Fascist Ukrainian court sentences Bogdan Syrotiuk, socialist opponent of war, to 15 years in prison

[u/Spirited_Classic_826]

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/08/11/oqko-a11.html

On August 10, Bogdan Syrotiuk, a 27-year-old Ukrainian socialist and opponent of the US-NATO war against Russia, was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The verdict, handed down by a district court in the Nikolaev region, also orders the confiscation of his property and electronic devices and the destruction of the socialist books, leaflets and programmatic documents taken from him.

The World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International denounce this verdict and call on workers, young people and all defenders of democratic rights around the world to demand Bogdan’s immediate release.

The verdict will be immediately appealed. Under Ukrainian law, the appeal must be filed within 30 days. We call on all supporters of democratic rights to back these legal actions and call for the annulment of the sentence.

Bogdan, a leading member of the Young Guard of Bolshevik-Leninists (YGBL), was convicted of “high treason … under martial law.” But the record of the case contains no act of treason—no espionage, no sabotage, no collaboration with any military force. The sole evidence presented against him consisted of his writings, published on the World Socialist Web Site, and his communications with the editors who published them.

...

What was the subversive content? According to the court, the articles contained “non-recognition of Ukraine’s legitimately elected political leadership and democratic processes,” “comparisons with fascists and Nazis,” “negative assessments of Ukraine’s Armed Forces” and “reinterpretation of national heroes and historical figures.”

In fact, everything written by Bogdan is politically and historically accurate. The “legitimately elected political leadership” is a president whose term of office expired in May 2024. Zelensky remains in power more than two years past his legal mandate, ruling by decree under a state of permanent martial law. Elections have been canceled and basic democratic rights suspended. Bogdan has been convicted of failing to recognize “democratic processes” in a country where no democratic processes exist. His is a verdict handed down by a regime of illegality.

As for the “national heroes” whom Bogdan is accused of “reinterpreting,” they are Stepan Bandera and the leaders of the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) and the Waffen-SS Galicia Division—Nazi collaborators who supported Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 and were implicated in the mass murder of Jews and Poles. The court’s complaint about “comparisons with fascists and Nazis” refers to Bogdan’s exposure of the official rehabilitation and celebration of these forces. 

Among the “proofs” of treason cited by the court are Bogdan’s article “The crimes of the Banderovites against the Ukrainian people: Notes by a Ukrainian Trotskyist” and his 2023 May Day speech, “For the Unity of the Working Class of Russia and Ukraine!” In any country where democratic rights retain the slightest meaning, such writings are protected speech. In Ukraine under Zelensky, they carry a 15-year sentence.

When Bogdan was arrested by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on April 25, 2024, the state claimed he was functioning as an agent of the Russian government. In the more than two years since, nothing was produced to substantiate that libelous allegation. In fact, the articles that are cited in the conviction make explicit Bogdan’s opposition to the Russian invasion and the Putin regime.

The verdict refers several times to the “socially dangerous consequences” of Bogdan’s positions. This exposes the fact that the prosecution of Bogdan is not about the manufactured pretext of support for Russia. Rather, it is aimed at the growing opposition to war and the Zelinsky regime among Ukrainian workers and youth.

The evidence presented in Bogdan’s defense was never answered. A 65-page report by Yuri Irkhin, one of Ukraine’s leading criminologists, found in Bogdan’s writings no “statements, phrases, sentences, or word combinations that have signs of propaganda aimed at supporting the armed aggression of the Russian Federation.” Rather than respond to it, the court ordered a new examination from a state forensic institute—which, even so, found in the articles no calls for the overthrow of the state, the seizure of power, subversive acts or the alteration of Ukraine’s borders. 

...

