Ukraine has come close to another revision of the rules for the reservation of conscripts. The government explains the preparation of the changes as necessary to counter abuse and ensure defense needs, while businesses fear the loss of specialists and further delays in confirming criticality. For workers, the main question is whether the postponement that has already been issued will be preserved, and for employers, whether there will be an opportunity to plan production and fulfill contracts.
As of October 22, verified publications describe the project, which is still being finalized; it was not possible to find the final officially published text of the new resolution during the preparation of the material. According to the Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Economic Development, Dmytro Kysilevskyi, the government plans to complete the adoption of the resolution by the end of the week. At the same time, one of the most controversial norms has already been removed from the project, and the final decision on industry quotas remains open. This is reported by "Interfax-Ukraine".
The available information allows you to assess the direction of changes and identify potential risk groups. However, it does not yet give reasons to name the professions or categories of citizens who are guaranteed to have their reservations or personal deferrals canceled. In this analysis, the Experts Club distinguishes between the current rules, the provisions of previous versions of the government project and individual legislative proposals. Such a distinction is necessary because in the public debate these issues are often combined into one reform.
Reservations and other grounds for postponement have different mechanisms. The reservation is related to work in an authority, institution or enterprise that has the relevant right. Family, educational or other personal grounds are determined by law and depend on the circumstances of a particular person. Changing the employer's quota and changing the right of the father of a disabled child to deferment require different legal analysis. The basis remains the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization", and the reservation procedure is regulated by Cabinet Resolution No. 76.
Accordingly, it is necessary to distinguish between three consequences: cancellation of the current reservation, refusal of its subsequent registration and termination of the right to another postponement. They may have different dates and reasons. The notification about the possible reduction of the limit does not yet explain what exactly the consequence will be for the already booked employee. This should be addressed by final regulations and transitional provisions, not assumptions based on headlines.
The October discussion is developing around the document, which, according to media reports, was approved with revisions on October 13. This explains the simultaneous appearance of news about "approved changes" and reports about the future approval of updated rules. The revision changes the content of individual provisions, so the early presentation of the project cannot automatically be considered the final course of action. This circumstance is reflected, in particular, in the updated overview of 7eminar.
The most noticeable clarification concerns employees who already have a deferral for another reason. Previously, it was proposed not to include them in the number from which the company calculates the reservation quota. According to Kisylevsky's last report, this norm was abandoned. It could reduce the number of places available to other workers even without formally changing the quota percentage itself. The mechanism is easily explained by a conditional calculation. If 100 conscripts are taken into account to determine the quota, the 50% limit gives 50 places. If 20 people with other deferrals are excluded from this number, the base will be 80, and the number of seats will be 40. At a constant percentage, the possibility of booking will be reduced by ten people, or by a fifth. This is an example of supply-side arithmetic, not an estimate of the actual reduction in bookings in the economy.
For people with personal deferrals, the proposed exemption had a different meaning: it affected the calculation of the employer's quota, without in itself removing their legal right. The negative consequences of such an approach were analyzed by NASK, which recommended removing the relevant provision. Therefore, its waiver reduces one of the risks for employers, but does not answer the question of future industry limits. The agency's conclusion is published on the official website of the NAZK.
The return of these workers to the calculation base also does not mean the cancellation of the previously introduced restriction on multiple counting of one person. The Ministry of Economy explained back in June: an employee, in particular a part-time employee or a person with another deferment, is taken into account for the formation of a quota for only one workplace. Therefore, the rejection of the new October offer does not return the ability to simultaneously increase the quotas of several companies through the same employee.
The greatest uncertainty remains around reservations in the defense industry, energy and utilities. Early publications about the project talked about a possible reduction of the limit from 100% to 85% for the relevant categories of defense and energy enterprises. A reduction from 75% to 60% was discussed for water utilities, heat supply and waste management.
