“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)
Introduction: The Ukrainian Crisis
Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 2015
In the realm of social life, unimaginable and obvious often go hand in hand. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia is one such unimaginable, alas, obvious event. For many Russians and Ukrainians, who believe in the fraternal relationship of these two nations, the conflict would have been unimaginable even as armed 'green men' occupied Crimea in March 2014. For others, the conflict is an obvious and inevitable extension of what Anatol Lieven called 'fraternal rivalry' (Lieven 1999). In the mainstream academic discourse and media, the unfolding events in Ukraine have been referred to as the 'Ukrainian Crisis'. Yet, this terminology is somewhat problematic, as the word 'crisis' does not tap into the scope of the conflict and seems to confine it to Ukraine alone (Wilson 2014). However, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia is a crisis not merely for Ukraine. It is also a Russian crisis, which exposes the ambitions and weaknesses of Russian political and economic power. It is also an international crisis, which leaves many unanswered questions for interstate cooperation, peace, and security. The four articles presented in this feature section seek to unpack the nature of the 'crisis' from a variety of perspectives. Ukrainians refer to the last year as 'the year that changes us forever'. This statement seems to describe not merely the political changes that have taken place in the country over the last year, but also the citizens' perceptions of themselves and their country. The debate over the nature and origin of the Ukrainian nation are not new, as Taras Kuzio and Mykola Riabchuk's in-depth analyses of Ukraine's national identity vividly illustrate. Ukraine has often been described as a divided county. The ethnic, linguistic, and regional divisions received a great deal of traction in academic literature and have been credited as the source of Ukraine's political woes . Moreover, Ukraine's national identity or lack thereof is closely related to its relationship to its neighbours to the east and west, thus further splitting the country . Both Kuzio and Riabchuk investigate the alleged divisions between Ukrainians and offer new perspectives on Ukrainian politics. Riabchuk rejects common wisdom and suggests that division of Ukraine's population into 'two Ukraines' is ideological rather than ethno-linguistic. An ongoing academic debate in the study of nationalism and national identity distinguishes civic and ethnic forms of nationalism. In the case of the latter, the identity is based on primordial kinship ties between members of the same ethnic group. The former, however, is a more inclusive identity centred on state symbols and citizenship, and is more closely related to patriotism. During the last year, the bs_bs_banner
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.
2017
The annexation of Crimea and Russia’s military action in the Donbas in 2014 have revealed a major potential for a revival of nationalist sentiments in Russian society. The wave of ‘patriotic’ attitudes that swept through the country back then has enabled the government to co-opt the rhetoric that is typical of nationalist groups. The Kremlin has used this period to shore up its legitimacy among the public and step up control of specific organisations. This has resulted in changes to the structure of the nationalist movement. A weakening was recorded mainly in relation to nationalist organisations that are independent from the government and those organisations which had been involved in the fighting in the Donbas in the initial stage of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. For the Kremlin, nationalist ideology and nationalist organisations that are unable to act independently are a handy political instrument. They are mainly being used to build support for the government and to consolida...
The Ukraine crisis: A Russian-European cold war?
Journal of Intelligence and Terrorism Studies, 2016
This article analyses the historical context of the crisis. It considers the relations in the triangle Russia–Ukraine–West against the background of the Ukrainian events during and after Maidan, as well as the reunion/annexation of Crimea with/by Russia. In Ukraine this has largely been seen as a conquest, but in Crimea itself (and Russia) significant majority regard it as a successful outcome. It analyses the major factors in this conflict, as well as offering a recommendation for its possible resolution. The “shared cradle” of Ukraine and Russia is considered, including the establishment of the Orthodox Church, whose first seat was at Kiev and whose patriarchate was eventually established at Moscow. The important role of this church — as well as that of those which have recently broken away — is also examined with respect to the conflict. The fratricidal policies of the imperial centre in the early Soviet period, the devastations of the Second World War, and the tensions of the po...
The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war euphemistically defined as the “Ukrainian crisis”, brought to the fore, once again, a striking inability of the Russian cultured and educated stratum to come to terms with Ukraine’s cultural distinctness and political sovereignty, and to withstand soberly the unscrupulous propaganda of the Kremlin regime. The paper examines reaction of Russian intelligentsia to what they perceive as the “Ukrainian crisis” and searches for historical and cultural roots of what is in fact a profound crisis of Russian identity and nationhood.
