New Armed Forces contracts in 2026: what Resolution No. 768 changed

Publication date: July 20, 2026

Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 768 changed more than just the length of military service in Ukraine. It changed the very architecture of the contract model: it introduced new types of contract, new incentive payments, a new approach to combat rewards, and new logic for deferral once a contract ends. A detailed guide to the changes has been prepared by Serhii Koshel, lawyer at the NGO Hromadska Platforma (Civic Platform).

The most dangerous mistake is to think that the new Armed Forces contracts changed only the length of service. In reality, Cabinet Resolution No. 768 launched a new contract model, introduced a new system of incentive payments, and — through a guaranteed deferral once a contract ends — substantially strengthened legal certainty for servicepeople. It is therefore critically important today to understand not only how long service lasts, but also the type of contract, the position held, the grounds for supplementary payments, the procedure for recording combat tasks, and the mechanism for exercising the right to deferral.

This question is critical right now. Anyone entering the new service model needs to understand not only how long they will serve, but also which contract they are being offered, which position will be recorded in the documents, which supplementary payments are actually possible, when the right to deferral arises, and what to do if the system does not work as it should.

The state is publicly communicating the reform as a step towards fairer service. The Ministry of Defence speaks directly of clear contract terms, new financial incentives, additional combat rewards and a guaranteed deferral once a contract ends. But in real life the protection of a serviceperson’s rights depends not on a poster or a news item, but on what is written in the contract, the report, the order and the personnel file.

This article focuses on the changes themselves. We will look at what is new under Resolution No. 768, who it affects, what practical advantages and risks it creates, how not to lose the right to a payment or a deferral, and how to act in the event of a dispute with the personnel body or the command.

The legal significance of this topic goes far beyond pay. It concerns legal certainty, access to information, equality in the application of the rules, an effective legal remedy and the rule of law. Even during martial law, a person does not lose the right to know on what terms they are serving and how to protect themselves against an error by the state system. This is consistent with Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to an effective legal remedy.

What exactly Cabinet Resolution No. 768 changed

The very first change is that the state has officially introduced a new model of contract military service during martial law. This is not a cosmetic amendment but a separate experimental project designed to run for two years from the day the resolution enters into force.

This matters, because until now a key problem for many servicepeople was the unpredictability of their service horizon. The government and the Ministry of Defence have now stated directly that contracts will have clear terms and a more comprehensible service logic.

Three separate types of new contract have appeared

Under the new model, three contract formats are officially distinguished:

• the infantry-assault contract;
• the combat contract;
• the basic contract.

This is a fundamental change. Previously people often saw contract service as a more or less uniform model. Now the state itself divides contracts according to degree of risk, nature of service, type of position and financial incentive.

For the first time, the length of service is tied so clearly to the type of contract

The Ministry of Defence officially reports that:

• the infantry-assault contract:
  • 14 months — for civilians;
  • 10 months — for serving military personnel;
  • from 6 months — for military personnel discharged from service during the special period;
• the combat contract — 24 months;
• the basic contract — 24 months.

For a serviceperson this means a new level of predictability. But it also means a new level of risk: if the term is recorded imprecisely in the documents, or the personnel paperwork is completed incorrectly, this very advantage of the reform can be lost.

A new system of incentive payments has been introduced

The loudest change is not only the new terms of service but also the new model for motivating servicepeople. This is the block that features most prominently in the official explanations and in the infographic on the innovations under Resolution No. 768.

This is not simply about “more money”. It is about a new approach, in which a payment increasingly depends on a specific combat action, the nature of the risk, the place where the task was carried out, and the existence of confirmation.

The new model expressly declares a guaranteed deferral once a contract ends

Another innovation is the official entrenchment of the logic under which, once a new contract ends, a serviceperson acquires the right to deferral from conscription during mobilisation — as a baseline, no less than 6 months, with a possible increase depending on combat action and previous service.

For thousands of servicepeople this may be the most important change. For the first time, the state has so openly linked the term of a contract to a predictable “post-contract” legal outcome.

Who the new changes affect

Serving military personnel

The changes primarily affect those already serving. For them, the new model opens up the possibility of moving to new contracts with clear terms and a different incentive system.