The arithmetic consequences of these two changes are different. Going from 100 to 85 places for every 100 registered conscripts would mean a 15% reduction. The reduction from 75 to 60 seats is also 15 percentage points, but it is already 20% of the original number of available seats. At the same time, such calculations characterize the capacity of the quota. They do not prove either the immediate cancellation of the corresponding share of reservations, or the future number of those mobilized. When evaluating quotas, it should be taken into account that they are applied to the number of conscripts determined by the rules, and not mechanically to the entire staff. Some employees may have other reasons for postponement, and the company may have special reservation conditions. Therefore, the total number of company employees cannot be multiplied by a new percentage without additional data and the result presented as the number of people who will lose protection from mobilization.
For defense production, the impact of personnel changes is also not limited to the number of jobs. The conditional loss of one specialist in setting up equipment or quality control can delay the work of several production sites. It depends on the technology, the possibility of replacement and the training of personnel. Therefore, the same reduction of the quota can have different consequences for enterprises of the same size, if the scarce competences are distributed in them differently.
For the energy industry and utilities, the composition and availability of repair teams are of similar importance. It is advisable to estimate the need for reservations, taking into account variability, emergency departures, staff reservation and simultaneous work at several facilities. Under this approach, the state needs information about the functions of employees and the minimum capacity of the enterprise to provide the service. The very name of the industry is not enough for this.
The media also described a compromise option: to keep a full reservation for people directly involved in the production of weapons, repairs and infrastructure maintenance, and to cover the support staff with quotas. However, as of the date of analysis, there is no confirmed final list of positions for such division. It would be premature to publish a statement about the already decided cancellation of accountants, lawyers, human resources or administrative workers.
The very division into main and support staff requires caution. A non-machine worker may be responsible for component procurement, software development, mandatory safety procedures, or product shipment. To assess his role, it is necessary to establish how his absence will affect the company's performance. Automatically equating all non-productive positions to redundant would create the risk of erroneous decisions. A more specific mechanism of possible cancellation is related to the employer's loss of criticality. On the Diya portal, it is clearly stated: in case of loss or termination of the status of a critical enterprise, the reservation of its employees is automatically canceled. This is an already existing mechanism through which the future revision of the criteria can affect specific people.
Therefore, the first risk group is the employees of companies who, after a proper revision, will lose grounds for criticism. The second - employees of enterprises that will not be able to confirm compliance with the applicable requirements within the established period. The third is people for whom there will not be enough places if the limit is reduced. These are different situations: one is related to the status of the employer, the other is related to the fulfillment of requirements, the third is related to the amount of allowed booking. They require separate transition rules.
While there is no final document, the answer to the question of how exactly the reduced quota will affect already made reservations has not been determined. It is possible to apply new limits to subsequent applications, to preserve previously issued deferrals until the end of the term, or to apply a special procedure for bringing their number into compliance. These scenarios are analytical options. None of them can be mistaken for a government decision.
Here it is important to distinguish between the preservation of criticality and the immutability of all subsequent decisions. A notice that current statuses will not be automatically revoked after a resolution is passed does not necessarily preclude their subsequent due process review. At the same time, the mere appearance of new criteria does not yet confirm the loss of status by a specific enterprise. The date of application of the criteria, conditions of revaluation and the decision of the authorized body will be of practical importance.
Another central element of the project is the Coordinating Center for organizing reservations under the Cabinet of Ministers. According to Kisilevsky's latest explanation, he will check the validity of the criteria of the central executive authorities and local administrations and will be able to recommend their revision. Final decisions will be left to the relevant authorities. This significantly narrows the previously described role of the center, when its recommendations were actually considered as a necessary link in solving the issues of enterprises.
The real powers of the new body should be assessed based on the wording of the resolution. A recommendation that the authority can take into account and a mandatory consent have different effects on the procedure. Response times, the procedure for exchanging documents, and the consequences of inaction will also be important. If it is impossible to complete the review without a response from the center, even a formally advisory status does not eliminate the risk of delays.
