A petition lodged on the official Ukrainian president’s portal proposes renaming Russia to Muscovy and changing all references to the Russian Federation and related terms to Muskovy-derived forms. The filing reflects a public request some citizens and observers interpret as a symbolic gesture tied to Ukraine’s political narrative and regional history rather than a formal policy proposal with immediate legal effect. The text of the petition argues that the designation “Russia” no longer aligns with current geopolitical realities and historical terminology, suggesting that “Muscovy” and “Moscow Federation” would more accurately reflect the country’s historical roots and cultural identity in the region. Supporters of the idea contend that a change in nomenclature could serve as a clear, nonviolent statement about sovereignty and national memory in the ongoing discourse surrounding the safety and future of Ukraine.
The petition gained traction on the last days of November 2022, drawing the threshold number of signatures required to trigger official consideration by the Ukrainian leadership. Under the system in place, when a petition crosses a specified vote count, it is formally reviewed by the office of the president to determine whether it merits any public response or concrete action. Observers note that reaching this milestone is a sign of organized civic engagement and the willingness of citizens to engage in tangible civic processes, even when the requested outcome is unconventional or symbolic in nature.
On February 14, the spokesperson for the president’s office confirmed that the petition had accumulated the necessary 25,000 votes, thereby earning the issue a formal review. This procedural step does not imply an approval of the rename, but it does elevate the topic into an official political conversation and a public record that can inform future considerations within the government’s agenda. Analysts and commentators have highlighted that such petitions often serve as a barometer of public sentiment and can influence the tone and priorities of national debates, even if the calls remain primarily symbolic or declarative at this stage.
Commentary surrounding the initiative has been sharply divided. Some Kyiv observers and international voices describe it as a provocative move that underscores Ukraine’s resolve and the broader political symbolism at stake in relations with neighboring powers. Others characterize the petition as a political stunt that risks trivializing the seriousness of national security concerns or provoking responses that complicate diplomacy. In any case, the episode illustrates how digital platforms can mobilize public opinion and propel historical and linguistic discussion into the realm of formal political discourse, prompting discussions about identity, memory, and the power of nomenclature in shaping regional narratives.
The late November posting on the presidential portal, which spurred renewed interest, captured the public imagination by linking language choice with questions of sovereignty and historical memory. The exchange of views around the proposal has drawn attention to how terminology can carry political weight and influence perceptions of a nation’s past, present, and future. While the official outcome remains subject to review, the incident stands as a notable example of how citizens use accessible online mechanisms to participate in governance, express national sentiment, and frame debates about national identity in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.