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;

– rights to land and natural resources;

– rights to preserve language, culture, religion, and traditional way of life;

– rights to participate in decisions affecting them;

– the right not to be subjected to laws that contradict their culture without prior consent.

Ratifying this Convention obligates a state to comply with its provisions. Refusing to ratify it means that any references to indigenous rights remain mere declarations at the national level — without international legal commitments or consequences for non-compliance.

This is exactly what happened in Ukraine. In 2021, the government adopted Law No. 1616-IX, which, for the first time in the country’s history of independence, introduced a legal definition of “the people” — but recognized only three groups as indigenous peoples: the Crimean Tatars, Karaites, and Krymchaks.

Ethnic Ukrainians were excluded under the pretext that the law applied exclusively to the indigenous peoples of Crimea — those who had formed on its territory and who allegedly did not have a national state outside of Ukraine. Additional arguments claimed that Ukrainians did not require special protection, were not a vulnerable minority, and did not fall under international definitions applicable to “indigenous peoples.”

All of this provided a legal basis for their exclusion, despite the fact that Ukrainians are the historical foundation of the state on whose behalf the government operates.

At the same time, Ukraine did not ratify ILO Convention No. 169, meaning:

– it granted no actual internationally guaranteed rights to the recognized indigenous peoples;

– it is not obligated to uphold norms protecting collective identity or autonomy;

– and it can interpret, restrict, or ignore its own law at any time, since it is not bound by international commitments.

The conclusion is clear: if the true intent had been to grant rights to indigenous peoples, the logical and necessary step would have been to ratify the Convention alongside the adoption of the law. But this did not happen. That is why the law appears not as an act of protection, but as a mechanism of substitution — introducing a legal definition of “the people” while simultaneously excluding the titular ethnic group — the ethnic Ukrainians.

In other words, the entire structure of the Indigenous Peoples Law is built on an empty legal shell. It presents itself as a protective act, but in practice:

– it protects no one;

– it grants no rights;

– and it serves only one purpose — to justify the legal displacement of Ukrainians from the status of a people as the source of sovereignty.

For this reason, Ukraine’s refusal to ratify ILO Convention No. 169 is not accidental, but a key to understanding the true nature of Law No. 1616-IX. It shows that the law was not about rights — it was about constructing a legal mechanism of exclusion.

The Indigenous Peoples Law serves multiple functions:

On the one hand, it appears as a gesture toward minority protection.

On the other, it became a tool for redistributing sovereignty.

However, as long as Ukraine has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169, all the declared rights of these peoples remain without guarantees and depend solely on political will. This means that their rights are merely formal, and their status is fictitious.

Notably, Convention No. 169 explicitly condemns all forms of forced assimilation, emphasizing the need to eliminate the past policy of dissolving peoples into the administrative majority. The Convention affirms that the right of a people to exist includes its distinct identity, institutions, language, and traditions — even within the boundaries of existing states. Moreover, Article 1 states that self-identification is the principal criterion for recognition, not a decision by the state. This makes the exclusion of Ukrainians from the category of “people” not merely an internal legal act, but a violation of international law — a denial of the right to self-determination in defiance of international standards.

In addition, Article 6 of the Convention obligates the state to conduct mandatory consultations with peoples through their representative institutions when adopting any legislation affecting their rights. However, Ukrainians are not recognized as a people and have no such institutions. This means that all key laws, including No. 1616-IX, No. 2215-IX, and even mobilization acts, were adopted without their representation, which violates a fundamental principle of international law — the prohibition of coercion without subjectivity.

At the same time, ethnic Ukrainians were excluded from the legal definition of “people.” As a result, the term “people” in Ukrainian law has narrowed to only three groups — Jews, Hungarians, and Roma — who are recognized under international law as peoples. The rest of the population, including the majority, was left without any legal status as bearers of sovereignty.

It should also be noted that the Crimean Tatars, Karaites, and Krymchaks — recognized as indigenous peoples — cannot exercise their collective rights to participate in governance and sovereignty without Ukrainian citizenship. Although neither the Constitution of Ukraine nor Law No. 1616-IX formally requires citizenship as a condition for recognition as a people, in practice, the actual mechanisms for exercising power — such as participation in elections, representation, and access to public administration — are directly tied to citizenship under Ukrainian legislation.