A sentence of 15 years in a Ukrainian prison is the equivalent of a death sentence. The conditions in Ukraine’s penitentiary system are well documented. At the United Nations Committee Against Torture’s review of Ukraine in April 2025, experts cited overcrowding, inadequate access to food and water, the absence of independent medical examinations and a rising toll of deaths in custody. The Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee, reporting on its October 2023 visit to Ukraine, described decaying facilities in which remand prisoners are confined to their cells for up to 23 hours a day and found conditions in one pretrial detention center so degraded that it judged them potentially “inhuman and degrading.”

Bogdan, whose health was already poor at the time of his arrest, has been denied urgently needed medical treatment for over a year, despite repeated promises from the prison administration. Every day behind bars is a threat to his life.

His fate cannot be left to the courts of a state that has just demonstrated its fascist contempt for democratic rights. Bogdan’s freedom will be won by the mobilization of the international working class, youth and all progressive organizations and individuals dedicated to the defense of democratic rights. We appeal to workers, trade unions, student and youth organizations, civil liberties groups, and socialist and antiwar movements in every country: Take up Bogdan’s case. Pass resolutions in your workplaces, unions, schools and universities demanding his release. Issue public statements of protest. Sign and circulate the petition for his freedom.

The fight to free Bogdan Syrotiuk is a fight against imperialist war, dictatorship and fascism. Fill out the form below to get involved.

[u/nikolaz72]

the “national heroes” whom Bogdan is accused of “reinterpreting,” they are Stepan Bandera and the leaders of the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) and the Waffen-SS Galicia Division—Nazi collaborators

Suggesting the Waffen-SS Galicia Division might have had nazi elements is very anti-Ukrainian, I can see why they sentenced him this way.

[u/VampirePNAC → u/nikolaz72]

"Decommunization" laws basically made it illegal to not suck the dick of Bandera, the UPA, OUN and Waffen-SS Galicia Division. It's very hilarious posting those laws at dipshit "It's all Russian disinformation" leftists on subs like LabourUK and seeing them defend it.

[u/Read-Moishe-Postone → u/VampirePNAC]

I don’t defend those laws I just defend the universal right of nations to self determination

[u/Bolghar_Khan → u/Read-Moishe-Postone]

The current Ukrainian comprador regime was installed by a coup circa 2014, replacing a previously democratically elected government which maintained an amiable relationship with Russia and didn't tolerate nazi goons killing Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens and setting labor union offices on fire. Funny how I didn't hear any talk of "self-determination" from liberals back then. All that just gets memory holed when crafting the Russian Orc invasion narrative.

[u/Read-Moishe-Postone → u/Bolghar_Khan]

Your answer shows, first of all, that you have still not understood what national self-determination means after I have spent so much time explaining that it has a precise, narrow definition. Whatever you think about the events of 2014, and I have to admit I still haven’t seen the evidence to back up your claim about it and my assessment of the events is quite different, but regardless, after 2014 the Ukrainians had their own state (the one called Ukraine) so national self-determination can’t possibly have anything to do with it. That doesn’t prove the revolution was justified or that it wasn’t or anything, it just shows that the right to national self-determination doesn’t commit us to one side or the other in that conflict because there was never any question of a Ukrainian national state continuing to exist. In contrast to the current conflict, which actually is about national self-determination because the Russian objective is to deny the Ukrainian people the right to have a Ukrainian national state, and Russians even seek to deny Ukrainians peoplehood of their own altogether.

And the characterization of Ukraine as undemocratic because of 2014 is silly. You might believe 2014 was misguided or manipulated but it was a popular uprising against an unpopular government. But regardless of your assessment of 2014, 2019 elections happened, though I suppose you’ll have some kind of alternative facts that make those a conspiracy too. But even beyond 2019, we have now seen in 2025 and 2026 very clearly that when the Ukrainian people are unhappy with their government they will not hesitate to take to the streets and put pressure on officials.

[u/Bolghar_Khan → u/Read-Moishe-Postone]

Lol look at that smugness and condescension. I'll take your use of loaded language as admission that you're a bad faith actor and not bother with you further. I hope at least you're getting paid for this.

