Bill No. 10311 “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine ‘On the National Guard of Ukraine’” (hereinafter referred to as the “draft law”) regarding the improvement of the legal framework for the use of coercive measures by servicemen of the National Guard of Ukraine was registered with the Verkhovna Rada on December 1, 2023.

However, the approval of this bill by the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Law Enforcement in early March 2025 sparked significant public outcry.

What exactly is causing such a strong public reaction?

The ability to access and obtain any information these days can sometimes play a cruel joke on people, as a sensational headline very often bears no relation to the content of the article—and especially not to the essence of the issue itself. 

This was partly the case when the media was flooded with reports that the Verkhovna Rada wanted to revive the Berkut special police unit and return society to the realities of 2014, since the National Guard of Ukraine (NGU) sought to be granted powers it had never had before. 

Indeed, a number of media reports claim that the draft law allegedly provides for a series of changes, namely:

• National Guard personnel are granted the right to use firearms, tear gas, stun guns, drones, and other means of force during mass disturbances;
• the use of weapons is permitted after a warning is issued via loudspeakers or electronic display boards;
• the bill allows for the use of restraints, such as handcuffs, restraint nets, and special paint for marking offenders;
• military personnel are granted the right to use force to detain individuals attempting to evade checks at checkpoints;
• The bill prohibits the use of coercive measures against pregnant women, the elderly, children, and people with disabilities. However, this prohibition does not apply in cases of group or armed attacks;
• The National Guard is authorized to use drones for surveillance, marking offenders, and other operational tasks.

But does this correspond to reality? 

Is this something new, or just an old idea that not everyone is aware of?

In the Explanatory Note to the draft, the authors state that the bill aims to improve the legal regulation of issues related to the use by servicemembers of the National Guard of Ukraine (hereinafter—NGU) of coercive measures: physical force, special means, weapons, armaments, and military equipment, with the goal of effectively carrying out the tasks assigned to the NGU.

The stated goal of Bill No. 10311 is to increase the effectiveness of the NGU in carrying out tasks to ensure public order and defend the state in wartime. 

The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine provided an explanation regarding this draft law, noting that in reality the powers of the NGU will not be expanded but rather “streamlined,” and that National Guard personnel have used coercive measures even prior to this draft law. 

Thus, both the authors of Bill No. 10311 and the Communications Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, which provided clarification on the provisions of the bill, are attempting to convey the lofty goal of this bill and reassure the public that no negative changes will occur. 

The Law of Ukraine “On the National Guard of Ukraine” contains Article 17, Part 2, the provisions of which state rather cautiously that “the list and rules for the use of special means shall be established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.” 

Thus, the List of Special Means Used by National Guard Service Members While Performing Official Duties, approved by Resolution No. 1024 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated December 20, 2017 No. 1024 “On Approval of the List and Rules for the Use of Special Means by Servicemen of the National Guard While Performing Official Duties” (hereinafter—the Resolution), specifies that these include, among other things: rubber and plastic batons, contact and contact-remote electric shock devices, handcuffs, restraint nets, devices equipped with tear gas and irritant substances, and others.

At the same time, the Rules for the Use of Special Means by National Guard Service Members While Performing Official Duties, approved by the aforementioned resolution, specify that in the event of the National Guard’s military personnel being deployed to perform public order maintenance tasks, the use of special means shall be carried out in accordance with Article 45 of the Law of Ukraine “On the National Police,” which has also been virtually duplicated in its entirety by the authors of the draft law as an amendment to the existing Article 17 of the Law of Ukraine “On the National Guard of Ukraine.”

Thus, the National Guard of Ukraine (NGU) is indeed already empowered to use special means; however, as of now, an NGU servicemember must simultaneously apply the provisions of numerous regulatory documents and rely on laws governing the activities of other agencies, in particular the National Police of Ukraine (NPU).

Additionally, Article 18 of the bill duplicates Article 46 of the Law of Ukraine “On the National Police” regarding the use of firearms. I would like to emphasize that the National Guard of Ukraine has always had the right to use firearms; therefore, the controversy surrounding the granting of this right to the National Guard of Ukraine in the draft law is unfounded. 

However, the authors’ exclusion of provisions regarding cases where the use of firearms is prohibited could have negative consequences for the public if firearms are used in locations where harm could be inflicted on others.

It is precisely this provision that, for unknown reasons, was removed by the drafters of the bill from the current Law of Ukraine “On the National Guard of Ukraine” and was not replicated from the Law of Ukraine “On the National Police of Ukraine,” even though the latter contains the provision: “…it is prohibited to use firearms in places where harm may be caused to others, as well as in fire-hazardous and explosion-hazardous areas, except in cases of necessity to repel an attack or in cases of extreme necessity.”

The National Guard of Ukraine could and can use firearms; however, under current law, this is permitted “in cases of exceptional necessity,” whereas the draft law merely states that “the use of weapons is the most severe measure of coercion.”

It is worth noting that protests do not take place in areas specifically designated for that purpose; therefore, it is entirely possible to be accidentally struck by a bullet if one happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, making the question of the grounds for excluding the above-mentioned clause a rhetorical one.

Conclusions

The claim that the National Guard of Ukraine has been granted new, unprecedented powers is not supported by an analysis of Draft Law No. 10311, the Law of Ukraine “On the National Guard of Ukraine,” and the Law of Ukraine “On the National Police of Ukraine.” The authors of the bill have indeed attempted to consolidate the provisions of numerous regulatory acts into a single law governing the activities of the National Guard of Ukraine.