Content uploaded by Ivan Katchanovski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ivan Katchanovski on Oct 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Separatist War in Donbas: A Violent Break-up of Ukraine?
†
Ivan Katchanovski
School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, Canada
ABSTRACT
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.
KEYWORDS
Ukraine; Russia; conflict;
Donbas; separatism; public
opinion
The research question
Since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine has experienced significant
regional divisions concerning major domestic politics and foreign orientation issues. These
include electoral support for major presidential candidates and political parties, the status
of the Russian language, Ukraine’s membership in the European Union and NATO, and its
relations with Russia (Arel, 2006; Barrington & Herron, 2004; Katchanovski, 2006a,2006b,
2008,2014). In terms of political values, the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions, along with
Crimea, were the most pro-Russian and pro-Communist regions in Ukraine since its inde-
pendence in 1991, as measured by vote for political parties and presidential candidates,
foreign policy orientations, and support for Russian as the second state language in
Ukraine (Katchanovski, 2006a,2006b,2008,2014). Many previous academic studies have
shown the existence of strong regional divisions concerning such political issues and
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
†
An earlier version of this paper was presented at a Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies conference in Edmonton in
October 2014.
CONTACT Ivan Katchanovski ikatchan@uottawa.ca School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, Social Sciences
Building, FSS7011, 120 University, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5.
EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2016.1154131
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
historical conflicts in Ukraine. However, most of the previous studies examined such div-
isions before the ‘Orange Revolution’and the ‘Euromaidan’, and did not analyse the war in
Donbas and separatism in Ukraine.
The violent conflict in Donbas, along with the ‘Euromaidan’and the secession and the
Russian annexation of Crimea in March 2014, have brought new attention to the issue of
regional divisions and separatism in Ukraine. Following the violent overthrow of the Yanu-
kovych government during ‘the Euromaidan’in February 2014, and the secessions and
Russia’s annexations of the Crimean autonomy and Sevastopol city in March 2014 with
help of Russian military intervention, a conflict emerged in Donbas. Pro-Russian separatists
–with the direct involvement of groups of armed Russians –seized power in most of
Donbas (the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions) and proclaimed the Donetsk People’s Repub-
lic (DNR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) in early April 2014. The conflict in
Donbas quickly turned into a war.
The Donbas war is not only a major political development that affects the future of
Ukraine. It has significance beyond Ukraine. The conflict became a major international con-
flict and the biggest conflict between the Russia and the West since the end of the Cold
War. The war in Donbas involved a direct and indirect Russian military intervention. The
total number of refugees chiefly as a result of the conflict in Donbas is estimated on
the basis of official statistics of respective countries at about 3 million, including 1.7
million internally displaced people registered in Ukraine and more than one million refu-
gees from Donbas in neighbouring countries, primarily Russia.
The war in Ukraine is very relevant to the EU because Ukraine is one of the largest Euro-
pean countries, borders several EU member states, and is a major transit country for
Russian natural gas to many EU members. The direct participation of German chancellor
Angela Merkel, French president Francois Hollande, as well as Russian president Vladimir
Putin in the negotiations concerning this conflict highlights the international significance
of this war. The direct involvement of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE) in negotiating the Minsk agreements and in monitoring their implemen-
tation, also shows the significance of the war to European countries beyond Ukraine.
I will seek to determine why Ukraine has experienced a violent conflict in Donbas. This
study analyses the role of different actors and factors in this situation in the emergence of
this conflict and its escalation into a war. The analysis relies primarily on Ukrainian, separa-
tist, Russian, and Western governmental, as well as online media, live broadcasts, videos,
and other sources concerning the conflict in Ukrainian, Russian, and English. This study
also uses a brief survey, commissioned by the author and conducted by the Kyiv Inter-
national Institute of Sociology (KIIS) at the end of April and the beginning of May 2014,
which analyses support for separatism in Donbas compared to other regions of Ukraine,
and the major factors that affect pro-separatist attitudes.
Disparate narratives regarding the conflict in Donbas
There are many conflicting narratives about the conflict in Donbas. The Ukrainian govern-
ment, the national media and, to a large extent, their counterparts in the West present the
violent conflict in Donbas as led, from its beginning in Spring of 2014, by regular armed
Russian military units and Russian military intelligence agents who therefore lack
popular backing in this region. They present the war in Donbas as a conventional or a
2I. KATCHANOVSKI
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
hybrid war between Ukraine and Russia and attributed its start to a Russian invasion
(or Russian ‘green men’) operating in Donbas without insignia, along with their local assist-
ants. The governments of Ukraine and the US, top NATO officials, and the mainstream
Western media typically claim that Russian military and intelligence units were leading
the separatist fight in Donbas from the beginning, similar to Russian military units
without insignia in Crimea. For example, they present Igor Strelkov (Girkin) as a Russian
military intelligence (GRU) officer and his unit, which seized control over Sloviansk
town, as a GRU unit. (US Department of State, 2014). Both NATO and Petro Poroshenko,
after he became president of Ukraine, stated that there were some 9000 Russian regular
troops fighting in Donbas.
