Behind the scenes of official rhetoric: how the image of a veteran is changing in the eyes of society
Ukraine, which learned to live in the conditions of a full-scale war, still has not learned to live next to those who fought and are fighting. The image of a veteran in society has become a controversial construct – on the one hand, it is a hero in a pixel, who is honored in speeches and memorial plaques, and on the other hand, an aggressive, uncomfortable “contused person” who is overlooked. In rhetoric they are titans, support, pride, but in reality they are often shadows of themselves, which society prefers to ignore and sometimes even shows aggression. A veteran in Ukraine today is both a monument and an inconvenient truth. His photo in uniform gets thousands of likes, but his presence on the bus causes tension. People cry under him on TikTok, but they shout at him in the clinic. In Ukraine, which continues the war, heroization and stigmatization have not become extreme poles, but Siamese twins. And while the fanfare sounds on the stage, in their shadow veterans carry trauma – physical, psychological, social from how their image is changing in the eyes of Ukrainians.
From piety to prejudice: how the image of a veteran is changing in the eyes of Ukrainians
Research “Stigmatization of veterans and female veterans: the situation in Ukraine and the experience of the United States”, conducted by the Ukrainian Veterans’ Fund together with Syracuse University (USA) and the sociological group “Rating” revealed alarming trends regarding the attitude towards veterans in Ukrainian society. In 2014, the state granted benefits to the soldiers of the anti-terrorist operation in the east of Ukraine (ATO), while in society itself the attitude towards them was rather indifferent, saying “we didn’t send you there”. And cases from criminal columns in the media often added fuel to the fire, creating the image of “dangerous people with a broken psyche.”
However, with the beginning of the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation into Ukraine, the veterans turned into a symbol of national dignity and courage. However, in recent years there has been a change in public perception of this category of citizens. Society is increasingly showing a split in relation to veterans, showing either excessive heroism or outright stigmatization. In all manifestations of the adaptation of veterans, we forget the most important thing, that the adaptation itself should not be carried out through isolation or putting them on a pedestal. It should be a normal ability to see in a person, first of all, a person. In 2025, being a veteran should no longer be perceived as an exception that requires separate explanations.
According to the study, the level of unquestioning respect for veterans has decreased from 55% in 2022 to today’s 25%. At the same time, the number of people who believe that veterans do not deserve respect increased from 6% to 18% during the same period. These data are direct evidence that society is not always ready to accept veterans as equal partners in civilian life.
Many veterans, after returning from the front, are not met with gratitude, but with silent suspicion or open contempt. In a peaceful life, they are not expected to be honored, but to queue, in which they do not want to be missed, because “why should someone have more rights?”. The right to benefit suddenly turns into a trigger for someone else’s aggression, rather than recognition of merit. Behind this is a deep misunderstanding, because people forget that it is thanks to those who are now ignored in the queues that they live in cities without shelling.
But the problem is even more acute when it comes to work. In interviews, veterans are often perceived not as experts, but as a potential risk. For example, when trying to get a job at a school, one veteran was asked whether he might start hitting children, because, they say, the front leaves a mark on the psyche. At the same time, one of the veterans said in her interview that she was rejected even before the start of the interview, as soon as they found out about her combat experience. The label “dangerous for children” was immediately attached to the person. And a man with a disability after the war was rejected without any explanation, simply because the disability looks to the employer as a minus, and not as a sign of endurance and strength.
Unfortunately, all these rare cases testify to society’s unwillingness to integrate those who protect it. Privileges instead of respect, fear instead of understanding, labels instead of dialogue have become the realities that veterans and veterans in Ukraine live with today. Some people are still frightened by the idea that everyone who returned from the front shows either excessive aggression, or is mentally unstable, or, on the contrary, is helpless and needs constant care.
Added to this are fantasies about “radicals in uniform” who seem to be driven exclusively by political extremes or monetary motives. This attitude is part of a distorted image that forms a barrier not only between veterans and society, but also between veterans and themselves. But it is worth understanding that the consequences of such ideas can be manifested in the reluctance to seek psychological help in order not to look “not like others.” Internal stigma is more insidious than external. People silently struggle with injuries that could be alleviated.
Between pity and indifference: the life of a veteran with a disability
The attitude towards veterans and veterans with disabilities in Ukraine often turns from support to obsessive pity, or in general, alienation. In ordinary situations, such as traveling on public transport, they often face the fact that they are simply ignored. If the injury is not visible, the right to help or benefits has to be proven through the skepticism of others. People in civilian clothes are often dismissed as veterans simply because they don’t fit the expected image.
There is still a widespread perception in society that invisible disability does not exist. Because of this, veterans feel mistrust, face denials of help or access to benefits, even when everything is formally stipulated. Such situations create a distance between those who defended the country and those who are not ready for an open dialogue. People with visible injuries, such as amputations, often face intrusive care that ignores their wishes and personal boundaries. However, veterans do not need pity, they seek recognition and respect for their experience.
Due to the lack of adapted infrastructure, whether in cafes, toilets or transport, many veterans are forced to limit themselves, even when this could be avoided. They feel isolated not because they do not want to be part of society, but because of the lack of conditions that allow them to live fully. The experience of the research participants also shows that children’s attitude towards veterans depends significantly on what adults explain to them. Children with whom they talk at home behave openly and respectfully. And those who did not have such explanations react with fear or misunderstanding, which only strengthens the feeling of otherness. Such situations form the daily reality for many veterans with disabilities.
As we can see, the biggest difficulties arise not because of physical limitations, but because of stereotypes and indifference, which veterans have to face at every step.