The realization of these rights remains impossible until a mechanism for multiple citizenship is introduced. The relevant draft law No. 11469, initiated by former President Volodymyr Zelensky, was adopted as a basis on December 17, 2024. This creates a situation in which the subjectivity of some groups is legally established but postponed, while the titular ethnic group — ethnic Ukrainians — is excluded entirely.

Notably, Law No. 1616-IX was adopted seven months before the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine — in July 2021. This cannot be regarded as a coincidence. From the perspective of international humanitarian law, such a preemptive change in the legal status of the titular ethnic group may be qualified as an indirect sign of intent to destroy the group in the context of an impending armed conflict.

In fact, in the months leading up to the war, the authorities:

• legally stripped Ukrainians of their status as a people;

• preserved the right to international protection only for other ethnic groups;

• failed to provide mechanisms for collective representation;

• and thereby preemptively relieved themselves of the obligation to protect the main ethnic group under conditions of aggression.

Subsequently, in April 2022 — two months after the start of hostilities — Law No. 2215-IX was adopted, which annulled legal continuity, including acts in which Ukrainians were recognized as the source of sovereignty. This strengthens the suspicion of a prior political and legal calculation: to exclude Ukrainians from the definition of people before the war, and then from the composition of the legal successor during the war.

At the same time, official rhetoric prohibits any discussion of peace, replacing the concept of “peace” exclusively with the word “victory.” But without a recognized people — there is no one left to achieve victory. This is a political and legal substitution, in which slogans about state protection conceal the abolition of subjectivity of its titular bearer.

In essence, through Law No. 1616-IX, the authorities eliminated competition for the right to be recognized as a people and constructed a framework in which the main ethnic group is legally excluded from the definition of the “bearer of power.”

Thus, under the cover of war and external aggression, a hidden interethnic conflict is unfolding in Ukraine — between those groups recognized as “peoples” in the legal sense, and the rest of the population. Formally, the entire narrative revolves around resistance to the Russian invasion, but behind this curtain lies a fundamental redistribution of power, rights, and subjectivity.

The Law on Indigenous Peoples became a dual-purpose instrument. As long as ILO Convention No. 169 remains unratified, the rights of these peoples are suspended and depend solely on political will. This enables the use of the “people” status as a tool of pressure and a mechanism of selective legalization. Who will be recognized as a representative of a people is no longer decided by the state, but by external structures — including those influenced by religious restrictions that prevent open censuses. This means that at any moment, an unlimited number of individuals can be legalized, citing their ethnic affiliation.

At the same time, ethnic Ukrainians were excluded from the category of “people,” and therefore from the number of legitimate sources of sovereign power. Thus, the takeover operates on two fronts: on one side — the displacement of the titular ethnic group; on the other — keeping the recognized groups in a state of “low start,” ready for activation at any moment through ratification of the Convention or the law on multiple citizenship.

The draft law on multiple citizenship further reinforces this scheme: it allows those same recognized “peoples” to obtain political subjectivity while bypassing traditional Ukrainian citizenship. And to ensure that no one criticizes this asymmetry, a special law was adopted — Law of Ukraine No. 1770-IX “On Preventing and Counteracting Antisemitism,” which entered into force on October 9, 2021.

According to Article 2 of this law, manifestations of antisemitism include not only insults, violence, and Holocaust denial, but also:

“public statements related to condemning persons of Jewish origin as collectively responsible” and “statements of a false, hostile, or provocative nature.”

As a result, any attempt to point out legal inequality or the privileged position of recognized groups may be interpreted as a legal violation, with ensuing criminal or administrative liability.

This has created a legal environment in which even discussing the discrimination of Ukrainians becomes a punishable offense.

In all three cases — the adoption of Law No. 1616-IX, Law No. 2215-IX, and Law No. 1770-IX — the initiator was former President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky. This highlights the coordinated nature of the legal architecture of exclusion, erasure of succession, and political immutability.The result is a win-win structure for the system: the people are excluded, international norms are unratified but ready for deployment at any moment, and public criticism is blocked in advance.

To demonstrate how unique and undemocratic this structure is, it should be compared with the constitutions of other countries.

In Slavic languages, including Ukrainian and Russian, the word "people" (narod) carries a dual meaning. On one hand, it refers to an ethnic, cultural, or historical community — a bearer of sovereignty. On the other hand, it can also function as a general term for the collective population, meaning all people in a broad, demographic sense. This semantic ambiguity allowed the legal concept of “the people” in Ukraine’s Constitution to be blurred: the phrase “Ukrainian people — citizens of all nationalities” came to represent not a historical nation, but an administrative mass. This created the foundation for replacing the sovereign subject.