However, some of the leading Western media outlets like the BBC and The New York
Times, have referred later in 2015 to the war in Donbas as a civil war. Such references
are nearly absent in the major media in Ukraine, which is mostly controlled by the oli-
garchs or the government, and in one noted incident, Ruslan Kotsaba, a Western Ukrainian
journalist, was arrested and charged with treason for opposing the draft and calling the
war in Donbas a civil war. Public opinion concerning the war has thus been affected to
a significant extent by the government propaganda and media coverage which generally
follows the respective government positions on the conflict lines on the conflict.
For instance, the Ministry of Information Policy was created in Ukraine specifically to
disseminate the government propaganda and shape coverage of the war in Donbas in
the media and social media. The 2015 Razumkov Centre poll shows that 32% of Ukrainians
believe that the war in Donbas is a separatist rebellion supported by Russia, 28% that this is
a war between Russia and Ukraine, 16% that this is a civil war, 8% that this is a war between
Russia and the US, and 7% that this is a fight for independence of DNR and LNR. This
suggests that while a significant minority of Ukrainians share the Ukrainian government
and media propagated view that the war in Donbas is a war between Ukraine and
Russia, the majority of the respondents view the war in Donbas as an intrastate conflict,
mostly with Russian involvement. The difference would be much more significant if the
separatist-controlled part of Donbas and annexed Crimea had been included in the poll
(Interfax-Ukraine, 2015).
In contrast, polls by the Levada Center show that in Russia minorities of the respon-
dents (less than 30% in 2014–2015) believed that this is a war between Russia and
Ukraine, or that regular Russian troops were in Donbas. The majority of Russians back
pro-Russian separatism in Donbas, mainly in the form of independence from Ukraine or
the incorporation of these regions into Russia. A 2015 TNS/Institute of World Policy poll
of 16- to 54-year-olds showed that the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine was perceived
as a civil war and a war with Russia, respectively, by 61% and 50% of Germans, 59%
and 58% of Italians, 58% and 59% of Dutch, 56% and 59% of Spanish, 55% and 64% of
Poles, 47% and 58% of Swedes, 42% and 38% of British, and 42% and 38% of French
respondents (Institute of World Policy, 2015).
The Ukrainian and Western governments and the mainstream media generally charac-
terize separatism in Donbas as having a minor support and present the results of a refer-
endum held by separatists after they seized power there as not reflecting public
preferences. They maintain that the Ukrainian government came to power as a result of
peaceful mass protests after then-President Yanukovych and many members of his gov-
ernment fled Ukraine to avoid responsibility for ordering the massacre of protesters on
EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 3
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
20 February 2014. They also emphasize that the Ukrainian government has the legal power
to suppress separatism by force.
The post-Yanukovych government of Ukraine characterizes the separatists as ‘terrorists’
and its military operation in Donbas as ‘the anti-terrorist operation’(ATO). Two-thirds
(64%) of the respondents in a 2015 Razumkov Center poll agreed with the classification
of the DNR and the LNR as terrorist organizations (Interfax-Ukraine, 2015). The central gov-
ernment denies responsibility for civilian casualties during a war there, claiming that the
separatists themselves are killing residents of the cities and villages in which they were
based. The US and other Western governments generally ignore civilian casualty
figures, claim a lack of evidence to determine responsibility for deadly attacks on civilians
(while attributing them largely to Russian military actions), and argue that the Ukrainian
forces are showing restraint in their use of force.
For its part, the Russian government and the media present the war in Donbas as a civil
war that followed an attempt by the Ukrainian government forces and far-right paramili-
tary formations to suppress, by military force, a popular uprising of the Donbas residents
against the Maidan-led government which was installed and controlled by the US. Russian
and separatist politicians and the pro-separatist and Russian media claim that a ‘fascist
junta’seized power in Ukraine as a result of a US-led coup d’état and that separatists,
including Russian volunteers, defended the people of Donbas from Ukrainian ‘fascists’.
They argue that separatism has widespread popular support in all Eastern and Southern
Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin referred to this part of Ukraine as ‘Novorossiya’
(New Russia), the region’s historical name when it belonged to the Russian Empire. Some
separatist leaders and commanders stated that they intended to expand their control to
other regions of ‘Novorossiya’and even to overthrow the central government of
Ukraine. The Russian government has consistently denied that its regular military forces
were involved in the Donbas conflict. The Russian government and media and separatist
leaders have attributed civilian casualties in Donbas, including a shot-down of a Malaysian
passenger plane, to the Ukrainian forces. A Russian government investigative agency has
launched an investigation into the ‘genocide of the Russian-speaking population’in
Donbas.
Academic studies show similar differences in defining the nature of the Donbas conflict
and its main factors. Some Western scholars characterize the war in Donbas as a Russian
invasion, first by special units of ‘green men’and then by regular Russian troops (Czuperski,
Herbst, Higgins, Polyakova, & Wilson, 2015; Wilson, 2014). In contrast, some scholars
emphasize the expansion of NATO towards Russian borders, and Western support for
the regime change in Ukraine, as triggering the Russian annexation of Crimea and its
support for separatists in Donbas (Mearsheimer, 2014; Sakwa, 2015).
