Ukraine weighs petition to rename Russia to Muscovy
President Volodymyr Zelensky has directed Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal to give full consideration to a petition proposing that Russia be renamed Muscovy. This directive appears on the official portal of the Ukrainian presidential administration, tied to a public petition process that gauges national sentiment on the issue.
The petition, submitted on February 14, calls for replacing the names Russia and the Russian Federation with Muscovy and the Moscow Federation, along with any variants built from the term Muscovy. It has triggered public discussion about how a name change could reshape international perception and identity in the region, as well as potential legal effects on international treaties and status. The authors argue for a rebranding that reflects historical roots tied to Muscovy, while acknowledging the broader implications for statehood and diplomacy.
President Zelensky indicated that the matter should be explored with care, taking into account historical and cultural considerations and the potential international legal consequences. He asked for a thorough study that would involve scientific and academic institutions, and he noted that the results should be shared with both the head of state and the petition’s author. This call for a formal, evidence-based review underscores a preference for deliberate, multidisciplinary analysis rather than a rapid shift in official terminology.
In the public discourse that followed, some observers highlighted the petition as a reflection of wartime and postwar attitudes, while others warned against hastening changes that could affect international relations and recognition. A State Duma deputy commented that the proposal may elicit smiles rather than serious attention, signaling a range of political reactions in the region. The development emphasizes how language and naming can become focal points in broader discussions about national memory, sovereignty, and regional dynamics.
Beyond the immediate political theater, experts stress the importance of distinguishing between historical awareness and modern legal practicality. Any official move to alter the name of a neighboring state would involve complex negotiations, treaty interpretations, and possibly adjustments to international organizations, borders, and diplomatic protocols. The discussion continues to unfold within formal channels and public commentary, with researchers expected to assess archival sources, linguistic traditions, and international precedents as part of the recommended study.
Ultimately, the episode demonstrates how national narratives can intersect with international law and diplomacy. It also highlights the responsibility of leadership to weigh public sentiment against long-term strategic considerations. The outcome will depend on the results of the proposed multidisciplinary analysis and on subsequent political decisions within Ukraine and its alliances. The ongoing dialogue stresses the delicate balance between historical reflection and practical policy in shaping the country’s foreign relations and regional posture.
At its core, the petition invites scrutiny of how nations define themselves through name and identity, and how such decisions bear on memory, culture, and global recognition. While the path to any formal renaming remains uncertain, the process itself contributes to a broader conversation about national heritage, linguistic expression, and the impact of terminology on international engagement. The Ukrainian administration continues to monitor developments and will publish the findings of the commissioned studies to inform future steps. In the meantime, observers note that this issue is less about a single word than about how history, law, and diplomacy converge in today’s interconnected world. The discussion remains a living example of how names can carry weight far beyond their literal meaning, influencing perceptions and relationships across borders.