But this is also the category facing the greatest risk. If the transfer is arranged without a clear record of the person’s expressed wishes, without a copy of the contract, or without a proper order, disputes later arise over the length of service, the position, the contract start date and the right to deferral.

Persons liable for military service and reservists in the reserve

The new model is also aimed directly at those not yet serving but willing to conclude a contract voluntarily. A separate route in has been created for them through new vacancies, recruitment and contract formats.

For this category it is critically important to determine one’s status correctly. A person liable for military service, a reservist, a person in the reserve, and a person discharged during the special period are not the same thing. The type of contract available, the term, and the expected payments all depend on it.

People discharged from service during the special period

The changes also apply separately to military personnel who have already been discharged but who may re-enter the system through the new contracts. It is for them that the explanations mention the shorter term under the infantry-assault model — from 6 months.

For this category it is especially important not to confuse a public announcement with a legal mechanism. All previous documents on service, combat experience, state of health and discharge need to be checked very carefully.

Vulnerable categories

The new model directly concerns those concluding or changing a contract, and is indirectly especially important for vulnerable categories:

• military personnel after injury;
• people undergoing or who have just undergone a military medical commission assessment;
• military personnel with a contested personnel status;
• people aged 60+.

For such people the new contract model is not a “technical update”. It may directly affect the right to treatment, continuation of service, discharge, payments and length of service.

Changes to payments and incentives

New payments for specific assault actions

One of the most noticeable innovations is the appearance of separate rewards for specific types of assault action. This means the state has made incentives more granular, tying them to the actual combat task rather than to the general status of being “in a combat position”.

According to the infographic on the incentive innovations under Resolution No. 768:

• UAH 20,000 per day — for conducting assault actions where positions, buildings or structures are restored (recaptured);
• UAH 40,000 per day — for conducting assault actions where positions, buildings or structures are seized directly on the line of contact.

These are not just attractive figures but a new legal fact: if a payment is separately provided for, a serviceperson has the right to demand that it be calculated where the confirmed conditions are met.

A separate reward for taking an enemy prisoner

Another new change is UAH 100,000 for taking an enemy serviceperson prisoner. This is stated directly in the infographic and matches the logic of the resolution on additional incentive factors.

The practical consequence of this change is simple: entitlement to such a payment now becomes a matter not of verbal agreement but of legal record-keeping and proof.

A separate reward for eliminating enemy personnel

The infographic also contains a further innovation: UAH 15,000 for eliminating enemy personnel, with the separate stipulation that video confirmation must be available.

This is where one of the sharpest practical consequences of the reform is hidden. If a payment depends on confirmation, a whole chain of legal questions arises: who confirms it, with what document, within what deadlines, where this is recorded, and how to challenge a refusal to calculate the payment.

The very principle of incentives has changed

Previously people tended to think in terms of “position = a certain level of provision”. Now the system is moving towards a model of: a specific action + a specific risk + a specific result = a separate reward.

For a serviceperson this creates new financial opportunities. But it also increases the importance of orders, reports, combat logs, confirmation of presence at positions, and video recordings.

What practical consequences this has for servicepeople

There is more predictability

The main positive consequence is that service becomes more predictable. A person better understands which contract they are being offered, how long it lasts, which incentive payments may apply, and what happens once the term ends.

This matters for the family, for medical treatment, for planning future work and study, and simply for the psychological sense of having control over one’s life.

Documents matter more

The new model makes documents even more important than before. If the right to a payment or a deferral is tied to a term, a combat action or an order, then a person must have access to:

• the contract;
• the personnel order;
• a copy of the report;
• materials confirming that the task was carried out;
• data from the personnel file.

A simple rule applies here: what is not documented is hard to defend.

The risk of disputes over payments increases

The more complex the incentive system, the greater the scope for dispute. Whereas the main conflict previously often concerned the general status of service, disputes may now also arise over:

• the number of days spent at positions;
• the nature of assault actions;
• confirmation that enemy personnel were eliminated;
• the correct application of the new coefficients and rewards.

The right to deferral becomes the central practical question

For many servicepeople the new payments matter, but what happens once the contract ends matters even more. The right to deferral is now becoming one of the central practical outcomes of the new model.

A serviceperson should therefore not merely “know about the deferral” but prepare in advance the documents that will help prove its scope and their right to exercise it.