Other studies characterize the conflict as a civil war along with Russian military inter-
vention which they define in various ways. The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (2015),
for example, classifies the conflict in Donbas as intrastate. These studies conclude that
the conflict in Donbas started primarily because of domestic factors, such as ethnicity,
language, economic links to Russia, and the vacuum of power in the Donetsk and
Luhansk regions following the overthrow of the Yanukovych government and seizures
of local administrations by separatists and Russian paramilitary units who copied similar
seizures by the Maidan opposition activists in Western and Central Ukraine during the
‘Euromaidan’. Differences persist, however, on which of these factors were of primary
4I. KATCHANOVSKI
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
importance in the start of the war and support for separatism (see Giuliano, 2015; Katch-
anovski, 2014; Kudelia, 2014; Robinson, in press; Zhukov, 2016).
Separatism in various forms in independent Ukraine has persistently manifested itself in
Crimea, in Donbas, and to a lesser extent in some neighbouring regions. (Katchanovski,
2006a,2008,2015a). Pro-Russian separatist leaders and parties were in power in Crimea
in the first half of the 1990s. There was a real possibility of secession in Crimea at that
time. Separatism also emerged in Donbas during the same time period, but it always
had weaker support there than in Crimea. In the end of 2004, the Party of Regions
attempted to proclaim an autonomous republic in the East and the South during the
Orange Revolution when Yanukovych’s fraudulent victory in the presidential elections
was overturned as a result of mass protests. At the time Ukraine also came close to a
violent conflict and a possible break-up (Katchanovski, 2006a).
In spite of such manifestations of separatism and persistent regional divisions, however,
very few scholars considered a break-up and a violent regional conflict in Ukraine as sig-
nificant possibilities (Colton, 2010; Darden, 2010; Katchanovski, 2006a,2008). Most either
ignored such issues as insignificant, or argued that even though Ukraine was divided along
regional lines, it was unlikely to experience a violent regional conflict leading to secession.
For instance, the attempt to proclaim an autonomous republic in the East and the South
during the ‘Orange Revolution’was seen as thoroughly contrived. With a few exceptions,
separatism in Donbas received no scholarly treatment before the start of the conflict in this
region. (Katchanovski, 2006a, pp. 99–100). Until the beginning of 2014 and in contrast to
other post-communist countries, such as Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and the former
Yugoslavia, Ukraine was able to avoid a violent conflict and break-up.
Major actors in the conflict in Donbas
The conflict in Donbas emerged following the ‘Euromaidan’, which both preceded and
affected this conflict by producing a spiral of escalating violence and overthrowing
Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions-led government. Mass anti-government pro-
tests started in Ukraine at the end of November 2013 after the Yanukovych government
abruptly changed its decision to sign an association and free trade agreement with the
European Union. The conflict escalated and turned violent around 4:00 am on 30 Novem-
ber after special police units (Berkut) violently dispersed a relatively small group of protes-
ters on the Maidan. Some evidence indicates that this police violence was exploited
because Maidan leaders and the Inter TV channel, which broadcast it live, knew in
advance about the planned police assault (Katchanovski, 2015b, p. 61).
The mass protests against the police violence followed on 1 December in Kyiv City. In
addition to peaceful rallies, they included seizures of the Kyiv City Hall and the Trade Union
Building by a radical wing of the opposition and a violent attack led by radical nationalist
and neo-Nazi organizations and football ultras, which formed the Right Sector, on the pre-
sidential administration. Yanukovych attempted again to disperse protesters on the
Maidan by force and adopted laws restricting the freedoms of assembly and protest. At
the end of January, the far-right elements of the opposition, led by the Right Sector
and football ultras, led an attack on the parliament. The attack escalated the conflict,
and it resulted in a violent confrontation and a stand-off with the special police and
interior troops units. Various evidence suggests that the killings of the first three protesters
EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 5
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
in January, as well as some other highly publicized but unresolved cases of violence which
the opposition attributed to the Yanukovych forces, were in fact false flag operations
designed to further escalate the conflict. The investigation under both the Yanukovych
and Maidan governments determined that they were killed from close distance in the
Maidan-controlled area (see Katchanovski, 2015b, p. 62). The Prosecutor General Office
of Ukraine since the end of 2014 has been investigating leaders and members of UNA-
UNSO, one of the founding organizations of the Right Sector, as suspects in the killings
of these three Armenian, Belarusian, and Western Ukrainian protesters and another protes-
ter who was killed on 18 February (Pechersk District Court, 2015a).
Maidan opposition leaders initially condemned the 1 December and the January
attacks as ‘provocations’, while Yanukovych resorted to negotiations with the leaders of
the pro-Western opposition under pressure from the protesters and the Western govern-
ments, primarily the US government, which generally sided with the opposition. However,
on 18 February 2014, the Maidan Self-Defence and the Right Sector attempted to storm
the parliament during a ‘Euromaidan’opposition march. They attacked the police units
guarding the parliament with ‘Molotov cocktails’and stones, burned the Party of
Regions headquarters, and killed one of its employees. Special police units and ‘titushki’
dispersed and beat both the violent attackers and peaceful protesters. At least several pro-
testers were killed as a result of this dispersal and a stampede. In a major escalation of the
conflict, concealed shooters started to use live ammunition against both protesters and
the police during these clashes. They killed about two dozen protesters on 18 and 19 Feb-
ruary and nine Berkut policemen and Interior Troops servicemen. The opposition-led pro-
testers also seized regional administrations, police, and security services headquarters in
Western Ukraine and some other regions, primarily in the Center. In contrast, the opposi-
tion protests in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, especially in Crimea and Donbas, during the
‘Euromaidan’were limited, and they were often confronted there by the pro-government
‘titushki’.
