Ukraine Changes Law on Dual Citizenship
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Ukraine's parliament on Wednesday passed legislation allowing its citizens to hold multiple citizenships.
The legislation comes as the country grapples with a severe demographic crisis, exacerbated by the ongoing war with Russia, which has forced millions of Ukrainians to flee abroad.
Why It Matters
The reform would allow the millions of Ukrainians around the world who have been displaced by Russian President Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of the country in 2022 to hold on to their Ukrainian passports should they seek other citizenship.
What To Know
Ukraine's population has been shrinking since the collapse of the Soviet Union, when it stood at around 50 million. By 2021, the figure had dropped to approximately 40 million. Today, the government estimates the population has fallen further to about 32 million, with a diaspora of roughly 25 million, according to Reuters.
Now in its its fourth year, the war has driven more than 5 million Ukrainians to Europe and claimed tens of thousands of lives.
Ukraine's Ministry of National Unity said in a statement that multiple citizenship was "a strategic step to preserve the unity of the Ukrainian nation in the face of war, global mobility, and a large diaspora."
It was developed "as a response to demographic and security challenges, as well as the need to restore and maintain ties with millions of Ukrainians abroad," added the statement.
Oleksiy Chernyshov, Ukraine's minister for unity, said he hoped the legislation would restore the country's ties with members of the global Ukrainian diaspora. His ministry said 90 percent of Ukrainians abroad were in countries where multiple citizenship is allowed.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky introduced the bill to parliament last August.
Special provisions will streamline processes for children born abroad to Ukrainian parents and for Ukrainians who acquire a second nationality through marriage.
Foreigners who wish to become Ukrainian citizens must pass a test on the country's language, history, and constitution. However, citizenship will be denied to nationals of countries considered hostile to Ukraine or that do not recognize its territorial integrity.
The legislation also paves the way for foreign nationals who have fought alongside Ukrainian forces to be granted citizenship more easily.
What People Are Saying
Oleksiy Chernyshov, minister for unity, said in a post on Facebook on Wednesday: "This decision is an important step to maintain and restore ties with millions of Ukrainians around the world."
Ukrainian Natalya Kostyk-Ustenko, who fled Ukraine's Kherson in June 2022 to live in Lithuania with her two children, told Reuters: "Since the situation in Ukraine is unstable, people... do not know whether to return or not."
"Our roots are Ukrainian, we love our country, we support it as best we can. This (move on citizenship) is significant support for us as refugees, we are all scattered around the world."
What Happens Next
The Ukrainian government will come up with a list of countries whose citizens are eligible for dual citizenship with Ukraine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ex-ambassador to Russia: Putin, Xi will celebrate Trump's ‘preemptive war' in Iran
Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul warned on Saturday of how U.S. strikes on Iran could influence U.S. adversaries around the world. In an interview on MSNBC, McFaul said Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping would be glad to see the U.S. engaging in 'preemptive' strikes. 'I think we've really got to understand our other interests in the world that might be affected by this attack today. This is a preemptive war. The world does not support preemptive wars. We learned that in 2003,' McFaul said, referring to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was launched based on the theory that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction and threatened America. 'Putin will be celebrating this because he did his own preemptive war in Ukraine and now it's like, well, this is just what great powers do. Maybe Xi Jinping is going to think the same. He's going to say, 'Well, if they can do it here, we can do it in Taiwan,'' McFaul added. Trump announced on Saturday evening that the U.S. had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites and said, 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' McFaul, in the interview, said he wishes the president 'well' in his aim to bring about peace, saying that outcome is possible but not likely. 'I hope he can bring about an agreement as soon as possible. It's happened before — capitulation after an attack like this — so it could happen, but it's not what I'm predicting,' McFaul said. 'The idea that they will now sit down and negotiate with us some long-term deal in the immediate run, I think, is highly unlikely,' he added. McFaul said it's 'good news' that the U.S. strikes, according to Trump, 'totally obliterated' the Iranian nuclear facilities, saying, 'I applaud that.' 'That's good news for today, but we need to think about what are the first, second, third and fourth order consequences after this,' McFaul added. 'Most immediately, they are going to retaliate, and I hope we are prepared to prevent that and prevail against our forces in the region.'