2015
A policy paper was prepared within the joint project of the Institute of World Policy and Caucasian House “Ukraine: out of the crisis through dialogue”, supported by the British Embassy in Ukraine. The main arguments of the paper proceed as follows. Firstly, paper looks at the present state of Crimean issue and Ukrainian strategy on Crimea. Secondly, paper turns to the Donbass case analyzing the perspectives of reintegration and reconciliation in eastern Ukraine. Lastly, there is an outline of the Georgian experience of dealing with occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia In the first part of the paper, on Ukraine’s policy towards the occupied territory of Crimea, Maryna Vorotnyuk outlines the general context of annexation of Crimea by Russia. She then provides the analysis of Russian policy to integrate Crimea and points to the fact that Crimea under the international isolation becomes a “grey zone” with massive violations of human rights. Then the author analyses Ukrainian strategy regarding occupied territory of Crimea and gives the reasons why fundamentals of Ukrainian strategy on Crimea are far from complete and effective. The next part of the paper covers Ukrainian policy towards Donbass where the issue of communication with local population is of outmost importance, according to Maria Zolkina. She focuses on defining key problems and challenges in the realm of public opinion in Donbass that have to be addressed by Ukrainian authorities. The author suggests the factors conducive to an effective dialogue and potential obstacles to communication with the population of Donbass. In the last part of the paper, focusing on Georgia’s conflict resolution endeavours, Medea Turashvili argues that Georgian conflicts, like the problem of secessionist regions in Ukraine, have two dimensions: local dimension of Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-South Ossetian disputes, and international dimension of Georgian-Russian and Russian-Western controversies. She outlines policies and approaches that different Georgian governments have employed to reach out to the populations living in breakaway regions and provides some lessons learnt that can be relevant for Ukrainian experts and policymakers. The common conclusions of the authors attempt to bridge both countries’ experiences showing what Ukraine can take from Georgian experience of dealing with occupied territories. Most importantly, this final part provides recommendations on what Ukrainian decision-makers and civil society can undertake in order to deal with the break-away territories.
Russian-Ukrainian Crisis, National Identity and Democratic Consolidation in Ukraine
2016
In 2016, Ukraine faces multiple problems in terms of its divided identity, corrupted elites, poor economy and hostile Russia on its eastern borders. Proper understanding of Ukrainian complex identity-building process requires some familiarity with history of the USSR and its management of nationalities, although, certainly Ukraine had possessed a huge historical legacy long before the USSR and that also had influenced its cultural memory. Ukraine can be compared with many other post-communist states that these days are divided between Soviet mentality and modern nation-building but it is also sort of unique because of its geographical position on the crossroads of Western and Russian civilizational influences. Geopolitics has always been important to Ukraine's national identification. However, it should not imply that Ukraine has been only an object of contestation between Russia and the EU and not an actor on its own as some neo-realists would say as, for example, John Mearsheimer who has suggested it was West who provoked Russia's aggression to maintain its sphere of influence in Ukraine. 1 Geopolitics is certainly important to Ukrainian future but it is still not as decisive as domestic politics and reforms that country has been undergoing since Euromaidan. Russia's involvement in modern Ukraine has been contradictory to say the least and it is hard not to give acknowledgement to Ukrainian nation for finally rejecting Russian paternalism and cultural influence that under Vladimir Putin has obtained neo-imperialist and authoritarian colors. After all, Russia had supported pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs from
Problems of Post-Communism, 2022
The conflict in Donbas has distracted attention from broader patterns of interaction between Russia and Ukraine. Russia continues to use a variety of tactics, apart from military force, to influence Ukraine. Among the key tactics are coercion in the gas sector, naval blockade, “passport colonialism,” attempts to sway Ukrainian elections, support for the pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk, and promotion of religious influence through the Russian Orthodox Church. None of these tactics is novel, but each is evolving along with circumstances. Regardless of what happens in Donbas, Ukraine will continue to feel multifaceted pressure from Russia.
The Russo-Ukrainian War: What Does It Mean For Russia Ukraine and The West
The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare, 2023
Ibrahim Muradov presented The Russo-Ukrainian War: What Does it Mean for Russia, Ukraine, and the West? at this year's West Coast Security Conference. The presentation was followed by a question-andanswer period with questions from the audience and CASIS Vancouver executives. The key points discussed were that Ukrainian society's push for a pro-Western policy has shaped its foreign relations, despite international reluctance to integrate Ukraine into Western structures; Ukraine's strong protest culture, especially in Western regions, has significantly influenced its political direction and resistance to Russian dominance; and Ukraine developed a long-term strategy for economic, military and identity strengthening and this long-term strategy precipitated the full-scale invasion and forced the Kremlin to act before the strategy was complete. NATURE OF DISCUSSION Since Ukraine's independence, its civil society has increasingly been driving the Ukrainian government to democratize the country, which has resulted in a generally pro-Western foreign policy. Following the illegal annexation of Crimea and destabilization of Donbas, Ukraine has adopted a long-term strategy to bolster its economy, armed forces, and national identity. The full-scale invasion was a result of this strategy, which would have strengthened the country and its relationships with allies beyond a surmountable challenge for Russia.