The Yanukovych government attempted to seize the Maidan and its headquarters in
the Trade Union buildings following the 18 February attacks on the parliament and the
Party of Regions headquarters. But after these attempts to seize the Maidan and the
Maidan Self-Defence and Right Sector headquarters at the occupied Trade Union building
in Kyiv City were stopped by use of live ammunition from elements of the Maidan opposi-
tion, including the Right Sector, and by their burning down of that building, Yanukovych
agreed to negotiations with opposition leaders on 19 February 2014 (Katchanovski,
2015b). A truce deal was negotiated between Yanukovych and the opposition leaders.
However, shortly after midnight on 20 February, the leader of the Right Sector stated
that his organization did not accept this truce, and threatened to use force to oust the
government.
A study of the publicly available evidence suggests that the government of Viktor Yanu-
kovych was overthrown as a result of mass killings of the police and protesters on 18–20
February and that elements of the ‘Euromaidan’oppositional far-right and oligarchic
parties, specifically the Right Sector, Svoboda and Fatherland, were involved in this vio-
lence in order to gain power after the mostly peaceful mass protests had failed to
achieve such an outcome. Such evidence includes publicly available videos and photos
of suspected shooters, live statements by the Maidan announcers, radio intercepts of
the actual ‘shooters’, and snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the
6I. KATCHANOVSKI
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), ballistic and medical examinations, eyewitness reports
by both Maidan protesters and government special units commanders, public statements
by the government officials, similar ammunition and weapons used against the police and
the protesters, and similar types of wounds among both protesters and the police. (Katch-
anovski, 2015b,in press).
If Yanukovych had implemented initial plans to use force, including live ammunition
and military units to suppress the ‘Euromaidan’, this would likely have resulted in a
large number of casualties among the protesters, and a full-fledged uprising in the
opposition stronghold in Western Ukraine, and likely civil war. But in order to preserve
his power after the ‘snipers’massacre’had severely undermined his legitimacy among
his supporters –even in his party’s strongholds in Eastern and Southern Ukraine –he
agreed to a compromise deal with the opposition, negotiated with the participation of
the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Poland, and a Russian government representa-
tive on 21 February 2014. Yanukovych, however, fled from Kyiv and then from Ukraine
after radical elements of the ‘Euromaidan’opposition reneged on the compromise
agreement and threatened to resume violence if he did not resign.
The US government and major EU countries de facto backed this violent overthrow of
the relatively pro-Russian government by reneging on 21 February deal and immediately
recognizing the new government of Ukraine. The issue of the potential involvement of the
US government or governments of the EU states in the Yanukovych government over-
throw requires further research. There are certain indications that the US government
engaged in a ‘regime change’during the ‘Euromaidan’, but to date many government
sources concerning these events are not available to researchers.
The violent overthrow of the relatively pro-Russian government, specifically by means
of mass killings of the police and protesters, was a tipping point in the conflict between the
West and Russia over Ukraine. President Putin used this overthrow and its backing by the
governments of the US and EU countries to radically change his policy towards Ukraine.
The Russian government started to pursue secession of Crimea with the help of direct mili-
tary intervention since the end of February 2014 and the annexation of Crimea by Russia in
March 2014 in a violation of international law. Such direct Russian backing of separatism in
Crimea and the annexation of this region by Russia also encouraged separatists in other
regions with significant ethnic Russian populations, such as Donbas, Kharkiv, and Odesa.
The mass killing of the protesters and the police that resulted in the overthrow of the
Yanukovych government was also a critical juncture in the separatist rebellion in Donbas
in Eastern Ukraine. The overthrow of the government led to a power vacuum in the
Donetsk and Luhansk Regions, which were –until then –strongholds of Yanukovych
and his Party of Regions. Starting in March 2014, unarmed and armed separatists seized
and occupied regional administrations, security service (SBU), and police headquarters
in Donetsk, Luhansk, and other cities and towns in the regions. Igor Strelkov and other
members of his armed group of Russian nationalists arrived from Russia via Crimea and
seized police headquarters in the towns of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk in the Donetsk
Region on 12 April 2014. The local police and security services either refused to offer
armed resistance to the separatists and the Strelkov Russian unit, or sided with them to
various degrees.
A careful review suggests that much of the evidence regarding direct Russian military
intervention during this initial period was misrepresented or even fabricated. This
EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 7
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
concerns Ukrainian and Western governments’claims that Russian military and intelli-
gence units or ‘green men’were leading the separatist fight in Donbas since it started
in Spring 2014. For example, Strelkov and members of his armed group in Sloviansk
and Kramatorsk were identified by the Ukrainian and US governments as a Russian military
intelligence (GRU) unit. However, the publicly available evidence indicates that Strelkov
was a retired officer of the Federal Security Service. A ‘bearded man’from the Strelkov
group had been falsely identified as a commander of a Chechen GRU battalion solely
on the basis of superficial similarities of their facial features, while he was a Russian
Cossack (see Shuster, 2014).
However, the issue of a covert involvement of the Russian government in the start of
the separatist rebellion in Donbas requires further research because many of the
Russian government sources concerning these events are still not available to researchers.
