“The Ukrainian Crisis and its Impact on Transforming Russian Nationalism Landscape”, in Agnieszka Pikulicka-Wilczewska and Richard Sakwa, eds, Ukraine and Russia: People, Politics, Propaganda and Perspectives, E-IR Info, 2015, 123-128. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Europe-Asia Studies What is the Role of Nationalism and Ethnicity in the Russia-Ukraine Crisis
The article explores the Russia-Ukraine crisis of 2014 in the context of post-communist nationalism and the disintegration of the post-Soviet space. The focus is on the politicisation of the ethno-linguistic divide and historical narratives in the interplay between Russia's determination to control Ukraine's political future and Ukraine's resolve to free itself from Russian influence. In highlighting the incompatibility between Russian and Ukrainian nationalising projects, it is argued that while the Ukrainian crisis is not an ethnic conflict per se, nationalism was a significant contributory factor in fuelling the conflict and remains a relevant obstacle to its resolution. THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE CRISIS IN THE SPRING OF 2014 STANDS for a series of interconnected and violent events. The first occurred between government forces under the pro-Russian then president, Viktor Yanukovych, and pro-reform demonstrators in Kyiv demanding the signing of the Association Agreement with the European Union, which Yanukovych reneged on under Russian pressure. The second event, the annexation of Crimea, the 'first formal annexation of territory in Europe since 1945' (Wilson 2014, p. vi), was not particularly marked by violence but, rather, by a blatant disregard for international law and Ukraine's sovereignty. The subsequent pro-Russia mobilisation in eastern Ukraine, with military support from Russia, culminated in the armed conflict in Donbas, unresolved to this day. If the promise of the fall of the Berlin Wall for a united, democratic and peaceful Europe was shattered by the wars on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Ukrainian crisis was evidence of a whole new disillusionment. Rather than a return to a 'common European home' as envisaged by the last leader of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Ukrainian crisis has signalled a return to a renewed East-West divide: the conflict between an ever more authoritarian and nationalist Russia trying to thwart a popular uprising calling for democratisation and Europeanisation in an independent Ukraine. In the process, Russia not only exploited the weaknesses of the Ukrainian state and extended its own territory but exposed the fragility of the post-Cold War order in Europe.
Four years since the unrecognized 'republics' in the east of Ukraine were declared, their future remains unclear. On the one hand, Ukraine, its western partners and the leadership of the Russian Federation continue to insist that these territories be returned to Kyiv's control on the terms of the Minsk Agreements. On the other side, the self-proclaimed leaders of these 'republics', while also declaring their commitment to the Minsk Agreements, have publicly rejected any possibility of reunification with the rest of Ukraine 1. As a result, the east of Ukraine remains in a condition of smouldering war. In this situation of uncertainty, the Luhansk and Donetsk 'people's republics' are continuing to make efforts to legitimize and strengthen their 'statehood', most notably by means of a new historical policy. Both para-states are trying to revise the assessments of historical events which have been established during the years of Ukraine's independence. Serious efforts are being made in the area of the 'patriotic education' of children, both in school and during extra-curricular activities; there are new 'state' holidays, cults, and a large-scale campaign honouring and perpetuating the memories of the new 'rebel' heroes and of civilians who have died at the hands of the Kyiv 'murderers' is being conducted. Moreover the events of the war of 1941–5 are being reinterpreted, compared to the current military actions 'against the fascists'. The new 'state' cult is being built on just such a parallel , which not only imparts significance to the current events, but also helps to contrast the 'republics' to today's Ukraine. The intended effect of the DPR and LPR's historical policies is the creation of a new Donbas community which is hostile towards 'nationalist' Ukraine.
The Separatist War in Donbas: A Violent Break-up of Ukraine?
2016
Ukraine previously experienced significant regional political divisions, including separatism in Crimea and Donbas. However, in contrast to post-communist countries such as Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and former Yugoslavia, prior to 2014 Ukraine was able to avoid a war and a break-up. This study examines the role of separatists, the Yanukovych government, the Maidan opposition and the Maidan government, far-right organizations, Russia, the US, and the EU in the conflict in Donbas. It uses a specially commissioned survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in 2014 to analyse public support for separatism in Donbas, compared to other regions of Ukraine, and the major factors which affect such support. It concludes that all these actors contributed in various ways to the conflict in Donbas, which involved both a civil war and a direct Russian military intervention since August 2014. The study links this conflict to the 'Euromaidan', specifically, the government overthrow by means of the Maidan massacre, and the secession and Russia's annexation of Crimea. The KIIS survey shows that support for separatism is much stronger in Donbas compared to other regions, with the exception of Crimea, and that the break-up of Ukraine is unlikely to extend to its other parts.