NASK in its conclusion to the previous project drew attention to the insufficient definition of procedures, terms and grounds for decisions. For the company, these issues have direct personnel implications: uncertainty about the duration of the review makes it difficult to plan the next reservation. Corrections to comments should be evaluated against the final text. The very fact of the notification of revision does not yet prove that all procedural problems have been eliminated.
Analytical centers, including the Center for Economic Strategy, CASE Ukraine and the Institute of Economic Research and Political Consultations, in an appeal dated October 16, raised the issue of deadlines, transparency and guarantees during the cancellation of criticality. They also offered a 90-day grace period for current bookings. This is the position of the authors of the appeal, and not the deadline already established by the state. From the point of view of the quality of regulation, a procedure is needed that allows you to check the validity of criticality and at the same time explains to the enterprise what exactly is being questioned. Access to the reasons for the decision, the possibility to submit confirmation and a clear appeal procedure reduce the risk of errors. They also give the government the ability to distinguish violations from technical discrepancies in reporting or changes in business circumstances.
Some of the news about the upcoming restrictions actually refers to previously implemented requirements. In particular, the clarification of the Ministry of Economy dated June 2 refers to the salary criterion at the level of three minimum salaries — UAH 25,941 — for the relevant categories of enterprises and employees. A separate threshold of 2.5 times the minimum wage is provided for certain front-line enterprises. The procedure contains exceptions, so the total amount cannot be applied equally to all employers.
These requirements should not be presented as a new decision from October 22. Similarly, the average salary of the enterprise should not be confused with the salary of a specific employee: these are different indicators of compliance. The Ministry of Economy explained the issue of remuneration, taking part-time workers into account and preliminary confirmation of criticality in a separate official material. A review of the applicable rules and exceptions is required in a specific situation.
The previous stage of status reconfirmation is also not the same as the October reform. "Diya" reported back in August that enterprises with decisions submitted by June 2, which have not updated the criticality, can book employees only until September 1. For those who passed the required confirmation, the relevant rules for maintaining their status were in effect. This explains why problems with the extension of reservations may arise even without the new October resolution.
The European Business Association, in a statement dated October 12, recalled that enterprises recently underwent re-registration of criticality according to resolutions No. 692 and No. 862. The association called for new proposals to be published, consultations to be held and impact assessments to be carried out. This position reflects concern about the frequency of regulatory changes and possible personnel losses, rather than establishing the legal content of the future regulation.
The economic problem of frequent revisions is to change the conditions of already adopted decisions. The company could increase the official wage fund, hire people, agree on delivery dates or invest in equipment, counting on the current rules. The new requirements may be justified, but the enterprise needs time to adapt. Its duration should be related to the complexity of document preparation and personnel replacement.
In the application dated October 20, the EBA separately linked the reservation issue with tax revenues, production processes and supply chains. The association proposed to involve business in the preparation of decisions and to ensure transparent consideration of appeals by enterprises. This is the argumentation of employers' representatives, which must be compared with the needs of defense and the results of inspections.
To assess the state effect, it is not enough to count the number of canceled reservations. It is important to establish how many people are then eligible for mobilization, how many have other legal deferments, and what production losses can be expected. It is also necessary to take into account the possibility of replacing employees. Without such data, any projection of the scale of troop deployments or economic damage will remain speculative.
According to the Experts Club, the verification of enterprises should be based on actual performance indicators suitable for the relevant industry. These can be fulfilled orders, volume of services, production load, and a confirmed connection of employee functions with the result of activity. At the same time, the indicators must be selected in such a way as not to equate a temporary stop after shelling, readjustment of production or repair of equipment to fictitious work.
For a new defense production and a serial plant, the normal production cycle may differ. Similarly, the repair company performs the work unevenly, depending on accidents and orders. Therefore, a short evaluation period or one universal indicator can distort the conclusion. Prevention of abuse requires the ability to verify the circumstances, as well as responsibility for inaccurate information on the basis of which the reservation is provided.