In both Donbas and the ‘Euromaidan’, however, foreign governments alone could not
have been able to covertly seize power in Donbas and Ukraine, respectively, and to
produce large numbers of activists and supporters.
The Russian government initially denied direct military involvement in Crimea in March
2014, despite evidence that Russian military units without insignia (‘green men’) were
operating there along with separatist self-defence units, which included many Berkut
members, and were seizing Ukrainian military units and government headquarters there
(Katchanovski, 2015a). Evidence indicates that, in contrast to its direct military intervention
in Crimea, Russia initially supported separatists in Donbas by allowing volunteers and
weapons to cross the border from Russia, and in providing weapons, recruitment, training,
and safe haven to separatists. The Russian government also threatened to use military
force in Ukraine, and deployed large numbers of its military personnel near the border
with the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions and other regions of Ukraine in Spring and
Summer 2014.
The Strelkov-led Russian nationalist unit and the local separatists also tried to seize
control over local airport and telecommunication infrastructure and nearby towns.
These attacks lead to counterattacks by the government forces, which refused to consider
a peaceful resolution of the conflict and launched the ‘ATO’in the East on 13 April 2014.
The new Maidan-led government attempted to neutralize the separatists through the use
of military force and special police and security units. An SBU officer was killed on the same
day during an attempt by an SBU special Alfa unit to seize the separatist leaders in Slo-
viansk, which was then controlled by the Strelkov-led armed group of Russians and
local separatists.
However, many of the government forces were initially reluctant to follow the orders to
use force against the separatists. As a result, paramilitary units and special police batta-
lions, organized by the radical nationalist and neo-Nazi organizations with help of the gov-
ernment and oligarchs, were much more ideologically motivated and willing to use force.
Various evidence indicates that the Right Sector was involved in a deadly attack of a
separatist checkpoint in Sloviansk on 20 April 2014. The evidence includes his business
card found there, a later admission by Dmytro Yarosh, the Right Sector leader, that this
was his first battle, and a court ruling revealing that the same exact weapon was used
by the attackers and killers of the Internal Troops servicemen on the Maidan (BBC Ukrai-
nian, 2015; Pechersk District Court, 2015b). This attack by the paramilitary alliance of
radical nationalist and neo-Nazi organizations constituted a major escalation of the conflict
8I. KATCHANOVSKI
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
in Donbas because it broke the Geneva agreement, which was signed on 17 April 2014 by
Ukraine, Russia, the EU, and the US concerning a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and
the Orthodox Easter ceasefire between the Ukrainian government and separatists.
Similarly, the special police battalion Azov, organized by the neo-Nazi Social-National
Assembly with help of the Radical Party, was involved in an attack of a district police head-
quarters in Mariupol on 9 May 2014, which resulted in casualties among the police and
civilians. The special police battalion Dnipro, organized with the participation of the
Right Sector and the oligarch-governor of the Dnipropetrovsk Region, Ihor Kolomoisky,
was involved in this attack and in another deadly assault in Krasnoarmiisk in the
Donetsk Region in early May 2014. An analysis of live broadcasts, videos, and media
reports indicates that the Right Sector, which was dominated in Odessa and Kharkiv by
the Social-National Assembly, football ultras from these cities, and Maidan Self-Defence
units, massacred 42 pro-Russian separatists and employees there on 2 May 2014 by
setting fire to the Trade Union building in Odessa in the south of Ukraine after deadly
clashes with local separatists (Katchanovski, 2015c).
Special police battalions, the Azov battalion/regiment, and paramilitary formations,
such as the Volunteer Ukrainian Corps, organized and led since Spring and Summer
2014 by far-right organizations, such as the Right Sector, the Social-National Assembly,
and Svoboda, have constituted a minority of the Ukrainian forces during the war in
Donbas, but these far-right formations were disproportionally involved in the violent con-
flict, specifically violence against civilians and prisoners of war. Small numbers of volun-
teers and mercenaries, citizens of Belarus, Canada, France, Italy, Russia, Sweden, and the
US, including neo-Nazis, served in Ukrainian far right-led units. They mainly joined the
Azov battalion, which was later transformed into a regiment (see Katchanovski, 2015c).
The violence by separatists and the central government also had major roles in escala-
tion of the conflict into a full scale war. A separatist attack on 22 May 2014 resulted in the
death of 16 Ukrainian army soldiers near Volnovakha. On 1 July 2014 after a brief truce, the
Poroshenko government launched a large-scale military operation against separatists.
A daily examination of various live broadcasts, videos, and media reports shows that the
separatist leaders, commanders, and members of their armed units, were mostly residents
of Donbas and, to a lesser extent, other regions of Ukraine. They included ethnic Russian
nationalists, anti-Maidan activists, splinter Communist Party, and Party of Regions activists,
and former members of Berkut and SBU. But a significant number of volunteers and mercen-
aries also came to Donbas directly from or via Russia or Crimea. The analysis of the same
numerous sources indicates that these included mostly Russian nationalists, Russian Cos-
sacks, Chechens, Ingushes, and Ossetians and relatively small numbers of Communists
and neo-Nazis and citizens of other post-Soviet states, Serbia, and Western countries.
