The Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine has opened criminal proceedings against People’s Deputy Artem Dmytruk over public statements about Russian President Vladimir Putin and relations between Ukraine and Russia. The case was initiated after the lawmaker published a birthday greeting to Putin on 7 October, according to a response to a media request.

The proceedings have been entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations. At issue is whether Dmytruk’s remarks could amount to justification of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. The case is at the pre-trial stage, and no final legal assessment has yet been made.

Key facts at a glance

• Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office opened criminal proceedings against MP Artem Dmytruk.
• The trigger was a public birthday greeting to Russian President Vladimir Putin published on 7 October.
• Investigators are examining possible justification of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine.
• Dmytruk called Putin the leader of the country on which the life of my country depends.
• The MP said Ukraine and Russia should always live next to each other and face challenges together.
• Dmytruk left Ukraine in August 2024 and was placed on a wanted list.
• He was later charged in a 2023 case involving the beating of a serviceman.
• He was reportedly filmed in a London shopping centre in early September 2024.
• A fellow MP asked the SSU to examine his statements and urged the Verkhovna Rada chairman to strip his mandate.

The birthday message that prompted the case

In the post, Dmytruk framed Putin not as an adversary but as a leader whose decisions directly affect Ukraine. He called Putin “the leader of the country on which the life of my country depends.” He also wrote that Ukraine and Russia should “always live next to each other and together face challenges.”

The message went further. Dmytruk wished Putin “wisdom and responsibility when making decisions, including those concerning Ukraine.” He added that “today it is especially important to make decisions that can bring peace closer and save human lives.” The post ended with a direct birthday greeting: “Happy birthday, Vladimir Vladimirovich. I wish you prudence in making decisions, and peace to our countries and peoples.”

Those words were published against the backdrop of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and continuous attacks on Ukrainian cities. The Prosecutor General’s Office treats the statements as potentially relevant to a criminal inquiry into whether they justify or deny the legitimacy of Russia’s aggression. The office has not announced a charge against Dmytruk in this particular proceeding; the investigation is ongoing.

Why the statements attracted official scrutiny

Ukrainian law enforcement has repeatedly opened cases over public statements that may justify, deny, or glorify Russia’s armed aggression. The legal framework is sensitive because it intersects with free speech, parliamentary immunity, and the need to protect national security during wartime. In Dmytruk’s case, the concern is not simply that he praised a foreign leader. It is that he described Ukraine’s future as dependent on the Russian president and urged decisions that could be read as legitimising Moscow’s role in ending the war.

The Prosecutor General’s Office confirmed that the proceedings concern the possible justification of Russia’s armed aggression. That wording matters: it places the inquiry within a category of cases that Ukrainian authorities have used to address public commentary seen as undermining the legal and political position that Russia is the aggressor. The final assessment will depend on the evidence gathered, the context of the statements, and the conclusions of investigators.

Dmytruk’s departure from Ukraine and wanted status

Dmytruk’s legal troubles extend beyond the new proceedings. In August 2024, the Prosecutor General’s Office put him on a wanted list. On 25 August 2024, media reports said he had illegally left Ukraine. The State Bureau of Investigations later confirmed that information. The apparatus of the Verkhovna Rada said it had not sent the deputy on a foreign business trip.

After reports of his departure, Dmytruk was charged in a case involving the beating of a serviceman in 2023. He was summoned to the State Bureau of Investigations for investigative actions on 29 and 30 August 2024, but he did not appear. In early September 2024, he was filmed in a shopping centre in London. According to media reports, he probably lives in a residential complex in the Battersea area in the south of the British capital.

His absence from Ukraine has political as well as legal consequences. A parliamentarian who is formally wanted and reportedly abroad cannot participate in the normal work of the Verkhovna Rada, yet he retains his mandate unless the chamber takes a separate decision. That unusual situation has fuelled calls for action from other lawmakers and raised questions about accountability for elected officials who leave the country under investigation.

Calls to strip the mandate

People’s Deputy from European Solidarity Mykhailo Bondar appealed to the Security Service of Ukraine with a statement about a possible criminal offence by Dmytruk. He also called on the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, Ruslan Stefanchuk, to deprive the parliamentarian of his mandate because of his public statements about Russia and the war against Ukraine.

The request reflects a broader political reaction to Dmytruk’s comments. In wartime Ukraine, statements that appear to flatter or legitimise the Russian leadership are politically toxic, especially when made by a sitting member of parliament. Bondar’s appeal frames the issue not only as a matter of criminal law but also as a question of whether Dmytruk can legitimately continue to represent voters while publicly adopting a position that critics say undermines the national interest.

Any move to remove a deputy’s mandate would require a legal and parliamentary process, and it is not automatic. The calls nonetheless increase pressure on the Verkhovna Rada’s leadership to address the case publicly. For now, the Prosecutor General’s Office has confirmed only the existence of the pre-trial investigation, not a decision on guilt or punishment.

The wider legal and political context

The case sits at the intersection of several sensitive issues in Ukraine. First, the country is fighting a war in which public messaging is part of the broader struggle for international support and domestic cohesion. Statements that suggest Ukraine’s survival depends on the Russian president can be seen as damaging to that effort. Second, Ukrainian courts and prosecutors have been handling a growing number of cases related to wartime speech, and each case tests the boundary between criminal accountability and political expression.

Third, Dmytruk’s status as a fugitive MP adds a layer of political drama. He was elected as a people’s deputy, but his reported departure and wanted status have made him a symbol of the challenges involved in holding public officials accountable when they leave the country. The new proceedings may not resolve that broader question, but they add to the legal pressure on him and keep the issue in public view.

The investigation also comes as Ukraine’s law enforcement agencies continue to pursue cases linked to the war, including alleged collaboration, justification of aggression, and other national security offences. The Prosecutor General’s Office has not disclosed the specific evidence behind the new proceedings beyond the public post and its contents. The Unified Register entry indicates that the case is formally active, but the pre-trial stage may take time.

What happens next

The final legal assessment of Dmytruk’s statements will be provided within the framework of the pre-trial investigation. Investigators may gather additional evidence, question witnesses, and seek expert opinions on the content and context of the post. The case could proceed to court if prosecutors decide that the evidence supports charges, or it could be closed if the inquiry does not establish a criminal offence.

For now, the confirmed facts are limited but significant: a sitting Ukrainian MP publicly wished Vladimir Putin a happy birthday in terms that described Russia as central to Ukraine’s future; the Prosecutor General’s Office opened a criminal case over possible justification of Russia’s armed aggression; and Dmytruk remains a fugitive from an earlier case, reportedly living in London. Those facts have already made the case a political flashpoint, and they ensure that the legal assessment of his statements will be watched closely both in Ukraine and abroad.

Source: Antikor News