Area	Before	Under Resolution No. 768	Who it affects	Practical consequence for the serviceperson
Contract service model	There was no separate experimental model of new contracts with enhanced incentive factors in this particular format	A two-year experimental project has been launched on new contracts and additional incentive factors	Serving military personnel, citizens in the reserve, people discharged from service	Service has become more formalised: a separate legal regime for new contracts now exists and can be cited directly in a dispute
Types of contract	There was no such clearly presented public three-tier model	The infantry-assault, combat and basic contracts have been introduced	Everyone entering or transferring to the new contracts	A person can better understand which format of service they are being offered and compare the terms before signing
Length of service	For many servicepeople the main problem was the lower predictability of the term	Terms are now clearly defined: 14 months for civilians on the infantry-assault contract, 10 months for serving military personnel, 6+ months for those discharged during the special period, 24 months for the combat and basic contracts	Civilians, serving military personnel, people discharged from service, persons liable for military service	There is more legal certainty, but it is critically important to check how the term is recorded in the contract and the order
Logic of selecting a position	A contract was often seen as a general entry into service, without such a public division by risk	Contracts are clearly divided by nature of service: assault roles, combat specialities, rear/non-combat positions	People choosing to serve voluntarily or transferring to the new terms	Position, risk, duties and expected payments can be matched more precisely before signing
Post-contract guarantees	There was no such clear public “contract → deferral” model within this project	The right to deferral once a new contract ends has been announced directly — a baseline of no less than 6 months, with a further increase depending on combat action and previous service	Everyone concluding new contracts under the No. 768 model	This is one of the key changes: a serviceperson can plan life after the contract, but must prepare documents in advance to confirm the entitlement
Basic financial incentives	This particular “contract + separate enhanced incentive factors” model was not in operation	Enhanced incentive payments have been introduced depending on the type of contract, proximity to combat action and tasks performed	Primarily those taking up the new contracts; also certain serving personnel within the project	Military pay becomes more targeted, but disputes over the correctness of calculations become more likely
Assault actions: recapturing positions	There was no separate daily reward of this kind set out in the public model	UAH 20,000 per day for conducting assault actions where positions, buildings or structures are restored (recaptured)	Primarily those carrying out the relevant assault tasks	A serviceperson gains a separate entitlement to a reward for a specific action, but proper recording of the fact that the task was performed matters
Assault actions: seizing positions on the line of contact	There was no such separately communicated daily rate within the new model	UAH 40,000 per day for conducting assault actions where positions, buildings or structures are seized directly on the line of contact	Military personnel on the highest-risk assault axes	The state has assessed the riskiest actions more clearly, but the likelihood of disputes over confirming the grounds for payment increases
Taking an enemy prisoner	This was not singled out in this way in communications about the new incentive model	UAH 100,000 for taking an enemy serviceperson prisoner	Military personnel who took direct part in such an action	A separate entitlement to a reward for the outcome of a combat task arises; how the confirmation is documented matters
Eliminating enemy personnel	There was no such separate public provision within the new incentive model	UAH 15,000 for eliminating enemy personnel, where video confirmation is available	Military personnel carrying out the relevant combat tasks	The reward has become more specific, but entitlement to it now depends more heavily on evidence, in particular video recordings
Principle for calculating rewards	For many servicepeople the logic of payments was less detailed in public communications	A new approach: a specific combat action or result = a separate incentive payment	Participants in the new contract model	Orders, reports, combat logs, video and other evidence matter more
Information channels	There was no separate dedicated hotline specifically for the new contract model	The 1519 hotline has been launched for questions about the new contracts	Everyone considering the new contracts or already serving under them	A separate channel for explanations now exists and can be used to record one’s position and obtain information
Finding vacancies and the route in	There was less public integration of the contract model with specific vacancies	The new contracts are integrated with official position matching via army.gov.ua and its vacancies	Civilians, persons liable for military service, those wishing to move to a different service model	A person can choose a position more knowingly, but must check the advertisement against the actual text of the contract and the order
Risk of legal disputes	Disputes existed, but not in this configuration of new terms, supplementary payments and post-contract guarantees	Alongside the new rights, new points of conflict have appeared: contract term, type of contract, position, right to deferral, grounds for individual payments	Practically all participants in the new model	Evidence, copies of documents, reports and prompt challenges in the event of a violation become more valuable

What a serviceperson should do: practical advice

Step 1. Find out exactly which contract you are being offered

Do not agree to an abstract “new contract”. Ask for the following to be stated explicitly:

• the type of contract;
• the length of service;
• the position;
• the start date;
• the unit;
• the procedure for exercising the right to deferral.