The main proposed norms of the government draft of changes to the rules for the reservation of conscripts
Questions | What early publications about the project predicted | What is known as of October 22 |
|---|---|---|
Employees who have another deferment | Do not take them into account in the number from which the reservation quota is calculated | This the norm has been withdrawn, according to Kysilevsky's message |
Reservations in defense industry and energy | For the relevant categories of enterprises, reduce the limit from 100% to 85% | No final decision on sectoral quotas |
Heat supply, water supply, waste management | Reduce the quota from 75% to 60% | The issue remains under discussion |
Coordinating Center under the Cabinet of Ministers | A significant impact on granting criticality, increased limits and cancellation of statuses was expected | The center is planned to be preserved; according to the latest explanation, it will evaluate the criteria and make recommendations, and the decisions will be left to the ministries and administrations |
Criticality of enterprises already provided | Early versions raised concerns about re-examination and lack of transitional guarantees | According to the revision notices, automatic cancellation of all current statuses is not foreseen; this remains to be verified against the final text |
A separate direction is family deferments. On October 10, the Ukrainian Center for the Protection of Human Rights reported receiving legislative proposals from the Office of the Military Ombudsman. According to his report, these are prepared proposals, and the current reasons for the postponement are preserved. They are not an approved part of the decree on quotas.
For parents of children with disabilities under the age of 18, it is proposed to link the postponement with the absence of other persons obliged to raise the child, or with raising two minor children, one of whom has a disability. Similar additional conditions apply to parents of seriously ill children without disabilities. For spouses of persons with disabilities of groups I–II, and in cases specified by law, also of group III, — a care requirement; for persons who have parents or parents of spouses with disabilities of groups I–II — permanent care. For caregivers of sick relatives and guardians of incapacitated persons — restrictions due to the presence of other caregivers or guardians. The strengthening of conditions for second-degree relatives and the removal of a separate basis for third-degree relatives are also described. A family member may live elsewhere, have their own health limitations, work or raise children. This does not mean an automatic right to deferment in every case. However, when preparing the rules, it is necessary to determine what circumstances are taken into account and how they are supported so that the requirement remains feasible.
Care can also vary in scope. Treatment support, daily help at home and constant presence require different time and organization. If the legislator decides to change the relevant grounds, the definition of these conditions will have practical implications for families. Ambiguity can transfer the entire burden of finding out the circumstances to the applicant or create different practices of applying the same rule.
Evaluation of the consequences for children requires special attention. Limiting one parent's deferment may increase the burden on the other family member and the need for social services. The possible effect will depend on the child's condition, availability of treatment, rehabilitation and community support. Therefore, the analysis of such an initiative must include an assessment of these needs, and not be limited to the calculation of the number of people who will potentially lose the deferment.
The statutory right due to one's own disability and the right related to the state of health of a relative must also be considered separately. Family circumstances and care are discussed in the suggestions outlined. There is no reason to transfer them to all people with disabilities or to conclude that this category of deferments should be canceled. Likewise, there is no proven basis to claim that the relevant family restrictions are already in place during the October extension of deferrals.
Another layer of information is calls for a large-scale dismissal of doctors, scientists, police officers and officials. In particular, Maryana Bezugla publicly suggested leaving the reservation to a limited circle of employees of the defense industry, critical infrastructure, and top officials, and also advocated the de-reservation of universities, institutes, and doctors.
A public statement by a people's deputy can start a discussion or precede a legislative initiative. However, there are separate stages between the application, the registered project and the current norm. In order to notify the future cancellation of a specific category, it is necessary to establish which document it involves, who has the authority to approve it and when it will be applied. The mere presence of a category in the political list is not enough for such a conclusion.
For educators and scientists, the legal basis for the postponement of a specific person is also important. It can be provided by law subject to compliance with the established conditions, and not depend on the reservation due to the criticality of the institution. Academic degree, job title or the fact of working at a university by themselves do not replace verification of these conditions. Accordingly, changing the employer's status and revising the personal statutory guarantee require separate decisions and explanations. Students, postgraduates and parents of many children also need to evaluate their own basis, not just the company's quota notice. The withdrawn October norm referred to their possible consideration in the calculation, without establishing the automatic termination of the deferment. So far, there is no confirmation of a general cancellation of educational or multiple-child deferments within the scope of this resolution. This does not cancel the need to comply with the current legal conditions.