Various sources show that, in spite of continuing denial by the Russian government,
direct Russian military intervention in Donbas began at the end of August 2014. It took
the form of incursions by several battalion-size units in order to prevent a defeat of separa-
tist forces and attacks of Donetsk and Luhansk cities. These include a report by the Ministry
of Defence of Ukraine in 2015, as well as reports by separatists, videos of Russian military
convoys, videos of captured Russian soldiers and equipment, first-hand reports by Western
media and eyewitnesses, and released satellite images of Russian military vehicles on the
Ukrainian side of the border. They all suggest that the Russian forces, along with the
separatist units, took part in combat with the Ukrainian forces and far right-led battalions
EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 9
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
in the Illovaisk area, encircled many of the Ukrainian units, and killed around 400 of them
during their attempt to leave the encirclement. Similar evidence shows that some regular
Russian units also took part in the Debaltseve battle in February 2015. The Russian forces
were usually involved in the combat from a distance, such as shelling the Ukrainian pos-
itions from artillery, multiple rockets, and tanks. There are videos and other evidence that
they started shelling of the Ukrainian positions from the Russian territory near the border
in July 2014. There were also reports from different sources about incursions of regular
Russian units in Donbas in Fall 2014 and August 2015. In addition, such evidence indicates
that since the end of summer 2014 regular Russian troops in Donbas included, at a
minimum, military advisers, operators of advance weapon systems, and military reconnais-
sance and intelligence units (see Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, 2015; Sky News, 2015).
Indirect evidence of Russian military intervention includes a relatively rapid change in
the military situation in Donbas in August 2014 and February 2015. Before the end of
August 2014, separatists were under attack by Ukrainian forces and had been retreating
from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk to the more densely populated parts of Donbas, particu-
larly the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. However, following direct Russian military inter-
ventions in Donbas during battles at the end of August 2014 and in February 2015, the
Ukrainian regular units and special police and far right-led volunteer battalions suffered
encirclements, retreats, and losses in the Illovaisk and Debaltseve areas, respectively. In
both of these cases, President Poroshenko rapidly reversed his reliance on military force
against separatists and he negotiated the Minsk ceasefire agreements. In addition,
changes in the top leadership of DNR and LNR in mid-August 2014 preceded the
Russian military intervention in Donbas. These include the replacements of Alexander
Borodai, the prime minister of DNR, and Strelkov, the defence minister of DNR, with
local separatist leaders. In contrast, a similar direct military intervention by regular
Russian forces before August 2014 and permanent presence and continuing direct invol-
vement in combat of significant regular Russian military forces have not been corrobo-
rated directly and indirectly by the analysis of the various sources.
Analysis of various sources, in particular Ukrainian media reports, suggest that Ukraine
became a US ‘client state’after the ‘Euromaidan’and during the conflict in Donbas. The US
government had obtained influence over appointments of top officials, for instance, prime
minister Arseniy Yatseniuk, and over policies of the Ukrainian government, in particular,
concerning the conflicts in Crimea and Donbas (see, for instance, Mostovaia, 2015).
There was nearly perfect alignments of Ukrainian and US government positions concern-
ing major foreign policy issues, including the war in Donbas. Specifically, top US govern-
ment officials generally expressed unconditional backing of the Ukrainian government
policies concerning the conflict in Donbas, and the US provided free of charge military
training and military equipment to the Ukrainian forces. But the US government and
other Western countries have excluded the possibility of direct military intervention in
the war in Donbas.
Similarly, there is evidence, including separatist sources, that suggests that the separatist
republics in Donbas became de facto client states of Russia at the end of summer 2014. Soon
after the direct Russian military intervention in August 2014, almost all separatist units in
Donbas were brought under the de facto overall command of Russian military ‘curators’
or advisers. Most of the original separatist commanders in charge of such units, including
Strelkov, were forced to leave Donbas for Russia. The remaining commanders were partly
10 I. KATCHANOVSKI
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
incorporated into the new military-style units, which were equipped and trained by the
Russian military. Some of the original separatist commanders were arrested or killed, like
Oleksii Mozhovoi, for resisting such incorporation (see e.g. Colonel, 2015).
The violent conflict in Donbas can thus be defined as a civil war with both direct and
indirect military intervention of a foreign state. The predominant involvement of local
separatists at the start of the conflict, along with the prevalence of local residents along
with residents of other Ukrainian regions among the leadership and in the armed for-
mations points to this origins of this conflict as a civil war. Currently available evidence
indicates that the Russian government’s indirect support for separatists, and subsequent
direct military intervention, came after the start of the conflict in Donbas. However, this
intervention also proved decisive in enabling the separatists to turn the tide of the war
and prevent the Ukrainian forces from recapturing all of Donbas.
The separatist conflict in Donbas is thus in many ways similar to violent conflicts and
secessions in other post-Soviet states, such as Transdniestria in Moldova, Abkhazia and
South Ossetia in Georgia, and Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. Like in Donbas, separatist
movements in these countries emerged in regions populated by ethnic minorities. The
central governments of these countries also refused to offer autonomy to these regions
and relied on military or police forces and paramilitary units to suppress separatism.
