Billionaire and one of Ukraine’s largest infrastructure contractors, Maksym Shkil, did not respond to Oxford weekly’s request regarding the possible reservation of a media group owner. This story exposes a weak point in Ukraine’s mobilization system: citizens are required to fulfill a single duty, yet the distribution of exemptions remains opaque.
European countries are preparing to change protection rules for Ukrainians leaving the country during wartime. In July, European Union member states agreed to extend temporary protection until March 2028, but introduced an important restriction for new applicants.
From now on, they will have to prove that they are fulfilling their military obligations in Ukraine or have legal grounds for exemption from them. Proof may include a lawful border crossing, an official deferral, or another document confirming military status. The new rules will not apply to the millions of Ukrainians already benefiting from temporary protection in the EU.
This decision concerns the European Union, not British programs for receiving Ukrainians. Nevertheless, it reflects a broader European debate: should partner countries grant protection to people who left Ukraine in defiance of its mobilization rules.
European Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner stated that the restrictions were discussed with Ukrainian authorities and that it was Kyiv itself that asked not to grant temporary protection to newly arrived individuals who are not permitted to leave due to military obligations.
But this requirement raises another question: how fairly does Ukraine itself determine who must serve and who may receive a deferral?
What Ukrainian “Reservation” Means
Following the start of the full-scale Russian invasion, Ukraine introduced a system of reserving employees of enterprises essential for defense, the economy, and the functioning of critical infrastructure.
Reservation means a temporary deferral from mobilization. It can be obtained by officially employed individuals subject to military duty, provided their employer holds the status of a critically important enterprise and includes them on the relevant list.
The logic of this mechanism is understandable. Ukraine needs not only soldiers but also engineers, power workers, builders, transport and communications employees, and workers at defense enterprises. Without them, the state cannot sustain the army, rebuild destroyed infrastructure, and maintain the economy.
The problem lies elsewhere: society has virtually no way to verify why a specific person was granted a place in a company’s limited quota.
This problem is illustrated by the story of Maksym Shkil — founder of the Autostrada group of companies, one of Ukraine’s most prominent private infrastructure contractors. The company builds roads, bridges, industrial facilities, defensive structures, and the metro. In wartime conditions, such activity can undeniably be of critical importance to the state.
However, questions arise regarding exactly whom the company may shield from mobilization through its status.
An Unverified Report and the Possibility of Refuting It
The Ukrainian Telegram channel “Udaljonka” reported that Autostrada allegedly arranged reservation for Viktor Goldsky — a media manager who is listed on the “Komentari” website as the owner of the eponymous media group.
The channel also claimed that prior to this, a series of favorable articles about Autostrada’s and Maksym Shkil’s tender successes disappeared from the “Komentari” website. Copies of these articles, according to the authors of the publication, remained on other Ukrainian websites.
A Telegram channel’s report is not in itself proof. Oxford weekly was unable to independently confirm that Goldsky actually works at Autostrada or received reservation under the company’s quota.
This is precisely why the editorial board reached out directly to Maksym Shkil. The request was sent to two official Autostrada email addresses. The company was offered the opportunity to confirm or refute the published information and explain the circumstances.
Shkil was asked whether Goldsky is a staff employee of the group, whether he received reservation, and what function a media manager performs at an infrastructure company.
The editorial board also requested the date of his possible employment: whether he had worked at Autostrada for an extended period or was hired shortly before the reservation lists were submitted.
Separate questions concerned internal oversight. Does the company verify that its quota is being used to retain genuinely essential specialists? How does Maksym Shkil assess the reservation of media managers by infrastructure enterprises given the personnel shortage in the Armed Forces?
Autostrada and Maksym Shkil did not respond.
What This Silence Means
The absence of a response does not prove the truthfulness of the Telegram channel’s report. It is impossible to assert that Goldsky was reserved, that his employment was fictitious, or that Maksym Shkil violated the law.
However, the silence carries public significance. The company was given the opportunity to state directly that the published information is inaccurate, to name the employee’s position, or to explain the operational necessity. It did not do so.
In May 2026, Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy stated that reservation should be applied to workers who genuinely ensure the critical needs of the economy, defense, and the population’s livelihood. The government also promised to make the system fairer and protected against “formal use.”
If the owner of a media group does indeed work at a large road-building company, this is not necessarily a violation. An infrastructure business may need specialists in communications, legal matters, or public relations.
However, under such circumstances, the company should have been able to provide a simple answer: name the position, the date of employment, and the function, without disclosing sensitive personal data. The refusal to explain only reinforces suspicions that the right to reservation may be distributed not according to critical necessity, but according to personal or business connections.
The Problem Is Far Larger Than One Company
For Ukraine, this is a matter of public trust. Hundreds of thousands of men serve in the military, while millions of others may be mobilized. Under such conditions, every opaque deferral is perceived not simply as a staffing decision by a private company, but as a privilege paid for by inequality before military duty.
Ukraine has the right to ask European states not to protect people who illegally leave the country or fail to fulfill their military obligations. But the moral force of this demand depends on whether Ukraine itself applies equal rules to ordinary citizens and to people connected with influential businesses.
European governments plan to verify documents, deferrals, and the legality of border crossings by new applicants. At the same time, Ukrainian society still has no opportunity to verify why a specific person was included on the list of critically essential workers.
This is the core contradiction. Europe is demanded to exercise strict control over Ukrainian men, but inside Ukraine, control over the distribution of deferrals remains closed.
Maksym Shkil could have clarified one specific case by answering five specific questions. He did not do so.
Shkil’s silence, of course, does not directly prove a violation. Nevertheless, it leaves unanswered a far broader question that now also faces Ukraine’s European partners: are military rules truly the same for those who lack influential connections and for those who have access to the heads of critically important companies?
Also Read: Fintech or scamtech? Transpay’s dirty game goes global