At the same time as the discussion about the reform, another automatic extension of personal deferrals continues. The Ministry of Defense announced on October 17 that more than 90% of the current deferrals can be extended without reapplying, and the process will continue until October 30. The right is checked according to the data of state registers. This is an important characteristic of the current administrative procedure, which is not proof of either approval or final rejection of the discussed changes.
In the explanation of the Ministry of Defense, it is said about the possibility of continuation if the relevant grounds are preserved. Therefore, a share of more than 90% does not mean an unconditional guarantee for each person or an automatic disqualification for the rest of the applicants. It describes the possibilities of checking valid deferrals through registries. Incomplete data, change of circumstances and lack of legal basis are different situations with different consequences.
If the system did not automatically confirm the data, you need to find out the reason. The Ministry of Defense in the explanation of the operation of deferrals in "Reserve+" describes the cases when it is necessary to re-apply through TsNAP. The mere technical non-continuation does not establish that the statutory guarantee has been cancelled. At the same time, the presence of documents in a person does not replace checking the actual postponement in the prescribed manner.
For an employee, the closest practical task is to specify the term of his own reservation and the decision on which it is based. For the employer, check the validity of the criticality, the applicable quota and data on labor relations. If a person has another legal basis, it is worth checking its registration separately. This approach allows you to assess the real situation without relying on assumptions about what the final resolution will look like.
It is also advisable for enterprises to determine which functions are indispensable in the short term and how much time it will take to prepare a replacement. This should be a working assessment of production needs with documentary evidence, and not just a division of positions into desirable and undesirable for reduction. Such data are useful for justifying staffing and planning continuity of work regardless of the final size of the quota.
The quality of the new rules will be determined not only by percentages. It will be important whether the criteria are made public before their application, whether there is sufficient time for the preparation of documents, and whether the fate of existing reservations has been settled. Separately, it is necessary to assess how the errors of the registers will be corrected and how the enterprise will receive a reasoned decision. It is these provisions that will make it possible to translate the general announcement of the reform into an understandable course of action.
During the control, it is worth comparing employment data with real activity, but take into account normal staff changes. An increase in the number of employees may accompany the launch of a new line or an increase in orders. Reduced output may be the result of capacity damage. Each such situation needs to be checked, because one external sign without context does not give a reliable conclusion about the validity of the reservation.
Proposed changes to the mobilization legislation as of October 22, 2026
Category | What change is proposed |
|---|---|
Parents of children with disabilities up to 18 years old | Additional conditions regarding the absence of other persons obliged to raise a child or raising two minor children | colspan="1" rowspan="1">
Spouses of persons with disabilities of the III group in cases provided for by law | Additional requirement to provide care |
Persons who have parents or spouses with disabilities of groups I-II | Requirement for constant care |
Caregivers of sick family members | Condition of the absence of other persons who can provide care |
Relatives of the second and third degrees of kinship | Strengthening of conditions for the second degree; removal of a separate ground for the third |
Guardians of persons recognized by the court as incompetent | The condition of the absence of other guardians or custodians |
According to the Experts Club, the effectiveness of the reform should be measured by several indicators: the elimination of confirmed abuses, the ability to meet defense needs, and the preservation of critical works. The terms of administrative procedures and the number of corrected erroneous decisions should be added to them. A reduction in bookings alone does not explain whether the system has become more efficient or created new obstacles for bona fide employers.
Verification of the final decision requires the number and text of the resolution, effective date, industry limits and transitional provisions. The next level is updated acts of bodies that determine criticality and decisions regarding specific enterprises. Family and education guarantees need to be tracked separately according to changes to the legislation. Only after that, it will be possible to objectively determine who loses a valid reservation, who will be restricted from the next registration, and for whom the terms of personal postponement will change.