American Military News
an hour ago
- American Military News
Zelenskyy says Russia 'chooses to kill' as Putin repeats hard-line demands
This article was originally published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and is reprinted with permission. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that a massive Russian drone and missile attack on Kyiv, which claimed dozens of civilian lives, is a reminder that Russia is disregarding cease-fire efforts and 'chooses to kill.' 'This strike is a reminder to the world that Russia spurns a cease-fire and chooses to kill,' Zelenskyy said on June 19 while visiting the site of a nine-story building that collapsed as a result of what Ukraine said was a direct missile hit during the intense aerial assault two nights earlier. 'This vile attack, carried out in the middle of the night, claimed the lives of 23 civilians,' he said on X. Five people were killed in other parts of the capital and more than 150 people in Kyiv and elsewhere were wounded in the massive attack early on June 17, emergency services said. At least two people were killed in the Black Sea port city of Odesa. 'I am grateful to all our partners who understand that Ukraine must grow stronger every single day. I thank everyone who is ready to exert pressure on Moscow in a way that makes them feel the true cost of this war,' Zelenskyy added. Zelenskyy's statement came after Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed he is ready 'to find a solution' to his war on Ukraine and to potentially meet with the Ukrainian president. However, in his remarks at a meeting with representatives of international news agencies on the sidelines of an economic forum in St. Petersburg on June 18, Putin again repeated some of his maximalist positions in comments to foreign media, giving no sign that he is prepared to make substantial concessions. 'We need to find a solution that would not only put an end to the current conflict but also create conditions that would prevent similar situations from recurring in the long term,' Putin said. The remark echoed his repeated statements that any peace deal must address what he calls the 'root causes' of the war — wording he uses to question Ukraine's right to exist, to choose its security partners, and to maintain a strong military. Russian and Ukrainian officials met in Istanbul on May 16 and June 2, the first direct peace talks since the initial weeks of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which Putin launched on February 24, 2022. The negotiations yielded agreements on prisoner swaps and the exchange of bodies of soldiers killed in the war, but produced no progress toward a cease-fire, let alone a peace deal. Russia and Ukraine sent an unspecified number of sick or wounded prisoners home on June 19, the latest in a series of exchanges. Zelenskyy said the exchange brought back Ukrainian soldiers who had fought all along the front lines, including in the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions that were liberated by Ukrainian forces months into the Russian invasion in 2022. 'Most of them had been held captive since 2022… Our goal is to free every single one of them,' Zelenskyy added. Putin said talks could resume at some point after June 22, a date he has previously suggested for a major new swap of prisoners and the bodies of the dead. The Russian leader added, however, that he would only meet Zelenskyy in the 'final phase' of any peace negotiations. Zelenskyy has sought to meet with Putin amid the talks, but the Kremlin says an agreement on a deal must be reached first and Putin repeated his groundless claim that Zelenskyy is not a legitimate leader. 'I am ready to meet with everyone, including Zelenskyy. That is not the issue — if the Ukrainian state trusts someone in particular to conduct negotiations, for God's sake, it can be Zelenskyy,' Putin said. 'I am even ready to meet him — but only if it is some kind of final phase.' The West has slapped sanctions on Russia while NATO has beefed up its forces on its eastern flank since Putin launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Rights groups have alleged major rights violations and war crimes committed by Russian forces during their military operations. Western allies have also widely criticized Putin for his refusal to agree to cease-fire terms put forward by US President Donald Trump. On June 19, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha noted that 100 days have passed since Kyiv accepted Trump's proposal for an unconditional, extendable 30-day cease-fire. Russia has kept up and in some cases intensified its bombardments of Ukrainian cities in recent weeks and is pushing to make further gains at several parts of the long front line, which runs from northeastern Ukraine to the Black Sea shore in the south. Putin's wide-ranging briefing took place as Russian air attacks continued on June 19, with the Ukrainian Air Force saying it shot down or otherwise neutralized 88 of the 104 drones fired by Russia. One person was killed in an artillery barrage on Kostyantynivka, a Ukrainian-held city in the Donetsk region, the head of the city military administration, Serhiy Horbunov, said on Facebook. Five people were wounded in Russian artillery and drone strikes on the Dnipropetrovsk region, authorities said. The Russian Defense Ministry said its forces downed 85 Ukrainian drones over 11 Russian regions and Russian-occupied Crimea. In another sign that he is not ready to make concessions, Putin vowed that Moscow will 'demilitarize' Ukraine through diplomacy or force. At the talks in 2022 and in the recent negotiations, Russia has pushed for radically reducing the size of Ukraine's military, which Kyiv and its backers say would leave it defenseless. 'We will not allow Ukraine to have armed forces that would threaten the Russian Federation and its people,' he said. 'And if we fail to reach a settlement, we will achieve our goals by military means.' Asked about civilian deaths in Russian attacks on Ukraine, Putin repeated Moscow's claim that it does not target civilians, despite ample evidence to the contrary. 'The strikes were carried out against military industries, not residential quarters,' Putin said. The confirmed civilian death toll in Ukraine since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion is over 13,000, according to the UN, which says many of the growing number of civilian casualties have been caused by Russian long-range missile and drone attacks. Officials say the real civilian toll is like higher. Meanwhile, on June 19, Zelenskyy appointed Hennadiy Shapovalov as commander of Ukraine's land force, replacing Major General Mykhaylo Drapatiy, who resigned following a deadly Russian strike on a troop training area.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Right Move, Wrong Team
