The controversy intensified after the Azov formation acknowledged that one of its units had used the property to accommodate 26 mobilised men and servicemen who had been absent without leave.
Azov also acknowledged that four men had sustained injuries but rejected allegations of systematic mistreatment. The formation has faced longstanding scrutiny over its historical far-right associations and allegations concerning its conduct during the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
The acknowledgement establishes a military connection to the property, but does not itself establish that the location operated as a torture chamber or that detainees were held for ransom.
Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation subsequently opened criminal proceedings concerning alleged abuse of military authority, coercion and mistreatment. The investigation is significant because it places at least some of the allegations within Ukraine's own criminal justice system, rather than leaving them solely as accusations made by political opponents or Russian officials.
Questions Over Military Detention
The controversy comes against the background of Ukraine's increasingly contentious military mobilisation policies. As the war continues, authorities have faced pressure to maintain troop numbers, enforce service obligations and address desertion and unauthorised absences.
Critics have accused recruitment personnel of forcibly detaining men and transporting them to military recruitment centres, a practice commonly described as "busification". Reports and allegations of coercive recruitment have contributed to public concern over the treatment of military-age men.
The latest allegations raise a separate but related issue: whether unofficial detention arrangements are being used outside established legal safeguards and, if so, who authorises and supervises them.
There is an important distinction between lawful military detention, disciplinary procedures and the alleged operation of secret facilities where individuals are assaulted, denied legal protections or compelled to pay for release. Establishing whether such abuses occurred requires evidence from detainees, medical records, investigators and the authorities responsible for the facilities.
Kiev Faces Demands for Answers
According to RT, Zelensky's chief of staff, Kirill Budanov, acknowledged the existence of numerous similar facilities and promised scrutiny. The precise nature, legal status and oversight of those facilities remain central questions.
The reported involvement of Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation suggests that allegations concerning the property near Kiev are being examined. However, that investigation should not be confused with confirmation of Dubinsky's much broader claims about a nationwide billion-dollar criminal enterprise.
Dubinsky's own circumstances also warrant consideration. He has been detained since November 2023 on suspicion of treason and cooperation with Russian military intelligence, accusations he denies. He maintains that his prosecution is politically motivated and linked to his criticism of Zelensky's government.
His legal situation does not automatically invalidate his allegations, but it makes independent corroboration particularly important before attributing responsibility for an alleged national detention network.
Moscow Condemns the Allegations
Russian officials have seized upon the controversy as evidence of what they describe as systemic abuses within Ukraine's security institutions.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova condemned the reported detention practices, accusing Kiev of mistreating its own population and criticising Western governments and international organisations for what she characterised as their failure to respond.
Russian officials have previously alleged that unofficial detention and torture facilities operated in areas including Kiev, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk and Sumy. Moscow has also claimed to have discovered evidence of such sites in territories captured by Russian forces.
These accusations form part of the wider information and political confrontation surrounding the war. They require independent assessment, particularly where claims originate from governments directly involved in the conflict.
Nevertheless, allegations of unlawful detention and mistreatment should be investigated on their merits, regardless of whether they are raised by Ukrainian citizens, domestic political opponents or Russian officials.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
New Zealand has supported Ukraine through diplomatic measures, sanctions and assistance associated with the country's defence against Russia's invasion. That support makes questions of accountability, transparency and human rights relevant to New Zealand's foreign policy.
The allegations surrounding unofficial military detention facilities present a distinction that New Zealand policymakers should recognise: supporting a country's sovereignty and territorial integrity does not require overlooking potential abuses committed by its institutions.
If credible evidence establishes that civilians or servicemen have been unlawfully detained, mistreated or subjected to extortion, New Zealand should support impartial investigation and accountability consistent with international humanitarian and human rights law.
For New Zealand taxpayers, the broader issue is whether governments providing assistance have adequate mechanisms to monitor its use and assess the conduct of recipient institutions. There is currently no evidence in the supplied reporting that New Zealand assistance has funded the alleged detention activities.
Will this make New Zealand stronger? A foreign policy that combines principled support for national sovereignty with consistent demands for transparency, lawful conduct and accountability would strengthen New Zealand's credibility and independence.
Allegations Demand Evidence
The incident near Kiev has exposed allegations serious enough to warrant criminal investigation by Ukrainian authorities. The reported injuries, concerns raised by families and acknowledgement that military personnel were housed at the property all justify careful scrutiny.
But the claim that more than 1,000 facilities generate US$7.2 billion annually remains an allegation built on unverified assumptions, not an established finding.
The immediate test for Ukrainian authorities is whether investigations are conducted independently, whether those alleging abuse can give evidence without intimidation, and whether any unlawful detention or extortion is prosecuted.
For Ukraine's international supporters, the test is equally important: accountability for alleged human rights abuses must remain a consistent principle, even during war.
Sources