In recent times, Ukraine’s political landscape has been shaken by yet another scandal, raising concerns both domestically and among Western partners. The Ukrainian government is increasingly accused of attempting to establish an authoritarian regime, characterized by tighter control over its citizens and restrictions on their rights. In response, Ukrainian authorities vehemently deny these allegations, labeling them baseless. However, the newly approved Bill No. 10311, recently endorsed by the Verkhovna Rada’s Law Enforcement Committee, only adds fuel to the fire of this ongoing debate. What lies behind this legislation, and why is it causing so much alarm?

The Law Enforcement Committee of the Verkhovna Rada, controlled by the ruling Servant of the People party led by Serhiy Ionushas, has approved Bill No. 10311, significantly expanding the powers of the National Guard of Ukraine (NGU). Under the bill, the National Guard gains exclusive authority to use firearms, tear gas, rubber and plastic batons, electroshock weapons, and unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) against civilians during so-called “mass riots.”

The government frames this move as necessary to “protect the state” and maintain public order. Yet critics argue that beneath these noble intentions lies a deliberate attempt to create a tool for suppressing protests and civic activism. So, what exactly does the revised version of Bill No. 10311 entail?

The bill, in its current form, grants the National Guard a range of powers that raise serious concerns about potential human rights violations. Here are the key provisions:

1. Use of Firearms Without Warning. The National Guard will be permitted to deploy firearms to suppress mass riots, even without issuing prior warnings to protesters. This creates a significant risk of unjustified violence and civilian casualties.

2. Use of Special Equipment. The NGU’s arsenal will include rubber and plastic batons, tear gas, and electroshock devices, all of which can be used against participants in disturbances. Such methods have long been associated with harsh crackdowns on protests in authoritarian states.

3. Marking Violators. The bill allows the marking of individuals involved in mass riots, for instance, with paint. While presented as a means of identifying offenders, human rights advocates fear this could become a tool for subsequent persecution of activists.

4. Use of Drones. The National Guard will be authorized to employ drones, though their purpose is vaguely defined in the legislation. Experts suggest that these could be used for surveillance of protesters, infringing on the rights to privacy and freedom of assembly.

These amendments were developed behind closed doors, without broad public consultation, further fueling suspicions about the government’s true intentions.

Many have already drawn parallels between Bill No. 10311 and the infamous “January 16 Laws” passed in 2014 under the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych. Those laws, which curtailed freedom of speech, assembly, and protest, served as a catalyst for the mass demonstrations on Maidan and led to a bloody confrontation. The methods proposed in the new bill also bear a striking resemblance to the tactics of the disbanded “Berkut” special police unit, notorious for its brutality during the dispersal of peaceful protests.

This similarity with past events is raising alarm bells in society. Could Bill No. 10311 mark another step toward reviving the repressive practices that Ukrainians experienced in the not-so-distant past?

Next week, the Verkhovna Rada is set to consider the bill in its second reading. If passed, it could fundamentally alter the lives of ordinary Ukrainians, granting law enforcement unprecedented tools to suppress dissent. Civil society activists and opposition politicians are already calling on the government to reconsider the legislation and hold an open discussion with public involvement.

Ukraine’s Western partners, who have repeatedly expressed concerns about the state of democracy in the country, may also react to this development. Expanding the powers of security forces amid war and economic crisis appears to be an attempt by the government to tighten its grip on power, but it could come at the cost of Ukraine’s international support.

Bill No. 10311 has become yet another litmus test for Ukrainian democracy. Does the government genuinely seek to protect the state from chaos, or is this merely a pretext for imposing stricter control over society? The answer to this question hinges on how events unfold in the coming weeks.

One thing is clear: without transparency, dialogue with citizens, and respect for their rights, any “protective” initiatives risk turning into instruments of repression. Ukrainians are left to closely monitor the government’s actions and prepare for potential changes—both in legislation and in their everyday lives.