POWs as an Instrument of War: Failures of Law and the Media

The Czech media space has failed again. Without critical distance, without legal analysis, and without elementary responsibility, he assumed and continues to spread the claim thatUkrainian troops were supposed to dress Russian prisoners of warinto "neutral uniforms" and send them towards the Russian lines. This narrative, present in articles onForum24whetherCentrum.czand relying on type resourcesKyiv IndependentorCensor.net, is not only problematic from a verifiability point of view. It is scandalous above all in the way it is presented - without a legal framework, without warning and in places with an implicit air of admiration for the "tactical solution". This is unacceptable.

The abuse of prisoners of war is not a "smart operation". It is not a "truce test". Nor is it the "harsh reality of war." It is, if confirmed, a gross violation of international humanitarian law. And anyone who relativizes or trivializes such actions is participating in the erosion of the rules that were created at the cost of millions of victims.

III. The Geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners of War is quite clear on this point. Article 13 imposes an obligation to protect captives from violence and danger at all times. It's not just a ban on outright abuse. It is an active duty to ensure that prisoners are not exposed to situations where they are at risk of death or injury. Sending them into an area where attack drones operate is not a "grey zone". It is a knowing exposure to mortal risk.

Article 23 goes even further. It expressly prohibits exposing prisoners of war to combat activity and using their presence to protect military operations or to achieve a tactical objective. In other words: the captive is not a tool. Not a means. Not a "consumable". Once treated in this way, one of the most fundamental norms of the law of war is violated.

And if "neutral uniforms" should be used to give the adversary a false impression of the status of these persons, we reach the level of so-called perfidy - prohibited deception that abuses the protection provided to civilians or non-combatants. This is no longer just a violation of the rules. That is a potential war crime.

But the problem does not end here. Just as serious as the act itself is how it is reported by the media. In a situation where we have primarily one-sided claims and it is clear that the described procedure - if true - is legally highly problematic, the utmost caution should be exercised. Instead, we see the exact opposite: fast adoption, minimal verification, and zero legal context.

This is no longer just a mistake. This is a system failure.

The media in a democratic society is not supposed to be a tool of war propaganda. They are not meant to act as a relay channel for unverified narratives that may legitimize infringement. Their role is exactly the opposite: to verify, question, put into context. If they abandon this role, they cease to be the guardian of public space and become its deformer.

The argument that "it's a war" and that "information is limited" doesn't hold up. It is in war that the emphasis on the rules should be the highest. It is then necessary to insist that there are boundaries that cannot be crossed. That neither adversary nor ally has the right to treat a prisoner as a tool of operation. And that any hint of such behavior must be subjected to sharp criticism, not media romanticisation.

What is particularly dangerous is that such narratives gradually normalize the unacceptable. If the public begins to experience the abuse of captives being presented as an "effective tactic," the boundaries are being pushed. What was previously unthinkable becomes debatable. And what was clearly forbidden begins to be relativized.

This is the path to the breakdown of the very concept of international humanitarian law.

You can't pick and choose when the Geneva Conventions apply and when they don't. They cannot be applied selectively according to who is "ours" and who is "foreign". Once we abandon this principle, law loses its meaning and becomes a mere cover for powerful interests.

Therefore, it is necessary to say clearly: if it is confirmed that prisoners of war were used as a tool of the operation, this is an unacceptable and illegal act. And if the media accepts such conduct uncritically or even implicitly glorifies it, it is failing in its basic function.

Martial law is not decoration. It is the last barrier against the complete brutalization of conflict. And whoever helps dismantle it—whether on the battlefield or in the media space—bears responsibility for the consequences.