Scandal surrounding People’s Deputy Dmytro Hurin: statement on the cancellation of veterans’ benefits, reaction of the military and public apology

For a long time now, society has been observing the repeated behavior of certain representatives of the government — deputies, ministers, officials, who lose their political reputation from scandal to scandal, but remain in the system. Each successive unacceptable statement, offensive comment or frankly provocative rhetoric from public figures no longer causes shock, but rather fatigue, irritation and chronic disappointment. The case with People’s Deputy Dmytro Gurin is another confirmation of this.

Scandalous statements of People’s Deputy Dmytro Gurin

People’s deputy from the “Servant of the People” faction, Dmytro Gurin, became the subject of a public scandal after he published X post on the social network criticizing the system of benefits for war veterans. In the publication, the deputy proposed to completely cancel the benefits for persons with the status of a participant in hostilities, instead, to switch to a system of targeted social assistance based on the model that, in his opinion, functions in Western countries.

In a statement that caused a sharp reaction from the public, Gurin formulated the following:

“Veterans should not have any “benefits”. No free rides, zero customs clearance of cars and other rubbish. Veterans must have payments for a cumulative pension for the time of their stay in the LBZ, compensation for mortgage interest, training programs, retraining, treatment, rehabilitation, prosthetics, assistance in finding a job. In the case of a permanent loss of functionality, social support services paid by the state compensate for this loss.”

The deputy emphasized that social assistance should be provided only to those who need it in a specific period of time, and not indefinitely to persons who have the status of a participant in hostilities:

“Social assistance should be targeted to those who really need it, while they need it, and not for life to people with the “status of UBD” who spent two days at the LBZ.”

He also stated that the goal of such assistance should be to enable a person to adapt, after which he ceases to be dependent on state support. Gurin called this a standard practice of civilized social systems.

In addition to the main post, during the subsequent discussion in the comments with users of the social network, the deputy made another statement:

“The fact that protecting the homeland is a duty is written in the Constitution. I have a different oath, I also serve the people of Ukraine.”

This comment also caused a wave of criticism, after which it was deleted.

The reaction of the military

Stanislav Bunyatov, the commander of the 24th assault battalion “Aidar”, who has the call sign “Osman”, gave a public response to the deputy’s statements among the first. In his post on social networks, he expressed his indignation at the deputy’s statements and offered to meet him personally to compare service conditions.

In particular, Bunyatov wrote:

“It seems that our deputies were elected according to the principle of the lower branch of degeneracy. Ready to meet with this character and discuss the benefits of the functionality of our duties. I am waiting for an invitation from Dmytro Gurin. Let’s start with the daily schedule, money supply, weekends, vacations, working hours, 24 hour efficiency, the benefits he says and the risks of life.

The serviceman’s reaction gained wide publicity, and the post itself began to be actively shared by users of the social network.

Hurin’s apologies

When public outrage began to gather momentum, Dmytro Gurin published a new post in which he admitted that he had made a mistake and publicly apologized. The wording of the apology was as follows:

“People, it’s been a while, I wrote shit, I’m sorry. I take the same oath and serve the people of Ukraine in the same way as civil servants and judges, but all of us do not serve in the same way as the military – they risk the most expensive life for our opportunity to live peacefully, we are all in their debt.”

This post was a response to the wave of criticism and an attempt to explain my own position. However, questions remained in discussions on social networks, whether the apology is really a manifestation of a change of position, or rather a reaction to public pressure. At the time of publication, the deputy did not comment in detail on the motives of his initial post and did not return to the topic in the form of a separate detailed statement.

 The shadow of the Moscow background

The context in which this story unfolds deserves special attention. By information Media, Dmytro Gurin previously worked in the field of public communications in Moscow. Although his profile was deleted from the website of the company where he allegedly worked, journalists got access to saved screenshots, in particular from the “Let’s get to know each other” section.

It is there that the Russian phrase appears: “Wombat on the outside, Lucifer on the inside. Knows how to pitch it to sell it.”. In the public space, such positioning looks like the aesthetics of manipulation — the ability to create an attractive shell and use it to promote a profitable message. This type of thinking is not only questionable in a democratic society experiencing war, but also directly contradicts the ethical standards of public policy.

This calls into question not only the political culture of this deputy, but also how deeply the remnants of Moscow’s professional and mental background are rooted in the actions of people who are now making decisions in the Ukrainian parliament. The phrase, which at one time was obviously a joke or a ploy for the PR market, in the current context looks like a symbol of duality: on the outside – a reformist image, on the inside – tools of destabilization.

As the mass media note, views on the need to cancel benefits for the military are not a one-time manifestation of imprudence. Similar rhetoric was repeatedly heard by Gurin in closed conversations and at internal meetings. That is, we are talking about an established belief, and not about a careless post. Given this, his apology takes on a completely different meaning, as it looks like a political tactic to avoid responsibility, rather than a change of opinion.

In the conditions of war, when the support of the army is an urgent necessity, the position of the people’s deputy about “revision of benefits for veterans” is a signal that part of the political class has lost touch with reality and devalues the status of veterans. This raises questions not only about the limits of what is permissible for a deputy, but also about his responsibility for his actions, which, as practice shows, will not be.