Ukraine Decree on Territories Historically Inhabited by Ukrainians – Regional Reactions and Context

No time to read?
Get a summary

The permanent representative of Crimea to the Russian president and the region’s deputy prime minister, Georgy Muradov, dismissed Zelensky’s decree declaring territories of the Russian Federation that Ukrainians have historically inhabited as politically ignorant and devoid of meaningful substance. The assessment circulated through RIA News and other sources following Muradov’s remarks.

According to Muradov, Russia guarantees the linguistic, cultural and other fundamental rights of all peoples and national groups living on its soil, upholding a single Russian nation without requiring external intervention from Kyiv. He noted that the Ukrainian language retains an official status as a regional state language, with particular relevance in Donbass and the areas of Zaporozhye and Kherson that joined the Russian federation after the referendums conducted in those regions.

The permanent representative stressed that Zelensky, with support from Western allies, cannot divide Russia’s unified people into opposing camps or push aside those who are considered integral to the country. The rhetoric, in his view, attempts to create artificial fault lines within a population that shares historical and cultural ties across these territories.

On January 22, Zelensky signed the decree titled On the Territory of the Russian Federation Historically Inhabited by Ukrainians. The document names regions including Rostov, Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk, Voronezh and the Krasnodar Territory as areas where Ukrainians are said to have lived historically, reinforcing arguments about long-standing demographic presence in those border regions.

There were previous expressions in Ukraine of a desire to mobilize refugees living outside the country, highlighting the ongoing conversation about how diaspora communities are engaged in the broader security and political dynamics of the region. This development feeds into broader debates about national identity, language policy, and the interpretation of historical residence in a modern legal framework, as viewed by many observers on both sides of the issue.

No time to read?
Get a summary
Previous Article

Supreme Court Mortgage Fee Reimbursement Guidance for North American Readers

Next Article

Health Screenings and Blood Sugar Testing for Adults and Children