Step 2. Record your wishes in writing

A report or application is not a formality but your main starting piece of evidence. In cases concerning military service, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of setting out a serviceperson’s legal position in writing.

Step 3. Demand copies of documents

Immediately after signing, you should request:

• a copy of the contract;
• an extract from the order;
• a copy of the report;
• where possible, a written explanation of the term and conditions.

Without these, a person enters the new legal model effectively blind.

Step 4. Monitor the payments block separately

The incentive innovations are a strong side of the reform, but this is also where the risk of dispute is highest. If you are claiming a separate reward, you need to establish in advance:

• which document confirms the grounds for the payment;
• who draws it up;
• where this is recorded;
• when the reward is calculated;
• what to do if it is not calculated.

Step 5. Do not miss deadlines for complaints and claims

Under Article 20 of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals”, written appeals must be considered within the prescribed deadlines. Under Article 122 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, a general six-month period applies for applying to an administrative court, unless a special law establishes a different period. This means that delay works against the serviceperson.

Court practice: what the Supreme Court indicates

The date of the order is of key importance

In its judgment of 23.03.2023 in case No. 200/3471/21, the Supreme Court held that the date of the personnel order is decisive for the emergence of the relevant legal consequences. For the new contracts this is critical: it is often the order that determines the start of the term and of the legal status.

A contract means not only payments but also disciplinary risks

In its judgment of 04.03.2021 in case No. 200/12138/19-a, the Supreme Court examined the question of discharge for failure to comply with the terms of a contract. The conclusion is simple: contract service provides guarantees, but at the same time increases the importance of proper disciplinary conduct.

A repeated violation can have serious personnel consequences

In its judgment of 23.01.2020 in case No. 825/134/17, the Supreme Court set out the meaning of “systematic failure to comply with the terms of a contract”. For an article on the new contracts this serves as a reminder: new opportunities do not remove high standards of responsibility.

Where to turn if problems arise

The unit’s personnel body is the first level of protection. A higher commander — if your report is ignored.

Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights: 21/8 Instytutska St., Kyiv, 01008; hotline@ombudsman.gov.ua; Tel: 1678; +38 044 299 74 08.

LDN — Legal Development Network

• LDN online chat;
• the Consultations section

Hotline on the new contracts: 1519.

Useful materials

• Who’s who among military personnel: person liable for military service, serviceperson, volunteer, mobilised or contract soldier?
• A contract after the age of 60
• New Armed Forces contracts: the Cabinet Resolution has been published
• How to avoid violations of servicepeople’s rights
• The essentials of the new law on mobilisation and military service
• Transformation of the Defence Forces: everything about the new contracts, service terms, payments and transfers
• New contracts with defined terms
• New contracts of 2026
• Vacancies in the Armed Forces: search by speciality and unit
• Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Resolution No. 768 of 12 June 2026
• Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (with protocols) (European Convention on Human Rights)
• On Citizens’ Appeals
• Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine

Conclusions

Cabinet Resolution No. 768 changed more than the length of service. It changed the very architecture of the contract model: it introduced new types of contract, new incentive payments, a new approach to combat rewards, and new logic for deferral once a contract ends.

For a serviceperson this means more opportunities, but also more responsibility for their own legal security. It is no longer enough simply to “agree to serve”. You need to understand the type of contract, read the terms, keep your documents in order, monitor payments and know how to act when a right is violated.

The 2026 innovations can genuinely strengthen legal certainty for military personnel — but only where the person does not surrender control over their own documents, deadlines and evidence. That is how a right stops being an abstraction and starts working to protect the person.

This material was produced by the Legal Development Network public union with the support of the international charitable platform GlobalGiving. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the Legal Development Network.

Cover photo for the article: mklegalservice.com

Отримайте поглиблену консультацію через чатбот LawLink

If you have notices an error on the web-site, please, highlight the text and press ctrl-enter.