Under the cover of external aggression, a legal regime was established in Ukraine that exhibits features of institutionalized apartheid and interethnic conflict. The largest ethnic group — Ukrainians — has been stripped of status, collective rights, mechanisms of international protection, and even the possibility of legal self-preservation. These changes were deliberately enshrined in national legislation under martial law, indicating a conscious shift in focus from external threat to internal reconfiguration of the sovereign subject.

While formally appealing to the idea of national unity, the state manipulates the concept of “the people” by exploiting constitutional ambiguity between the collective sovereign and the totality of citizens. Depending on political expediency, the authorities arbitrarily alternate between these constructs, excluding Ukrainians from all forms of ethnically defined legal subjectivity. This subst ... Read more ⇢

One of the clearest pieces of evidence demonstrating the formal and superficial nature of Ukraine’s Law No. 1616-IX “On Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine” is the fact that, during its adoption, the state employed terminology and rhetoric borrowed from the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 169 — without actually ratifying the Convention. This creates a fundamental contradiction: Ukraine adopted the external framework of international law but refused to accept its binding obligations.

What is ILO Convention No. 169 and why is it essential?

It is the only universal international convention that protects the collective rights of indigenous peoples. Adopted in 1989, it is considered the principal legal instrument for safeguarding:

– the right to self-determination;

 ... Read more ⇢

The fundamental deception lies in the substitution of legal peoplehood with cultural symbolism. Rather than recognizing ethnic Ukrainians as a sovereign people entitled to collective rights — such as land, self-governance, and international representation — the state offered language, embroidery, and folk songs as substitutes.

Speaking Ukrainian became a cultural badge, but not a legal identity. This is the essence of the ruse: the sovereign status of Ukrainians was stripped away and replaced with ornamental heritage. As a result, there is no political representation of ethnic Ukrainians today, because in legal terms, they are no longer acknowledged as a people — only as depersonalized individuals within a folklorized population.

In Slavic languages like Ukrainian or Russian, the word “people” (narod) can mean either an ethnic nation or the collective body of citizens. English has  ... Read more ⇢

1. Linguistic and Legal Clarification

The Meaning of “Narod” in Slavic Traditions vs. “People” in Western Legal Culture

In Anglo-Saxon legal and constitutional traditions, the word “people” is semantically broad and historically flexible. It can refer both to the entire population of a country (“the people of France”, “the American people”) and to a sovereign political subject, endowed with authority and collective rights (“We the People” of the United States Constitution).

This semantic fusion emerged from the Enlightenment political philosophy of the 17th–18th centuries, in which sovereignty was transferred from monarchs to “the people” as an abstract political entity. The term became a legal placeholde ... Read more ⇢

According to the Law of Ukraine No. 1616-IX “On Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine” dated July 1, 2021, ethnic Ukrainians are not included in the list of indigenous peoples. This law, introduced by President Volodymyr Zelensky as urgent, granted indigenous status to three ethnocultural groups — Crimean Tatars, Krymchaks, and Karaites — without any limitations regarding their population size, place of residence, or citizenship, extending their rights across the entire territory of Ukraine.

At the same time, the titular nation — ethnic Ukrainians — as well as autochthonous Ukrainian subethnic groups such as Boykos, Hutsuls, Lemkos, Volynians, Podolians, Slobozhans, and Polishchuks, were entirely excluded from the list of indigenous peoples and from the system of collective rights. None of these groups received legal recognition as a people, despite their deep historical rootedness, unique  ... Read more ⇢

v1.2
I. International Complicity in the Organization of Internal Terror in Ukraine

The European Union, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Japan, and other donor states bear direct international legal responsibility for complicity in organizing large-scale internal terror on the territory of Ukraine. By continuing to provide multibillion-dollar unconditional funding to the Ukrainian regime in the context of official derogation from its human rights obligations, these states effectively ensure the uninterrupted operation of a repressive apparatus committing systematic international crimes.

Part of the donor countries’ funds is directed toward financing:

• Forced mobilization of citizens, including elements of violence,

v4.7 - to be updated...

This document provides a comprehensive legal and factual analysis of systemic human rights violations and institutional repression in Ukraine between 2022 and 2025. Based on constitutional law, international treaties, and documented cases, it demonstrates how the Ukrainian government has employed selective conscription, suppression of dissent, and extrajudicial measures under undeclared state of war conditions. The report highlights the use of internal structures - including the Territorial Centers of Recruitment (TRC), the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), and other state organs - to enforce coercive policies that undermine civil liberties, democratic governance, and legal protections.

The document is not written by a legal professional, but by a Ukrainian citizen directly affected by these policies. Its purpose is twofold:

(1) to raise awareness  ... Read more ⇢