What happens when the state demands sacrifice, but a citizen’s conscience says no? On May 1st, the Ukrainian Supreme Court issued a ruling against a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, arguing that military service can’t be avoided based on religious belief. In its resolution, the court argued that during a “large-scale invasion,” the “state must take all possible measures for self-preservation.” In light of this, alternative service can only be provided during peacetime, not during a war of defense. The message from the court was clear: faith cannot shield anyone from defending the country.

Fighting an existential war against an aggressor with a populace nearly 4 times larger has placed Ukraine in a precarious position. At the start of the war, many ran to enlist, but as the war drags on, enthusiasm has waned. Unlike Russia, able to financially rely on exports of natural resources, Kyiv can’t offer the same sizable paychecks to new military recruits. This presents problems for Ukraine, even as Russia sends its men into meatgrinder assaults to die, often refusing to collect their dead to avoid providing payment to their families.

Both Ukraine and Russia have suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties. Russian serviceman and former Donetsk Gauleiter Pavel Gubarev sparked outrage online by claiming Russia’s war losses exceed 1 million killed. The British Ministry of Defense noted that Russia is already at around 1 million killed or injured since 2022. In February, President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukraine has had over 46,000 soldiers killed.

As the International Institute for Strategic Studies notes, “the main challenge Ukraine currently faces is manpower, specifically with regards to management and allocation.” The Kyiv Independent reported that even though there has been a concentrated effort to increase recruits, many “arrive unmotivated to train and join the war efforts, often because they were forcefully mobilized.”

Amid this harsh reality on the battlefield, the court’s ruling opens a new chapter in Ukraine’s uneasy relationship with conscientious objection, especially for evangelical communities whose convictions on nonviolence have deep theological roots.

Following Russia’s invasion, the Ukrainian Deputy Chief of the Main Personnel Department of the General Staff argued that during mobilization, “the constitutional right of citizens to undergo alternative (non-military) service… is not applicable.” Although a 2024 Supreme Court ruling has allowed non-combatant roles for conscientious objectors, many still face prosecution. This position was reinforced in another case against a Seventh-day Adventist. The Ukrainian Supreme Court ruled that no religious belief justifies evading military service if the individual is deemed fit to defend the country’s sovereignty.

Viktor Yelensky, the head of the State Service for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience, has advocated for broader access to alternative service. Unfortunately, his pleas have been in vain. “All my efforts have been rejected,” he admits, “It is really not easy to reach this goal when we have such heavy losses in battle.”

In a predominantly Eastern Orthodox country, conscientious objection remains a minority position. Following the invasion, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has made it explicit that fighting for Ukraine should be seen as an act of self-defense. Orthodox Metropolitan Epiphanius I of Ukraine emphasized this point by stating: “Protecting, killing the enemy is not a sin… And the one who came to us with a sword will perish by that sword.” In contrast, pacifism prevails in minority, mostly protestant religious communities.

Among them, Ukrainian evangelicals haven’t fully abandoned their historical commitment to radical pacifism. According to theologian Roman Soloviy, during the Soviet era, evangelicals believed violence was never acceptable – even in war. Since independence, pacifism has come to be seen as a pragmatic response to oppression. Yet despite these reassessments, most evangelicals have upheld their nonviolent convictions.

After Russia’s full-scale invasion, some have concluded that self-defense is necessary. After conducting interviews with Ukrainian Baptists, theologian Peter Penner reported that “All interviewees unanimously agreed that engaging in war against the aggressor was the most viable course of action.“ In contrast, Pentecostal theologian Vasyl Popudnyk observed that “within the same congregation, some lean toward one theory, while others hold to the opposite.” Taking up arms may no longer be taboo, but not all Ukrainian evangelicals have abandoned pacifism.

Among pacifists, Jehovah’s Witnesses stand out as particularly committed. Emphasizing the centrality of nonviolence in the teaching of Jesus, they have refused to serve on either side of the war. As a result, they have been banned in Russia, labeled as extremists in Russian-occupied Ukraine, and are the religious group most frequently prosecuted by Ukrainian Courts for evading mobilization, with over 660 individuals charged.

Despite Protestants and Jehovah’s Witnesses together comprising only 2-4% of Ukraine’s population, such disproportionate representation among prosecuted conscientious objectors has raised questions about the limits of religious liberty during wartime, for Ukraine and all nations.

The main problem with the ruling, argues Maksym Vasin of the Kyiv-based Institute for Religious Freedom, is its lack of practicality. “I can agree with the Supreme Court’s argument that Ukraine indeed faces an existential threat and must take every possible measure to preserve not only the existence of the state but also the Ukrainian nation, given the ongoing genocide committed by Russia,” Vasin states.

“In reality, if believers with pacifist beliefs find themselves in the army, they must follow commanders’ orders. Usually, commanders are indifferent to somebody’s promises of assigning conscientious objectors to ‘non-combatant’ positions if frontline defense or counterattack tasks require military operations.”

As a result, he explains, “There are already documented cases where conscientious objectors, once mobilized, are forced to refuse military orders and, ultimately, still face criminal prosecution and imprisonment.”

Given these realities, legal scholars argue that reform is urgently needed. Vasin concludes: “I strongly believe it would be more beneficial for the defense purposes of Ukraine to amend the existing law to clearly regulate the procedure for alternative (non-military) service during wartime conscription.”

For many pacifists, the cost of remaining true to their conviction is not measured in years lost in prison, but in faithfulness to the gospel. As conscientious objector Mykhailo Yavorsky put it, “I don’t care what anyone thinks about me…what matters to me is what God thinks.” Vitaly Alekseenko, the first jailed objector, acknowledged breaking the Ukrainian law but insisted that he is “not guilty under the law of God.”