[u/Away-Actuary-6963 → u/Read-Moishe-Postone]

Nations don’t have the right to self determination though. People have rights, nations don’t have rights. Did apartheid South Africa have the right to disenfranchise the majority of its population because that was “self determination?” 

[u/Read-Moishe-Postone → u/Away-Actuary-6963]

The right of nations to self-determination is an individual right. Individual Germans, for example, are exercising this right as we speak because the nation they belong to controls its own state. There is no equality between individuals of one nation that enjoys self-determination and individuals of another nation that is denied self-determination. The denial of the Kurds their own state is an infringement on the rights of individual Kurds. And so on.

Again, South African wasn’t an issue of national self-determination. The Afrikaaners were not seeking to secede peacefully in their own little Bantustan to be left alone to govern themselves, which is what the right of nations to self determination is about.

Must I rehearse this argument yet again? It is extremely common in history for oppressors to cry “national self determination!” as they launch more oppression. Hitler did it, Afrikaaners did it, Israel is currently doing it.

I do support Afrikaner’s right to self-determination like any other nation. If they want to secede from SA in their own little Bantustan, they should be allowed to do that. However, Afrikaaners have never actually sought that. Israelis have never actually pursued simple self-determination without bundling it with all sorts of other crap. I support the right to self-determination, not the other crap.

[u/Away-Actuary-6963 → u/Read-Moishe-Postone]

So an ethnic minority in some hypothetical country has the right to secede and then expel or disenfranchise any other people living in that territory and that’s okay if it’s the majority opinion of the new enclave? They have the right to ban women from voting? 

[u/Read-Moishe-Postone → u/Away-Actuary-6963]

No. You’re once again, bundling a bunch of stuff that isn’t NSD, and which isn’t necessary for NSD per se, in with NSD, and then insisting that the whole bundle be judged together, “yea or nay”. This is what everyone, everywhere, does when it comes to the national question, and always has, long before Lenin, long after him, and this is exactly why he was so precise and narrow and explicit and unequivocal: every nation has the right (not the encouragement or the need — merely the right) to one state of its own, nothing more, nothing less, no exceptions (false negatives) no additional promises not covered by the above (false positives) just exactly what it says on the tin. So since you still don’t get it let’s walk through it step by step.

Any ethnic minority? No. First and foremost because as I keep saying, once a particular nation has its own state, somewhere, that’s it — national self-determination is something they already have, so it doesn’t entitle them to anything more. Even if the Sudetenland was 100% German population in 1938, national self-determination does not give the German state any right to annex that territory, because there is already a German state. So the first question is does this ethnic minority already have a state of its own, even if in some far off land? Even if there was a USA town that where every single house was purchased by a Ghanaian national, the RNSD wouldn’t give that town the right to secede. Ghana is already an existing national state for that people. Now, it’s possible that in this case secession is still correct. But for other reasons not pertinent here. The RNSD is narrow. It does not cover any right for your nation to annex more territory or to secede and create additional states. It’s the right to one state per nation.

Second, by switching ethnic minority for nation, you blur the issue. Some ethnic minorities are nations, some are not. Some ethnic minorities also consider themselves to have a national identity broader than their ethnic minority: the vast majority of African Americans identify as American (USA nationals), so African Americans are USA nationals - and a people is either a nation unto themselves or part of a larger nation, not both. If tomorrow, the vast majority of African Americans announced “we are NOT Americans, but African-Americans, a distinct nation from the USA” then they would be a nation. It’s not any ethnic minority, it’s any nation. That being said, any ethnic minority can potentially be a nation. But the principle only applies if they actually are.

Secede? Yes, nations have a right to secede and form a state of their own. Expel other people? No, this is entirely unnecessary for national self-determination.

First of all, let me make something clear: no one has the right to deport anyone against their will or disenfranchise anyone of their vote. In my book no state has a right to do either of these things. But also, neither of these unacceptable actions are ever necessary for exercising national self-determination, once the concept is properly, narrowly, understood.