The underside of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict
The Ukrainian crisis has been in the spotlight of international news since the beginning of 2014. This crisis is complex with many interwoven factors: the political fallout since the Maidan Revolution in Kiev, conflicts in the pro-Russian separatist provinces in eastern Ukraine, tensions between the West and Russia, economic sanctions and diplomatic difficulties in reaching an agreement of peace. A number of working papers, including an analysis of academic studies and published articles, will be used to compare points of views to maintain balance and to demonstrate how the situation is a laboratory for the development of relations between Russia and the West — in particular, the European Union and the United States — through Ukraine.
Ukrainian Policymaker
The subject of the article is the analysis of deconstruction of the statehood of Ukraine with special reference to the conflict in Donbas. Activities in the southeastern part of Ukraine are part of the broader context of the Russian Federation's strategic activities in the post-Soviet area. Some analysts believe that the Russians consistently implement the strategy of neo-imperial expansionism and their activities in Donbas are the next step to reintegration of the post-Soviet area. An important role is also played by the policy implemented by the president and government of Ukraine. The author verifies three research hypotheses: (1) that the chief objectives of Russian politics are to destabilize the situation in Ukraine. (2) that Donbass conflict is an example of the use of hybrid war elements such as irregular military operations (guerrilla warfare, sabotage, subversive activities, terrorist acts) and elements of information fight, such as propaganda or disinformation, be it economic or digital. (3) that the non-military methods of propaganda are helping to create a proper propaganda apparatus and the activation of "agitators" who would do "the field work" involving the exposure of the most attractive aspects of "Russianness".
The Separatist Conflict in Donbas: A Violent Break-Up of Ukraine?
Ukraine has experienced significant regional divisions concerning such issues as support for leading presidential candidates and political parties, foreign orientation, and attitudes towards major historical events since it became independent in 1991. Separatism in various forms manifested itself in Crimea in the first half of the 1990s and in Donbas and neighboring regions during the “Orange Revolution” in 2004. However, Ukraine was able until 2014 to avoid a violent break-up, in contrast to such post-communist countries as Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and former Yugoslavia. In 2014, Crimea seceded with help of Russian military intervention, and it was annexed by Russia. Pro-Russian separatists with direct involvement of large groups of armed Russians with indirect Russian government support seized power in most of Donbas and engaged in a violent conflict with pro-government forces in the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions (Donbas). The research question is as to why Ukraine has suffered a violent separatist conflict in Donbas. This study analyses the role of different actors and factors in the violent conflict in Donbas. This paper uses a brief survey, which was commissioned by the author and conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in the end of April and the beginning of May 2014, to analyze support for separatism in Donbas, compared to other regions of Ukraine, and major factors which affect such support. It compares the role of the Yanukovych and post-Yanukovych governments in Ukraine, the Russian and Western governments, political leaders of these countries, and Russian and Ukrainian paramilitary formations. This paper also compares the violent separatist conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions to other similar violent conflicts and to secessions of Transdniestria in Moldova, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, Krajina in Croatia, Republika Srpska in Bosnia, and Kosovo in Serbia.
Kurdish Studies, 2024
This interdisciplinary study delves into the multifaceted relationship between Ukraine and Russia, tracing their historical interactions, geopolitical shifts, and the evolution of national identities that have contributed to the current state of conflict. The research seeks to analyze the complex interplay of historical, cultural, economic, and political factors shaping the dynamics between these two nations, leading to the escalation of tensions and the outbreak of armed conflict in recent years. By employing a comprehensive approach that integrates insights from history, political science, international relations, sociology, and cultural studies, this investigation aims to offer nuanced perspectives on the roots, manifestations, and implications of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Through meticulous examination of primary sources, archival materials, scholarly literature, and contemporary media reports, the research endeavors to provide fresh insights into the historical trajectories and contemporary complexities of one of the most significant geopolitical crises of the 21st century.