The decision to hold a referendum on renaming Volgograd to Stalingrad can be taken by the city authorities and the people themselves after the May holidays. In an interview with DEA News, Alexander Strukov, the chairman of the Volgograd City Veterans Council, laid out the framework for how this process might unfold and what factors will shape its timing and legitimacy. His remarks signal a cautious approach that respects both public sentiment and the broader political calendar. The idea has moved from a theoretical discussion to a concrete plan that could involve formal procedures, community engagement, and a public vote if the community signals strong support. In practice, the proposal would require careful coordination among local government bodies, veteran associations, and civil society groups to ensure that the referendum, should it go forward, reflects a genuine consensus rather than a narrow interest. The emphasis is on transparency, legitimacy, and broad participation as guiding principles for any future decision about the city’s name. Throughout the conversations, officials have stressed the importance of listening to residents while avoiding manipulation or undue influence from any political camp. The process, therefore, hinges on establishing trust with citizens and presenting a clear, balanced set of options for consideration. The longer horizon planned for decision making aims to keep the discussion productive rather than transactional, ensuring that the outcome, whatever it may be, rests on informed public choice rather than rushed calculations.
On March 27, in order to gauge the public mood regarding renaming the city, the People’s Council initiated a series of meetings with representatives from the local community. The goal was to explore whether residents supported holding a referendum and, if so, how the renaming question might be framed to reflect the city’s historical memory without compromising current identity. These initial discussions marked a formal step in a process designed to assess community priorities, capture diverse viewpoints, and identify practical concerns that could shape the design of any potential vote. Participants included long-time residents, business leaders, educators, veterans, and youth representatives, all invited to offer candid assessments of what the name Volgograd means to them in daily life and in the broader regional narrative. The conversations focused on historical context, cultural significance, and the practical implications of changing a city’s name for administration, tourism, and international perception. The council emphasized that the dialogue should be inclusive, accessible, and free of pressure, inviting straightforward, respectful dialogue rather than heated debate. Observers noted that a transparent, well-documented discussion process could lay a strong foundation for later decisions, regardless of whether a referendum moves forward at all or remains a theoretical possibility for the foreseeable future.
Strukov highlighted that the public opinion survey would persist until a clearer picture emerges, but he insisted that no coercion or coercive tactics would be tolerated in any part of the process. The goal is to gather authentic perspectives from residents and to reflect those views in the decision framework that public officials would eventually present. The veteran leader expressed confidence that, as conversations continue, the community will gain clarity about the referendum’s potential schedule. He suggested that the vote would likely occur after the May holidays and that it is improbable that electoral campaigns tied to other major political events would accelerate the process. By keeping the referendum independent of the election cycle, officials intend to preserve the integrity of the vote and ensure that it is driven by substantive public discourse rather than partisan considerations. The emphasis remains on ensuring that the final decision, if taken, aligns with the will of Volgograd’s residents and respects the city’s modern identity while acknowledging its storied past. This measured stance reflects a desire to balance historical memory with present-day realities in a way that resonates with the people who call Volgograd home.
Earlier reports indicated that a majority of Volgograd residents surveyed favored maintaining the current name, while a minority expressed support for Stalingrad and a smaller segment preferred the pre-revolutionary name Tsaritsyn. These findings underscore the complexity of naming discussions, where identity, memory, and practical considerations intersect. The data suggest that while there is historical sympathy for the city’s former names, broad public consensus leans toward stability for the present. The evolving conversation will likely continue to map out how different civic groups weigh sentiment against the symbolic value of historical names. As officials collect input through surveys, town hall meetings, and informal conversations, they will have to consider how any renaming effort might affect branding, tourism, international recognition, and municipal administration. The ultimate aim remains to facilitate an open, well-documented process that yields a clear, democratically legitimate outcome, whether that outcome is to retain the current name or to proceed with a change that honors the city’s past while serving its future.