These attempts failed largely because of military interventions by Russia in the form of
the Russian 14th army in Transdniestria, and Russian military intervention in Abkhazia
and South Ossetia following an attack by Georgia in 2008. Similarly, Armenia intervened
militarily and directly in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
As of the end of January 2016, the minimum estimate of direct casualties of the war in
Donbas is around 13,000 people killed. This estimate is based on the UN report of at least
9098 confirmed casualties in Donbas as of 15 November 2015 (Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2015a), adjusted by an estimate of presumed
casualties among the reported 1200–2000 missing, presumed undercounting of casualties
among separatists, Russian volunteers and mercenaries, and Russian regular troops, and
media reports concerning casualties since 15 November. The minimal estimated
number of killed members of the Ukrainian military, National Guard, police, Security
Service, border guards, and paramilitary units is around 4000. This estimate is based on
official reports of their casualties, updated with media reports and adjusted for missing
in action who are presumed to be killed. It includes about 3000 confirmed casualties
among the Ukrainian armed forces, including more than 1000 non-combat related (Dzer-
kalo tyzhnia, 2015). The majority of the officially reported 283–800 missing soldiers are also
presumed killed.
There have been at least 400 casualties among the National Guard, the police, SBU, and
border guards. In addition, there have been estimated a few hundred casualties among
members of the far-right formations. The casualties among armed separatists units, includ-
ing Russian volunteers, are estimated to be at least 2500, since they had an advantage of
mainly defensive operations during most of the war and no large-scale casualties from
encirclements and shot-down military planes and helicopters. A rough estimate of killed
Russian regular troops, primarily involved in fighting in August 2014 and February 2015,
is close to 100. This estimate is derived from reported and corroborated cases of individual
casualties, and it is consistent with a compilation of about 80 cases of the Russian military
personnel killed in undisclosed circumstances and locations in 2014 and 2015 (BBC
EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 11
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
Russian, 2016). The number of civilian casualties is at least 6000, including 298 passengers
and crew of the Malaysian airliner. In addition, thousands or tens of thousands of people in
this region, and in the government controlled part of Ukraine, are likely to be indirect
casualties of the war as a result of higher mortality rates e.g. due to inadequate medical
care, heating, and food linked to the war, but their numbers are difficult to estimate
more precisely because of lack of data.
The analysis of various sources, such as the UN and OSCE mission reports, videos of the
attacks, and Western journalists on-site reports, suggests that the majority of civilian
casualties during the Ukrainian attack stage and positional stages of the war resulted
from shelling by the Ukrainian forces of cities, towns, and villages used by armed separa-
tists as their bases (See, for example, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, 2015a,2015b). Attacks on Luhansk, Stanytsia Luhanska, Horlivka, and
Donetsk involved multiple civilian casualties stemming from both collateral casualties
from shelling by the Ukrainian regular forces and volunteer far-right battalions of both
rebels and civilians. However, the separatists or Russian forces were responsible for the
most of major deadly attacks during their advance in January and February 2015, such
as shelling of Volnovakha and Mariupol that resulted in multiple civilian casualties.
There is also evidence to suggest that a separatist or Russian crew shot down Malaysian
passenger plane MH17 in July 2014, likely by mistaking it for a Ukrainian military transport
plane. This analysis and common political science definitions show that genocide, fascist
junta, and terrorism are not appropriate terms to define the conflict in Donbas.
Determinants of support for separatism
A national survey, excepting Crimea, conducted for the author by the KIIS in April/May
2014, indicates much higher levels of popular support for separatism in Donbas, compared
to other regions of Ukraine. It shows that the majority of Donbas residents backed various
forms of separatism (54% overall or 61%, excluding undecideds) in April/May 2014.
Support for separatism in Donbas far exceeded separatist support in the three Eastern
Table 1. Support for separatism in different regions of Ukraine, the 2014 KIIS Survey, per cent.
Donbas
Other
East South
a
Center Bukovyna Galicia Transcarpathia Volhynia
Secession from Ukraine and
joining another state
23 3 2 1 0 0 0 0
Secession from Ukraine and
formation of independent
state
8210 0 0 0 0
Autonomy as a part of federal
Ukraine
23 10 7 2 0 0 0 0
Preserving current status
within unitary Ukraine with
expanded powers
26 55 59 54 69 68 84 59
Preserving current status
within unitary Ukraine with
current powers
9182331 13 22 11 40
Don’t know/not sure 11 12 8 12 18 10 5 1
Total, % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
N311 377 214 704 39 224 55 94
a
Crimea is not included.
12 I. KATCHANOVSKI
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
regions neighbouring Donbas and in the South (Table 1). But it was significantly lower than
indicated by other surveys in Crimea (Katchanovski, 2015a;O’Loughlin & Toal, 2015).
The KIIS survey asked about attitudes towards different forms of separatism, which
includes not only outright secessionism but also unilateral demands of greater autonomy
or federalism (Cabestan & Pavković,2013; Katchanovski, 2006a). Statements by top
leaders, including President Poroshenko, and actions by the Security Service of Ukraine
show that the Ukrainian government after the ‘Euromaidan’has de facto made illegal
public support not only for secession but also for a regional autonomy and federalism
(UNIAN, 2016). Prior to April 2014 many separatist leaders, specifically in Donbas, called
for federalism and regional autonomy in Ukraine. The Russian government also pressed
for federalism and de facto confederation which would have given Donbas the power
to block decisions of the central government, including those regarding matters of
foreign policy.
