UKRAINE AND THE ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF NATIONALISM THEORIES (original) (raw)
Related papers
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...
Ukrainian nationalism since the outbreak of Euromaidan
Ab Imperio, no. 3, 2014, pp. 94-122
The article traces the evolution of Ukrainian nationalism from the end of 2013 to the end of 2014 under the influence of mass protests against the antidemocratic regime of President Yanukovych (Euromaidan) and Russia’s intervention into Crimea and Donbas. The term “nationalism” is used in the article in a broad sense encompassing elite ideology and politics as well as mass feelings and identities. The analysis of elite “nationalism” is based on a close reading of Facebook posts and other texts of the protest activists, and mass discourse is reconstructed with the help of sociological surveys. The author argues that democratic protest against the Yanukovych regime included a nationalistic element articulated as Ukrainian liberation from Russian dictate. He also shows that the transition from peaceful to violent protest was accompanied by an appropriation of the tradition of armed nationalist resistance to the Soviet occupation of Ukraine after World War II. This appropriation, however, was not limited exclusively to ethnic Ukrainians – it reflected and reinforced a rejection of the Soviet mythology of collaborationism of Ukrainian nationalists of the past with the Nazis. At the same time it made evident the deeply inclusive nature of modern Ukrainian anti-imperial nationalism, the most obvious proof of which is the support it enjoys among Ukrainian Jews or even among Jews who have preserved their ties to the country since leaving Ukraine. Russian aggression further contributed to the rise of inclusivity of Ukrainian nationalism, which now embraces many Russian and Russian-speaking citizens. Being alienated from Russia as a state and even as a people by Russia’s aggressive politics, these citizens nevertheless do not exhibit a similar alienation from the Russian language. Hence the new border between Ukrainians and Russians is political rather than linguistic. In the author’s view, this fact confirms the inclusive nature of Ukrainian identity and the nationalism that contributes to its formation.
the editors of this collection decided to use the more common, anglicised, version of Russian and Ukrainian words in order to make the publication readable for a diverse audience.
Ukraine's Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a highly contested territory both culturally and politically. With an ethnic Russian majority and a sizeable population of indigenous Crimean Tatars living alongside ethnic Ukrainians within Ukrainian territory, national identities are particularly salient in Crimea. However, a strong sense of Crimean regional identity has also been shown to persist among members of all of Crimea's ethno-national communities. Using survey data collected in the region, I demonstrate how the territory of Crimea itself figures prominently in competing narratives of national identity in the region and how Crimean regional identities are differentially negotiated and constructed through these narratives. I focus primarily on Crimea's ethnic Russian population in order to define a sense of "Crimean-Russian" identity as one that denotes an attachment to Crimea as viewed through a Russian "national lens" and understood through Russian national narratives. With this study I address the need to examine more critically the relationships between ethnic/national identities and the formation of territorially-based identities at scales below and across the nation-state. iv
National Identity in Ukraine: History and Politics
RUSSIA IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS, 2022
This article studies the historical background that determined the formation of the specific features of Ukrainian, Little Russian, and Russian identities starting from the late 17th century to the present day. It traces the evolution of Ukrainian identity from the notion of "a single Slavic-Russian people" to the current radicalization and consolidation of anti-Russian sentiment as its dominant element. At different stages of nation-building, intellectual elites molded different constructs of this identity. At times these constructs existed in parallel and independently of each other, and at other times they confronted one another. The notion of a single people (or different peoples) constantly changed. The article highlights the key
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.
"Homeland vs. Our Land: Crimean Conflicts of Identity and a Way Forward"
Crimea has been-and is-many things to many people: a homeland, a premier vacation destination, a key strategic location, an integral part of independent Ukraine, the jewel in the crown of the Russian Empire, a site of ethnic cleansing, a major battlefield, an idealized monument of multiethnic harmony, lost territory, conquered land, a distant memory, a beauty to behold, a wart on Russia's nose. Today, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) is the only administrative region of Ukraine with an ethnic Russian majority and a sizable non-Slavic indigenous minority-the Crimean Tatars. Throughout its history, Crimea has always retained a special status, a separate identity, comprised of many other identities. Paradoxically, both its specialness and separateness have been the source of and the means of avoiding conflict. Even today, we see both of these forces at work in Crimea.