The rulers of Iran bet their regime on the 'Trump always chickens out' trade. They refused diplomacy. They got war. They chose their fate. They deserve everything that has happened to them. Only the world's most committed America-haters will muster sympathy for the self-destructive decision-making of a brutal regime. Striking Iran at this time and under these circumstances was the right decision by an administration and president that usually make the wrong one. An American president who does not believe in democracy at home has delivered an overwhelming blow in defense of a threatened democracy overseas. If a single night's action successfully terminates Trump's Iran war, and permanently ends the Iran nuclear bomb program, then Trump will have retroactively earned the birthday parade he gave himself on June 14. If not, this unilateral war under a president with dictatorial ambitions may lead the United States to some dark and repressive places. Trump did the right thing, but he did that right thing in the wrongest possible way: without Congress, without competent leadership in place to defend the United States against terrorism, and while waging a culture war at home against half the nation. Trump has not put U.S. boots on the ground to fight Iran, but he has put U.S. troops on the ground for an uninvited military occupation of California. Iran started this war. In August 2002, courageous Iranian dissidents revealed to the world an Iranian nuclear enrichment plant in Natanz. Suddenly, all those chanted slogans about destroying Israel moved from the realm of noise and slogans to the realm of intent and plan. Over the next 23 years, Iran invested an enormous amount of wealth and know-how in advancing its project to annihilate the state of Israel. Iran deterred Israel from attacking the nuclear project by deploying missiles and supporting terror groups. After the October 7 terror attacks on Israel, Iran gradually lost its deterrence. Israel defeated Hamas and Hezbollah militarily, and the Iranian-allied regime in Syria collapsed. But Iran did not change its strategy. It was Iran that initiated the direct nation-to-nation air war with Israel. After Israel struck an Iranian compound in Syria in April 2024, Iran fired 300 ballistic missiles into Israel, a warning of what to expect once Iran completed its nuclear program. If the war launched by the rulers of Iran has brought only defeat and humiliation to their country, that does not make those rulers victims of anybody else's aggression. A failed aggressor is still the aggressor. Now Americans face the consequences of Trump's intervention to thwart Iran's aggression. Some of those consequences may be welcome. The attack on Iran is the very first time that President Trump has ever done anything Vladimir Putin did not want him to do. That's one of the reasons I personally doubted he would act strongly against Iran. Maybe Trump can now make a habit of defying Putin—and at last provide the help and support that Ukraine's embattled democracy needs to win its war of self-defense against Russian aggression. The strike on Iran was opposed by the reactionary faction within the Trump administration—and in MAGA media—that backs America's enemies against America's allies. It's very wrong to call this faction 'anti-war.' They want a war against Mexico. They have pushed the United States on the first steps to that war by flying drones over Mexican territory without Mexican permission. This faction is defined not by what it rejects, but by what it admires (Putin's Russia above all) and by who it blames for America's troubles (those it euphemistically condemns as 'globalists'). That reactionary faction lost this round of decision-making. Perhaps now they will lose more rounds. But if some of the domestic consequences of this strike are welcome, others are very dangerous. Presidents have some unilateral war-making power. President Obama did not ask Congress to authorize his air campaign in Libya in 2011. The exact limits of that power are blurry, defined by politics, not law. But Trump's strike on Iran has pushed that line further than it has been pushed since the end of the Vietnam War—and the pushing will become even more radical if Iranian retaliation provokes more U.S. strikes after the first wave. Trump has abused the president's power to impose emergency tariffs, and created a permanent system of revenue-collection without Congress. He asserts that he can ignore rights of due process in immigration cases. He has defied judicial orders to repatriate persons wrongfully sent to a foreign prison paid for by U.S. taxpayer funds. He is ignoring ethics and conflicts of interest laws to enrich himself and his family on a post-Soviet scale—much of that money flowing from undisclosed foreign sources. He has intimidated and punished news organizations for coverage he did not like by abusing regulatory powers over their corporate parents. He has deployed military units to police California over the objections of the elected authorities in that state. This is a president who wants and wields arbitrary power the way no U.S. president has ever done in peacetime. And now it's wartime. Americans have a right and proper instinct to rally around their presidents in time of war. But in the past, that rallying has been met by the equal instincts of presidents to rise above party and faction when the whole nation must be defended. Trump's decision to brief Republican leaders of Congress before the Iran strike, but not their Democratic counterparts, was not merely a petty discourtesy—it confirmed his divisive and authoritarian methods of leadership and warned of worse to come. It is not confidence-inspiring that Pete Hegseth leads the Pentagon. Or that Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Kristi Noem are in charge of protecting Americans from Iranian retaliatory terrorism. Or that Tulsi Gabbard is coordinating national intelligence. Or that enemy-of-Ukraine J.D. Vance is poised to inherit all. Trump exercises national power, but he cannot and will not act as a national leader. He sees himself—and has always acted as—the leader of one part of a nation against the rest: the wartime leader of Red America in its culture war against Blue America, as my former Atlantic colleague Ron Brownstein has written. Now this president of half of America has commanded all of America into a global military conflict. With luck, that conflict will be decisive and brief. Let's hope so.