 

1. Ukraine: “Ukrainian people” without definition

Constitution of Ukraine, Article 5:

“The people shall be the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in Ukraine.”

But who this people actually are — is not stated. Not a word about whether they are ethnic Ukrainians or someone else.

Article 11:

“The state promotes the consolidation and development of the Ukrainian nation, its historical consciousness, traditions and culture, as well as the development of the ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious identity of all indigenous peoples and national minorities of Ukraine.”

Here, the Ukrainian nation is mentioned as something separate from “the people,” and it is not stated that it is the source of power.

Conclusion: In the Constitution of Ukraine, Ukrainians are not named as “the people” on whose behalf the state acts. Law No. 1616-IX reinforces this absurdity by explicitly excluding them from the list of “indigenous peoples.”

 

2. Germany: “German people” means those who belong to the German nation

 Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz), Preamble:

“The German people… have adopted this Basic Law.”

Article 116:

“A German is anyone who possesses German citizenship or has been admitted to the German people within the territory of the German Reich…”

So “the people” means ethnic Germans, and the state is created in their name and for their interests. Other nationalities may live in Germany but cannot claim the status of the people on whose behalf the power is exercised.

 

3. Poland: The state of the Polish people
 
Constitution of Poland, Preamble:

“We, the Polish Nation — all citizens of the Republic of Poland, both believers and non-believers, equally caring for the common good of our Homeland…”

In practice, the Polish people refer to the titular nation. The state pursues an active national policy in its interests, including the protection of Polish diasporas abroad.

 

4. France: Only one people — the French

Constitution of France, Article 1:

“France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It ensures equality before the law for all citizens regardless of origin, race or religion.”

In France, it is legally prohibited to recognize ethnic groups. There is only one people: the French. Only they hold sovereignty.

 

5. USA: “We the People” — the entire nation, with recognition of indigenous peoples
 
Constitution of the United States, Preamble:

“We the People of the United States… do ordain and establish this Constitution…”

In the American model, “the people” means all citizens. However, federally recognized tribes — the indigenous peoples — possess their own subjectivity, land rights, self-governance, and judicial systems.

– There is one American people,

– And there are recognized Native American nations who have their own territories, laws, courts, and legal personality.

 

Now the conclusion in the simplest possible terms:

– In Poland, Germany, France, and even the United States, it is always clear who the “people” are on whose behalf the state acts.

– In Ukraine, this is deliberately left ambiguous: the Constitution says one thing, a special law says another.

– And in 2021, a law was adopted that, for the first time, legally defined who counts as a “people” — but excluded Ukrainians.

In no other country is the titular ethnic group deprived of peoplehood status as it is in Ukraine.

The only reference an ethnic Ukrainian can rely on today to claim belonging to the “people” is the preamble of the Constitution. However, even this does not refer specifically to ethnic Ukrainians, as it explicitly mentions “citizens of all nationalities” and contains no ethnic clarification. Moreover, the preamble itself does not carry the force of law and can be reinterpreted at any moment. As a result, the ethnic Ukrainian is left completely excluded from the definition of the people — without rights, without protection, and without a subject on whose behalf state power is exercised.

Ukrainians have fallen into a legal trap: not recognized as a people, not protected by international law, and not granted mechanisms for self-determination. This creates a situation in which the titular nation exists only as an administrative category — without sovereignty, without protection, and without a future.

Thus, a unique and extremely dangerous situation has emerged: the legal architecture of the Ukrainian state is structured in such a way that ending the conflict becomes disadvantageous to the system of power itself. This is not merely an abstract “external threat” — it is an internal interethnic conflict of interest, codified in legal norms adopted between 2021 and 2022. Law No. 1616-IX excluded Ukrainians from the definition of “people”. Law No. 2215-IX erased the legal continuity of Ukrainian statehood. The law on antisemitism blocked even attempts to analyze what is happening, replacing critique with accusations of conspiracy. And the war, within this legal framework, only strengthens the system that removes Ukrainians as subjects.

We are forced into a binary narrative: Putin is absolute evil, Zelensky is absolute good. But in reality, both turn out to be parts of a closed system in which the destruction of the population, the dismantling of the state, and the legal erasure of Ukrainian identity are not an accident but the result of institutional logic. This logic is not visible in propaganda, but it is clearly traceable in the laws.

