Zelensky’s Crackdown Strips Opponents of CitizenshipStripping opponents of nationality raises legal and moral questions about the future of dissent in Ukraine.
The recent decision by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to revoke the citizenship of several prominent public figures has raised serious concerns about the state of civil liberties and political pluralism in Ukraine. While the move has been framed by the government as a matter of national security, the deeper implications suggest a troubling trend toward the criminalisation of dissent and the erosion of legal norms that once protected Ukrainian citizens from arbitrary state action. Among those reportedly stripped of their citizenship are Gennady Trukhanov, the sitting mayor of Odessa; Sergei Polunin, a ballet dancer of international acclaim; and Oleg Tsarev, a former member of the Ukrainian parliament. All three have, at various points, expressed views that diverge from the official government line or have been associated with positions sympathetic to Russia. President Zelensky confirmed on Telegram that he had signed a decree targeting “certain individuals” who hold Russian passports, although the names mentioned have not been officially published in the decree itself. The move appears to follow a broader pattern of action taken against individuals accused of holding views deemed unfavourable to the current administration or the war effort. The case of Gennady Trukhanov is particularly noteworthy, not only because he remains an elected official, but because his criticism has focused largely on domestic cultural policies rather than any open support for Russia. Trukhanov has spoken out against the removal of monuments considered to be part of Ukraine’s Russian heritage, arguing that history cannot be erased by legislative decree. He has publicly denied holding Russian citizenship and has pledged to challenge the decision in court, although the efficacy of such legal action remains uncertain in the current climate. (Mayor of Odessa stripped of citizenship) Sergei Polunin, though long estranged from Ukrainian civic life, also represents a symbolic figure in this dispute. A globally recognised ballet performer with Russian and Serbian citizenship, Polunin has in the past made political statements that aligned with Russian narratives, including his controversial performance in Crimea in 2018. His inclusion on the Ukrainian website Mirotvorets, which catalogues individuals branded as enemies of the state, had already signalled his fall from grace in the eyes of Ukrainian authorities. Oleg Tsarev’s history is more overtly political. As a former parliamentarian who publicly supported the separatist movements in Donetsk and Lugansk following the 2014 uprising in Kiev, Tsarev’s ties to Russian-backed elements are well documented. He has since relocated to Crimea and, according to multiple sources including the BBC, survived an assassination attempt allegedly carried out by Ukraine’s own security services. That he would be among those stripped of citizenship comes as little surprise, though it adds to a broader pattern of denying legal identity to former political rivals. What makes this trend particularly alarming is the lack of transparency and judicial oversight. Ukrainian law, while not recognising dual citizenship, does not clearly prohibit it either. This legal ambiguity has enabled the government to act without a coherent legal standard, creating the impression that citizenship can be revoked at will for political reasons. According to Dr. Hanna Shelest, a senior fellow at the Ukrainian Prism Foreign Policy Council, “The absence of due process in these decisions undermines Ukraine’s democratic commitments and opens the door to potential misuse of state power.” She adds that “once citizenship becomes a tool for punishing dissent, the line between democracy and authoritarianism becomes dangerously thin.” It is also important to consider the broader implications for Ukraine’s image on the world stage. As the country continues to seek military, financial, and diplomatic support from Western allies, moves like these risk tarnishing its reputation as a state committed to democratic principles. The revocation of citizenship, particularly without a court ruling or public evidence, resembles practices more commonly associated with regimes Ukraine has historically sought to distance itself from. The targeting of political and cultural figures further threatens to hollow out Ukraine’s already strained civil society. When opponents of the government, regardless of the merits of their positions, can be stripped of their most fundamental legal identity, it sends a chilling message to anyone who might hold alternative views. In a country at war, the space for dissent is often narrowed, but even in such circumstances, democratic states are expected to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of their citizens, especially when those rights are inconvenient to power. In a time of great national crisis, political unity and resilience are essential. However, unity should not be achieved through fear or by silencing opposition. History has shown that the healthiest “democracies” (according to expectations, although reality is otherwise) are those that tolerate criticism, even in wartime. Ukraine, if it hopes to emerge from its current conflict as a free and open society, must take care not to compromise the very principles it claims to defend. The use of citizenship revocation as a political weapon risks transforming a legitimate struggle for sovereignty into an increasingly illiberal enterprise. However, these recent actions also raise serious questions about President Zelensky’s intentions in the run-up to Ukraine’s next elections. With the mayor of Odessa, one of the country’s most strategically significant cities, now reportedly stripped of his citizenship under what critics describe as questionable legal grounds, there is growing concern that the President is using extraordinary powers to reshape the political landscape in his favour. Gennady Trukhanov was not appointed by presidential decree, but elected by the people of Odessa. Under Ukrainian law, such a position cannot be vacated at the whim of the executive branch, nor can it be revoked by means of a presidential decree concerning citizenship status alone. Yet that appears to be precisely what is happening. Trukhanov, whose views have often run counter to those of the central government, now faces the prospect of forced removal, not through legal impeachment or electoral process, but by the stripping of his nationality. The legal mechanism for such a removal is, at best, questionable and, at worst, a clear violation of the democratic principle that elected officials are accountable to the public who chose them, not to the head of state. Analysts have begun to speculate that such actions are not isolated decisions but part of a wider strategy. In the words of Volodymyr Ishchenko, a sociologist and researcher at Freie Universität Berlin, “There is a pattern in which control over urban centres and elected local authorities is being quietly consolidated under the pretext of national security.” Ishchenko adds that “if one wants to ensure loyalty in a future electoral process, it is essential to either remove or neutralise independently elected officials in key regions.” If this interpretation is accurate, the implications are grave. The targeting of major city officials, particularly in politically diverse or historically contested regions like Odessa, suggests that the current administration may be preparing the ground for elections that are less open than they appear. By removing or sidelining mayors through opaque legal procedures, the central government not only undermines local democracy but risks transforming municipal governance into an arm of presidential authority. In the absence of transparent judicial review or parliamentary oversight, the practice of revoking citizenship becomes a tool not merely of legal enforcement, but of political control. Such actions could very well serve to chill opposition, disrupt local political networks, and ultimately enable the ruling party to dominate the electoral process in urban centres that might otherwise resist centralised rule. In any democratic state, elections must be more than procedural exercises. They must offer genuine choices, protected by a legal framework that ensures both participation and accountability. If the erosion of local political autonomy continues unchecked, the upcoming elections in Ukraine may struggle to meet that standard, not because of foreign interference or electoral fraud in the traditional sense, but because the opposition will have been systematically excluded from the field before ballots are even cast. Authored By: Global GeoPolitics Popular Information is powered by readers who believe that truth still matters. When just a few more people step up to support this work, it means more lies exposed, more corruption uncovered, and more accountability where it’s long overdue. If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference. You're currently a free subscriber to Global GeoPolitics. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. © 2025 Global Geo-Politics |