Dmitry Medvedev, serving as Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, weighed in on the Ukrainian president’s instruction to explore a possible renaming of Russia in Ukrainian language sources. Earlier, the Ukrainian leader had answered a petition from citizens that gathered more than twenty-five thousand votes, requesting that the matter be studied further.
In Medvedev’s Telegram post, the author raised the idea that the Ukrainian language might refer to the country as a different name, alongside a provocative phrase that drew on historical memories and current tensions. The post described the Ukrainian president in harsh terms, portraying him as a central figure in a heated, ongoing dispute over national identity and language politics.
Russian foreign ministry representatives quickly commented as well. A spokeswoman stated that Vladimir Zelenskiy appears to justify Moscow’s position on a daily basis, framing the situation as another effort by Kyiv to frame Ukraine in an anti-Russian light. The remarks underscored the perception in Moscow that Ukraine is reacting to historical issues in a way that complicates international relations.
How did the State Duma respond?
Leonid Slutsky, the head of a major political party in the Duma, commented via social channels, criticizing the Ukrainian president in strong terms and warning that Kyiv’s actions could push Ukraine into deeper political and strategic peril. He suggested that provocative moves about names should be avoided and emphasized that the broader Russian identity would endure beyond such debates.
Alexei Chepa, a senior lawmaker and deputy chairman on the international relations committee, remarked that changing the name of Russia to an alternative historical form would not alter core realities. He described the proposal as imprudent and noted that whatever Kyiv does remains their internal matter, with limited impact on Russia’s domestic or international posture.
Petition to change the name of Russia
The Ukrainian president is obligated to review petitions that receive more than twenty-five thousand votes on his official platform. The proposal to rename Russia to a form akin to Moscow was submitted for consideration on a specific date and drew roughly twenty-five point eight thousand supporters. The initiative suggests replacing official terms such as the “Russian Federation” with “Moscow Federation” and substituting “Russian” with “Moscow.” The initiator argues that Kyiv’s framing of Russian history has sidelined Ukraine’s own historical influences, and that such a renaming would be a bold information move on the international stage.
In Zelenskiy’s response to the petition, the office indicated that Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal was tasked with examining the possibility in collaboration with scientific institutions. Zelenskiy called for a careful review that considers historical and cultural context along with potential international legal implications. The aim was to explore how such a change might resonate in historical narratives and cross-border relations, while acknowledging the legal complexities involved.
The discussion touches on long-standing historical usage of the term Moscow in foreign historical sources for centuries, including reference to Russia in earlier centuries and to the broader historical distinctions that have appeared in academic and diplomatic discourse. A historian has noted that during the era of Peter the Great, there were diplomatic efforts in Europe to manage the multiple names associated with Russia, reflecting the country’s evolving self-identity and international perception.
In related remarks, a secretary of Russia’s Security Council commented in a widely quoted interview that Western efforts have, in some eyes, sought to reframe Russia through Ukraine’s collaboration. The dialogue underscores a broader geopolitical debate about identity, language, and regional influence, with leaders from Moscow characterizing Western strategies as aimed at altering the balance of power and perception in Europe and beyond.