Today, the ethnic Ukrainian is in a position comparable to that of a Palestinian: told that they never existed, that their church has no status, that their culture is not subject to protection, and that their people is not recognized. At the same time, new memory sites are created, foreign symbols are promoted, old cemeteries are cleared to make room for new shrines — but no longer Ukrainian ones. All of this is happening amid continued physical destruction of the population and the blocking of their rights to international protection.

This is not just an interethnic conflict of interests — it is a conflict driven so deeply inward that people live in constant fear. They are not afraid of Putin or an external enemy — they are afraid to say anything aloud, for fear of immediately being labeled “Kremlin agents.” Any attempt to speak about internal injustice, about the exclusion of Ukrainians from the status of a people, is instantly suppressed with phrases like: “now is not the time,” “there’s a war going on,” “don’t rock the boat.” But legally, there is no war — it hasn’t been declared. And so, under the cover of an “undeclared war,” the legal destruction of a people can continue indefinitely. Such a system will not end in victory or peace — it will only end when there is not a single recognized Ukrainian left.

Unlike Hungarians, Jews, Roma, or Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians cannot file complaints on behalf of their people, cannot participate in international forums as a people, and cannot invoke ILO Convention No. 169.

This makes them the most unprotected ethnic group on the territory of their own state.

Cultural neutralization is systematic:

• Deregistration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church;

• Replacement of historical symbols;

• Revision of school curricula;

• Erasure of Ukrainian historical memory in public rhetoric.

Along with the loss of titular nation status.

If a people is not recognized in law, it can no longer claim territorial integrity, ethnic security, or a political future.

This is constitutionally formalized displacement.

Ukrainians are no longer subjects. They are a population without a people.

In international law, this is called internal ethnolegal colonialism — when a state created by one ethnic group ceases to act on its behalf.

We, ethnic Ukrainians:

• are not recognized as a people;

• do not possess legal subjectivity;

• are not protected by international mechanisms;

• are subject to mobilization and bound by laws we did not sanction as a people.

Therefore:

• we have the right to self-determination as a people;

• we have the right to demand the restoration of our subjectivity through international institutions;

• we have the right to direct appeals to the UN, OSCE, Council of Europe, and the International Court as victims of legal colonization and exclusion from sovereignty.

 

Legal Significance for International Protection

The systematic exclusion of ethnic Ukrainians from the status of a people, their lack of mechanisms for international representation, collective protection, and self-determination in the context of war, forced mobilization, and cultural neutralization — all of this meets the criteria of persecution on the basis of ethnicity and may qualify as a form of genocide in the legal sense of Article II(e) of the Genocide Convention (forcible transfer of children, destruction of institutional identity, obstruction of the right to exist as a group).

This text may be used as an analytical basis when applying for international legal protection, including in the context of political asylum, temporary protection, or when submitting complaints to international bodies. It substantiates that ethnic Ukrainians have found themselves in the position of a people without rights, legal subjectivity, or mechanisms for survival — which requires specific international response.

 

Conclusion

This is not an abstract theory or journalistic rhetoric. It is a legal description of a hidden interethnic conflict in which one people — the Ukrainians — has been eliminated as a subject, while other ethnic groups have been granted or retain international legal subjectivity.

We demand:

• Immediate recognition of the fact of legal colonization;

• Restoration of Ukrainians as a recognized people under international law;

• Investigation into the consequences of Laws No. 1616-IX and No. 2215-IX;

• Repeal of ethnically discriminatory provisions in Ukrainian legislation;

• Granting ethnic Ukrainians the status of a people with the right to self-determination, international representation, and protection.

We appeal to the international community with a call — to judge what is happening not by media noise, but by legal facts. Ukraine does not need the image of a victim — it needs the restoration of justice. First and foremost — the recognition of Ukrainians as a people and the restoration of their legal subjectivity. Without this, there can be no peace, no democracy, and no honest future.

Disclaimer

This text is an analytical study of the legal norms of Ukraine and their consequences for the ethnic identity, subjectivity, and international protection of ethnic Ukrainians. It is not directed against any ethnic group, religion, or culture. All referenced legislative acts are examined solely from the perspective of their legal content and their implications for the system of popular sovereignty and equality.

We categorically condemn all forms of antisemitism, xenophobia, and discrimination and stand for equal rights for all peoples. The purpose of this publication is to defend the rights of ethnic Ukrainians as a people and to restore a fair legal balance within the framework of international and constitutional norms.