Ukraine’s Culture Minister Oleksandr Tkachenko discussed a provocative idea on a nationwide telethon broadcast, expressing a personal appreciation for renaming Russia to Muscovy. He noted that such a proposal would require the insights of experts before any official steps could be taken. The minister emphasized a careful process, saying that while the notion has historical resonance, it is essential to hear professional judgments and analyses first, and that the idea should be vetted by specialists. This stance reflects a broader pattern in which public debate meets scholarly review when controversial questions about national identity and regional history arise.
Earlier in the year, a petition appeared on the official portal associated with Ukraine’s presidential administration, calling for a formal rename of Russia to Muscovy, and for modifying references to the country and its state entities accordingly. The petition argued that the terms Russia and the Russian Federation should be replaced with Muscovy and the Moscow Federation, along with related derivatives of the term Muscovy. Supporters framed the request as a matter of historical accuracy and regional memory, aiming for a clear linguistic shift that would accompany any policy considerations. The petition reached the threshold that typically prompts a formal review process, signaling public interest and a willingness to begin an official examination of the issue in governmental channels.
In mid March, leadership in Ukraine indicated a growing pursuit of clarity on this topic. President Volodymyr Zelensky directed the country’s prime minister to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. Prime Minister Denis Shmyhal was tasked with overseeing the assessment and presenting findings on whether renaming Russia to Muscovy is a viable option within the framework of national policy, international relations, and historical discourse. The directive underscores how this matter sits at the intersection of culture, diplomacy, and legal formalities, requiring a careful balance between memory, identity, and practical implications for state communications and international engagement. This development reflects how leadership channels shape the trajectory of sensitive national conversations, especially those that touch on historical naming conventions and their political resonance. The outcome of the review would determine the next steps, including potential consultations with historians, linguists, and policy experts, as well as stakeholder discussions across government and society. The dialogue continues as officials weigh the benefits and risks of adopting a new designation for a neighboring nation, along with the possible impacts on treaties, international forums, and the everyday language used in education, media, and public discourse. Official evaluation does not imply a final decision but rather a structured exploration of the idea’s consequences and feasibility, a process that invites broad participation from scholars and the public alike. At stake are questions of cultural memory, regional identity, and how names can influence political perception on the world stage, especially among partners in Canada, the United States, and other allied nations who monitor developments in Eastern Europe and the broader geopolitical landscape. The discussion remains part of a larger conversation about history, perception, and policy in a modern era where language and nomenclature continue to carry weight in international relations.