The appearance of the spokesman for the Ukrainian Navy, Dmytro Pletenchuk, at Odessa University with a weapon caused a lively discussion

In the conditions of war, the issue of civil security takes on a new meaning. The military, who perform combat tasks on the front lines for a long time, become part of the urban landscape: in uniform, in transport, on the streets. At the same time, together with this familiar image, weapons also appear in the public space. After the end of the war, there will be even more such situations – and not only because of the status of veterans, but also because of changes in thinking, habits, and practices. This creates new challenges, in particular, how to ensure safety in educational institutions, state institutions, and public spaces, if carrying a weapon ceases to be an exceptional case.

The discussion that erupted around the appearance of the spokesman of the Naval Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Dmytro Pletenchuk, at the Odesa National University named after I.I. Mechnikova with a gun at his side only highlights a deeper problem. It is not only about one specific case, but about the limits of what is permissible in conditions where safety limits change every day. Does a soldier, even on active duty, have the right to enter a civilian university with a weapon? Is this a violation of the law? And what is more important — the personal safety of the military or the status of a civilian object that may lose its protection under international humanitarian law?

Pletenchuk himself made public a post with a photo from the meeting on Facebook, noting that he gave a lecture for journalism students, shared his experience of interacting with press services, and “discovered several professional secrets.” The pictures clearly show: he has a gun by his side.

However, in a comment to this post, the spokesman of the “Khortytsia” OSU, Nazar Voloshyn, reminded that military personnel are prohibited from entering educational institutions with weapons, unless they are located in a combat zone.

“If memory serves, it is forbidden to bring weapons with you to an educational institution, on the territory where hostilities are not taking place!”, Voloshyn wrote, addressing the press officer, Colonel Vyacheslav Skoryak.

In turn, Skoryak joked and assumed that it was a toy gun.

“It’s completely a toy. Therefore, there is no violation of the requirements of the international documents signed and ratified by Ukraine in terms of not turning civilian objects under the special protection of IHL into legal military targets.” he noted.

In addition, Vyacheslav Skoryak recalled the requirements of international humanitarian law and Order No. 164 of 2017 regarding compliance with IHL in the Ukrainian army:

“In the order on the organization of storage of weapons, there is no rule prohibiting the carrying of weapons in school… This is more detailed in the order on compliance with IHL (164 of 2017), and in other international documents implemented by Ukraine… as an example of the definition of the concept of “military object”. There is a military person with a weapon, which means a military object and a legal military target, even if there are civilians there.”

However, Pletenchuk himself confirmed in the comments that it was his weapon and it was real.

“I always have a gun with me. Should I have left it in the car?” he wrote.

The problem raised by this case goes far beyond the personal choice of one military man. It is about how society will regulate the presence of armed people in a peaceful space after the war. Veterans will return from the front with weapons not only physically, but also mentally. The habit of being armed will not be an exception, but the norm for part of society. And if now it is still perceived as a violation in peaceful schools and universities, then later this border may be completely blurred.

The positions of the parties in the comments to Pletenchuk’s publication demonstrate deep ethical and legal uncertainty. Someone believes that an officer on duty has the right not to part with weapons even in a civilian space. Others insist that the rules should be the same for everyone — and maintaining the status of a civilian facility is an absolute priority.

The problem is that this limit is not always clearly formulated at the level of regulatory documents. Orders of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the prohibition of armed persons in schools or universities are often only internal recommendations, but the norms of international humanitarian law are direct obligations signed by Ukraine.

In practice, it is the military who must not only protect the country, but also adhere to high standards of behavior, particularly in the rear. The presence of weapons where civilians are trained, even as a token presence, poses a risk—not only physical, but also legal. Because in the conditions of war, the rules shift, and in the conditions of the post-war society, it is from them that new security will begin.

This episode with the public appearance of a military man with a weapon at the university is not unique. But for the first time, he became a public example for discussion. In Ukraine, a clear culture of handling legal weapons in a peaceful environment has not yet been formed. And in the conditions when there will be more and more of it in the hands of the population – both due to defense initiatives and due to post-war circulation – such a discussion is inevitable.

We will have to learn to live in a society where the presence of weapons is not an exception. But this does not mean that it can be carried anywhere. Nor does it mean that military experience cancels security requirements. It is in universities, schools, and hospitals that this limit should be preserved. Not because of formality, but in order not to lose the understanding of what the word “civilian” means.