Heroization without a person: how society replaces reality with a myth
It would seem that the heroization of the image of veterans should form a “norm” for society in relation to people who sacrificed their health for the sake of their country, but here too, not everything is so clear-cut. The topic of the heroization of the military in Ukraine has really been left out of criticism for a long time, as if it is inappropriate to touch on it. But the more society puts veterans on a pedestal, the more often it turns out that the idealized image is not only ineffective, but also harmful. Behind pathetic speeches and media stories about “indomitable heroes”, real people with fatigue, injuries, and disappointments are often not seen. This is what the veterans themselves noticed during the interview. Some believe that heroism is important, because it makes it possible to establish in the public imagination examples worth emulating, and to recognize the contribution of the military to the security and well-being of the state.
But at the same time, many of them do not need fame, titles and standard plots. Over-idealization creates a distorted picture that real veterans often fall short of simply because they are ordinary people and not symbols. High expectations lead to deep disappointments, because a veteran who doesn’t smile or act “like a hero” draws scorn instead of support. Some people have to make excuses for being tired, aggressive, withdrawn, or on the contrary, for wanting to live an ordinary life without constant adoration.
Cases of using heroic status as an indulgence are not unique. But it is worth understanding that a respectable medal on the chest does not always guarantee moral responsibility. And when someone covers domestic violence with the status of a veteran, there is no question of dignity, but rather of impunity. The apparent use of authority acts as a direct cover for abuses.
And a convenient but dangerous illusion is beginning to sprout in society, according to which veterans are perceived as those who should continue to decide everything for everyone. This removes the burden of responsibility from civilians. A veteran acts as a kind of universal figure of a “responsible adult” for society, to whom collective passivity can be translated. That is why veterans are increasingly speaking not only about the need for respect, but also about the need for clear boundaries in heroism. Because real recognition should not be manifested in the creation of a myth. It is about the vision of a person without a halo, but with an experience worth appreciating without turning it into a decoration.
Mass media also play a significant role in heroizing the image of the military. And this is really more often a story about people who have faced difficult trials, and after overcoming them, they can become an excellent example to follow. But there are also cases when the media do not talk about people, but create a convenient image: either a broken hero who needs help, or a hyperheroic bronze figure. In fact, neither one nor the other has anything to do with the lives of most veterans.
This media game of simplification has its consequences. First, it keeps society in the grip of patterns. Second, it fuels stigma. Because when a real veteran does not correspond to a fictional image, it is easier for him not to believe or to be suspicious. Especially if the headline again talks about “dangerous soldier” or “lost hero”. Despite the growing visibility of the topic in the media, the importance remains not in the number of materials, but in their depth and honesty. It is not clichés and manipulations that should shape the attitude towards veterans, but the opportunity to see a person with a complex history.
So, the study became the scalpel that made the incision and released the pus of contempt for veterans from the wound of the country. But it is necessary to look into the very roots of this problem, because it is not just a lack of attention to a specific group of people, but a manifestation of deeper social, political and even historical problems that have not been solved for years. This question is not as simple as “the state forgot about its heroes”, because everything is much more complicated.
First, it is worth considering that Ukraine has not yet formed a stable and clear system for supporting veterans, which would work at all levels: from social guarantees to institutional recognition of their contribution. It should be recognized that despite all the loud statements of public figures, the majority of veterans do not receive adequate support either materially or psychologically. State structures are not sufficiently organized to provide real assistance to people who have survived the war, so many have to cope on their own. It is also important to note that veterans do not always have access to quality medical services or rehabilitation programs, which only worsens their condition.
As for the public attitude towards veterans, it often reflects the state’s attitude towards them as a whole. In a country where political elites do not always put the interests of ordinary people first, veterans, unfortunately, are also becoming less important. Rather than being a unifying symbol of the nation, veterans are often viewed through the prism of political views. And this is also the reason why in Ukraine there is often a division between “own” and “strangers” among those who served in the army.
As we can see, the stigmatization of veterans is not limited to social injustice, as it has the potential to cause deep systemic consequences for the country. If society does not recognize a veteran as a full participant in public life, it pushes a person to isolation, distances him from his family, limits opportunities to receive support and increases the risks of addictions or psychological exhaustion. Avoidance of reintegration programs, refusal to seek help and growing alienation gradually undermine not only the personal resilience of the veteran, but also the overall viability of the state.
The conflicting attitude towards veterans in Ukraine is not a temporary break under the pressure of war, but a long-term process that is only gaining momentum. What today is perceived as an unpleasant discomfort at the level of domestic conflicts – a queue at the hospital, a scandal in transport, irritation at the National Health Service – tomorrow will become a marker of a larger social split. While some are already used to starting a conversation with a direct “did you fight?”, others are always embarrassed in conversations about mobilization and distance themselves. And these are not just emotions, but the contours of two camps that are now being formed.
The first is someone who fought, or someone whose loved ones fought. With injuries, claims, the feeling that he now has the right to speak about the future of the country and “learn how to live”. The second is the one who survived, paid taxes, waited, but was not there. And this camp is also tired – from pain, the presence of death, moral pressure, the shadow of the front in every dialogue. Today, this split does not yet have a political form, but it already has a language – subtle, nervous, tense. And therefore, there will inevitably be consequences.
There is a high probability that after the war this tension will intensify. It is not only about social adaptation of veterans, but tension in society. Politics, media, public opinion — all this will begin to be structured around the question: who has the moral right to speak about the future? And who owes whom — the state to the veteran, or the veteran to the state? That is why, even before the end of the war, we should stop pretending that the problem of treating veterans is only about prostheses, benefits and queues. This is about the future structure of Ukrainian solidarity, about whether we will have the strength not just to “honor”, but to coexist together and respect each other.
