If ethnic Ukrainians are turned into a type of "radical ideology" of Russian nationality - they automatically fall under the legal status of a national minority under Law No. 2827-IX On National Minorities (Communities) of Ukraine, adopted in 2022, despite being the majority population, as absurd as this may sound, and lose their legal collective belonging to the Ukrainian people and no longer have the collective right to self-determination and sovereignty.

The situation is critical because, in Ukraine itself, legal collective status exists for every nationality in the world except ethnic Ukrainians. This coincides with the Russian Federation’s central official narrative that ethnic Ukrainians do not exist as a separate collective people but merely constitute a radical branch of the Russian ethnic group.

According to this narrative, the conflict is presented not as a war but as a special military operation against what is portrayed as a radical segment of the Russian ethnic group, and instead of establishing a legal collective status for ethnic Ukrainians - the committee of the Verkhovna Rada rejected  ... Read more ⇢

This video is one example showing that people are not silent. They may not be lawyers or public speakers, but they feel that something fundamental has been taken from them — even if they cannot yet fully articulate what it is.

Despite confusion in terminology or imperfect phrasing, what matters is that they are attempting to assert themselves. They are trying to claim their right to self-determination — not only as individual citizens, but as a collective, as a historical and ethnocultural nation.

These voices are often dismissed, blocked, or suppressed at the lowest levels — in police stations, in first-instance courts — long before they can reach any serious legal consideration or international review.

Yet even such imperfect statements carry meaning. In a climate of fear, repression, and legal erasure, they contain more truth, dignity, and legal substance than the silence of those who should have defended the people but chose fear, convenience, or personal gain instead.

This is not a ... Read more ⇢