The Ukrainian National Security Issue Few Are Talking About
by Benjamin Cook
This is a huge Ukrainian national security topic that is easy to miss. Ukraine has to get this one right. It needs to start putting resources and thought towards it today. Not waiting for a ceasefire to deal with it. I warn the readers not to apply their homegrown politics to this issue. A pragmatic and open mind will serve you well while reading this. That said, for context, I have been a life long hunter, I grew up with guns, I was a gunsmith and also owned a gun store. Guns and gun regulations have been on my radar all my life. To get a good sense of the problem you should both read my piece and also watch the Kyiv Independent piece on YouTube. The KI did a great job.
Ukraine is moving toward a reality that few countries have had to manage at this scale. The country will remain heavily armed long after the war ends.
The numbers make the direction clear. Millions of firearms are already in circulation, many outside formal registration systems. Weapons were distributed during the opening phase of the invasion, others moved through informal channels, and many will never be recovered. At the same time, Ukraine has expanded its military to roughly one million personnel. Over time, a large share of these individuals will return to civilian life with training, experience, and familiarity with weapons.
This creates a structural condition, any serious discussion about gun policy in Ukraine has to begin with that premise.
There is also a political dimension that is easy to underestimate. Veterans and active service members will form one of the most influential voting groups in the country. Their views on personal security will be shaped by direct experience. Firearms are not an abstract issue or “left right” issue for this population. They are tied to survival, competence, and responsibility. That perspective will carry weight in future legislation, especially when combined with the reality that disarmament at scale is impossible.
Readers searching for high-quality information - such as yourself - might prefer to support my work with a one time contribution vs a subscription. https://buymeacoffee.com/researchukraine
Comparisons to the United States are useful at a high level. The U.S. shows how a heavily armed society evolves over time, including the benefits and the friction. Ukraine will not follow the same path exactly, but some outcomes are predictable. Gun ownership will become normalized across a wider portion of the population. Political debates will become more polarized. Legal frameworks will struggle to keep pace with conditions on the ground. Social media and the internet will be just as important to the gun debate as is the actual gun.
There is one factor, however, that deserves far more attention than it currently receives. Mental health.
Ukraine requires new gun owners to obtain a psychological evaluation. The requirement, as it is now, is a procedural safeguard and not a system capable of handling what is coming. The scale of exposure to combat is unprecedented in modern Europe. Hundreds of thousands of people have experienced sustained combat conditions. Many more have lived under constant threat. The long-term effects will be felt not for years, or decades, but for generations.
In countries with high rates of gun ownership, a large portion of gun-related deaths are suicides. This pattern is well established. Access to a firearm increases the likelihood that a suicide attempt will be fatal. The effect is especially pronounced among men. Ukraine is likely to see similar dynamics, given the size and composition of its veteran population. It’s imporant to note that the gun data is clear, crimes are generally committed with illegally possesed firearms, suicides are committed with legally possesed firearms. Treating both as the same problem feeds the needless politicization of the issue and makes useful reforms much harder.
Reducing the number of guns in circulation is not a realistic objective. The supply is already too large, and the security environment still demands widespread access to weapons. Attempts to impose strict bans without addressing this reality would push ownership further into informal channels without reducing risk.
A more effective approach focuses on the people rather than the weapons. Comprehensive mental health services for current and former service members should be treated as a core component of national security. That means access, funding, and normalization of care. It also means early intervention versus crisis response.
If this is handled correctly, Ukraine can mitigate one of the most predictable sources of harm in a heavily armed society. If it is ignored, the outcome is also predictable. A rise in suicide rates, particularly among men. Periodic mass casualty events. Long-term strain on families and communities already shaped by war. Another predictable outcome is that Russia will use any politicization of the issue to pit Ukrainian against Ukrainian. As well it will foment, even plan and execute, terrorism and mass casualty events inside Ukraine.
There is an uncomfortable constraint on all of this. Ukraine remains under threat. As long as that condition holds, widespread armament will continue to be seen as necessary. Internal policy can shape outcomes at the margins, but it cannot fully offset the pressures created by an active or unresolved conflict.
Ukraine will remain armed. This is a fact. How it handles this can still be shaped.
My suggestions:
The most effective lever for gun control is mental health resources, not the physical control of firearms.
Prosecution of petty gun crimes, such as possession of unregistered weapons, should be swift, predictable, and reasonable. Special task forces operating outside normal prosecution channels should handle these cases. Enforcement must be strong and fair.
Expanding legal pathways to ownership is the second most important step after mental health resources. Bringing guns out of the shadows is critical.
Buyback programs for automatic weapons and other weapons of war should offer meaningful financial incentives. These programs need to target grenades, fully automatic rifles, and similar systems. If the payments are performative rather than substantive the program will fail.
Gun rights should be enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution. Without this, the issue will quickly become politicized, making meaningful reform difficult.
Training is essential. Law enforcement in Ukraine is not currently trained to operate in an armed society. That must change. There are cases where officers have had guns pointed at them and responded as if it were routine. This normalizes illegal possession and cannot continue.
There is both good and bad gun culture. Social media often struggles to distinguish between the two. While censorship is not desirable, some level of regulation around how gun culture is portrayed should be considered. One of the signs of bad gun culture is a social media personality Cos-Playing war. While this is not a direct cause of harmful behavior, the correlation is clear.
Ukraine will have one advantage the United States does not: mandatory military service. This creates an opportunity to replace misinformation about firearms with accurate instruction. It can demystify weapons for younger generations, rather than leaving the job to movies, video games, and YouTube, like we do in the USA.
Kyiv Independent:
Benjamin Cook continues to travel to, often lives in, and works in Ukraine, a connection spanning more than 15 years. He holds an MA in International Security and Conflict Studies from Dublin City University and has consulted with journalists and intelligence professionals on AI in drones, U.S. military technology, and open-source intelligence (OSINT) related to the war in Ukraine. He is co-founder of the nonprofit UAO, working in southern Ukraine. You can find Mr. Cook between Odesa, Ukraine; Charleston, South Carolina.
Hate Subscriptions? Me too! You can support me with a one time contribution to my research at Buy Me a Coffee. https://buymeacoffee.com/researchukraine
as per other comments, looking to USA for ideas & guidance on guns is exactly what not to do! Switzerland is an example where guns are widely distributed but only in relation to national defense - seems to me that is a perfectly workable route. Anyway, as Jan suggests, smallarms are rapidly becoming ever less relevant to national defense - there is no need for widespread access / training in smallarms use in order to defend Ukraine. Most important will be an active democracy, media not controlled by a few mega wealthy people, strong effective checks & balances to power, & a societal refusal to accept corruption. ie almost exactly what USA it turns out doesn't have!
Agree, almost completely.
But Number 5 is just plain wrong. Putting any kind of "gun rights" into the constitution is to ensure failure, and create exactly the sort of mess the USA has.
Gun ownership must be an earned privilege, not any kind of right.