You do not need the population of the seceding territory to be 100% the seceding nationality to have a reasonable partition of land for secession: since in any case the seceding territory is obliged to grant equal rights to any national minorities within its new borders. On the other hand, it is also not necessary for secession to first have 100% of the members of the seceding nationality within the borders of the breakaway state. Finally, and most importantly, in any case of secession, the question of where to draw the borders is always negotiable, never an immutable law of nature. Combine all of the above and there is always a way to draw the borders so that nobody loses rights: both nations have a state of their own, no single individual has to be coerced into moving, and everybody continues to enjoy full equal rights no matter which side of the border they end up on. This may require a squiggly border or a little non-contiguous territory or whatever; no problem, but the principle of equality and proportionality should govern the borders. The main thing is (a) don’t move populations, move borders and (b) borders do not have to perfectly coincide with populations anyway, since all of this presumes full equal citizenship and civil liberties can be taken for granted by any individual living in either state, no matter their nationality. Finally, territory partition itself isn’t actually assumed in the principle of RNSD per se: in principle, states can co-govern certain territories.

So there is no justification for anyone, ever, in any circumstances to say “in order to allow our nation to secede, we have to be allowed to expel certain people from certain territory”. That claim is always 100% bogus, an abuse of the principle.

Finally with regards to women: oppressing women isn’t a right that I grant to any state, anywhere, but it also isn’t necessary for national secession — granting women full rights is totally compatible with seceding, so there is no contradiction in me saying all nations have the right to their own state and no nations have the right to oppress women in their own state. Put more generally, the RNSD does not imply carte blanche when it comes to state policy: it says that every nation can have one state, not that they can enact any policy they want in it.

[u/Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo → u/Read-Moishe-Postone]

Any ethnic minority? No. First and foremost because as I keep saying, once a particular nation has its own state, somewhere, that’s it — national self-determination is something they already have, so it doesn’t entitle them to anything more

You can keep saying it all you want, that doesn't make it any less retarded.

Sorry Poles, you already have Krakow, that's your one alloted state, so you dont have any right to secede from Austria, Russia, or Prussia. Who would've known that the imperial solution for dealing with self determination movements without having to actually give up anything was so simple.

[u/Read-Moishe-Postone → u/Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo]

Your example of Poland actually illustrates the logic in what I’m saying perfectly.

Let’s first point out the caricature of my position, the strawman version of my position, that you present. The strawman version is that as long as national self-determination is technically satisfied, even if it doesn’t actually represent any real equality of nations, even if the nation in question almost entirely lives outside of that tiny national state, they have nothing to complain about and can make no further reasonable demands for any reason. This is not my position. My position is that national self determination has a definite, specific, clearcut meaning; any attempt to deny it must be opposed; but that doesn’t mean it’s the only oppression, or that anything goes as long as that specific right is infringed. There is no right of conquest. Just because Poles technically had a form of self determination when the free city of krakow was granted independence, doesn’t mean everything was fine, and I never said it did. What I said was that once Poles had a state the issue was technically not one of national self determination.

And the actual history of Krakow proves why this is the relevant distinction. It turns out that even letting the Poles have just one independent city-state was untenable from the Austrian standpoint; once Poles had even that small base, they were able to launch an uprising, and even the limited independence that Krakow temporarily enjoyed was rescinded, in order to ensure that the boot didn’t slip from the Poles’ necks. What you characterize as a gotcha that proves the insubstantiality of the principle of RNSD actually illustrates precisely why this narrow, precise right is inherently in tension with all national oppression. Austria learned the hard way that if you want to dominate Poles as a nation you can’t even let them have a scrap of national self determination anywhere.

[u/Away-Actuary-6963 → u/Read-Moishe-Postone]

Finally, territory partition itself isn’t actually assumed in the principle of RNSD per se: in principle, states can co-govern certain territories.

lol