In the 2014 KIIS survey, 23% of the respondents in Donbas favoured autonomy as a part
of federal Ukraine, compared to 8% supporting independence of their region, while 23%
favoured the region joining Russia. Conversely, preserving the pre-war status of their
regions within a unitary Ukraine, but with expanded powers, had support of 9%. These
survey results also show that views expressed by the Russian government and the
media concerning widespread popular support for separatism in all of Eastern and
Southern Ukraine were unfounded (see Table 1).
A 2015 KIIS survey produced similar results in separatist-controlled Donbas. The option
of joining Russia was favoured by 16% of the respondents, independence from Ukraine by
26%, autonomy within a federal Ukraine by 18%, extended powers in a unitary Ukraine by
20%, and a return to the pre-war status of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions was supported
by 12% (Telekrytyka, 2015).
The 2014 KIIS Survey also shows that ethnic Russians in Ukraine, with the exception of
Crimea, were split on the issue of separatism. Similar percentages of ethnic Russians sup-
ported preservation of the existing unitary system (43%), mostly with expanded powers,
and different separatist options (42%), including 16% who preferred their region to join
Russia. Interestingly, people of mixed Russian and Ukrainian descent showed stronger
support for separatism, not only compared to ethnic Ukrainians but also to ethnic Russians
(Table 2). By contrast, only 24% of Russian speakers, including many ethnic Ukrainians,
favoured secession from Ukraine or regional autonomy in a federal Ukraine (see Table 3).
No major national political party in Ukraine openly supports the separatists in Donbas.
The Ukrainian government not only prohibits separatist parties and organizations in
Table 2. Support for separatism by major ethnic groups in Ukraine, the 2014 KIIS Survey, per cent.
Ukrainians Russians
Both Russian
and Ukrainian Other
Secession from Ukraine and joining another state 2 16 25 14
Secession from Ukraine and formation of independent state 1 6 9 3
Autonomy as a part of federal Ukraine 5 20 18 14
Preserving current status within unitary Ukraine with expanded powers 57 35 23 29
Preserving current status within unitary Ukraine with current powers 25 8 9 23
Don’t know/not sure 10 16 18 17
Total, % 100 100 100 100
N1693 229 57 35
Note: Crimea is not included.
EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 13
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
Ukraine, it also has disbanded the Communist Party on separatism charges, and launched
criminal cases against some leaders of the Party of Regions on similar charges. Indeed,
significant numbers of supporters of the Party of Regions and the Communist Party
back the separatists contrary to official positions of these parties. The 2014 KIIS Survey
shows that 20% of those who intend to vote for the Party of Regions, and 15% of those
who intend to vote for the Communist Party, favoured regional secession from Ukraine
and joining another state, which means in almost all cases Russia, or forming an
Table 3. Support for separatism by major languages in Ukraine, the 2014 KIIS Survey, per cent.
Ukrainian Russian
Mixture of Russian
and Ukrainian
Secession from Ukraine and joining another state 1 9 3
Secession from Ukraine and formation of independent state 1 3 2
Autonomy as a part of federal Ukraine 1 12 5
Preserving current status within unitary Ukraine with expanded powers 61 45 57
Preserving current status within unitary Ukraine with current powers 28 18 24
Don’t know/not sure 8 13 10
Total, % 100 100 100
N802 934 284
Note: Crimea is not included.
Table 4. Determinants of support for separatism in Ukraine, 2014 KIIS survey, OLS regression.
Unstandardized regression
coefficient (B)
Standardized regression
coefficient (β)
Volhynia −.052 −.020
Transcarpathia −.035 −.010
Bukovyna −.025 −.006
Center .035 .029
Donbas .711*** .452
Other East .120* .082
South
a
.071 .039
Ethnic Russian .331*** .199
Other ethnic minority .234** .052
Russian speaker −.037 −.032
Male .064** .057
Age −.003*** −.079
Education −.009 −.030
Settlement type .009 .039
Fatherland −.060 −.032
Svoboda −.033 −.011
Communist Party .159** .059
Party of Regions .091 .038
Solidarity −.129*** −.088
Our Ukraine −.180 −.033
Other parties −.138* −.046
Against all parties −.030 −.016
Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate) .114** .078
Orthodox Autocephalous −.015 −.003
Orthodox (Kyiv Patriarchate) .016 .013
Greek Catholic .034 .015
Other religions −.113 −.026
No religious confession .055 .043
Constant 1.141***
Adjusted R-square .373
N1801
a
Does not include Crimea.
*Statistically significant at the .05 level.
**Statistically significant at the .01 level.
***Statistically significant at the .001 level.
14 I. KATCHANOVSKI
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
independent state. Autonomy for their regions as a part of federal Ukraine was preferred
by 18% of likely Party of Regions voters, and 19% of likely Communist voters. But 22% of
the respondents, who did not intend to vote, also expressed secessionist views, while 12%
supported regional autonomy as a part of a federal state in Ukraine.
Multiple regression analysis of the 2014 KIIS Survey data shows that, when other factors
are held constant, the residents of Donbas expressed much stronger support for separat-
ism than other regions. Pro-separatist views there were also stronger than in the neigh-
bouring regions of Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, and Zaporizhzhia. Ethnic Russians, other
ethnic minorities, Communist Party likely voters, younger people, adherents to the Ukrai-
nian Orthodox Church (the Moscow Patriarchate), and men all expressed stronger, statisti-
cally significant support for separatism. Standardized regression coefficients show that the
residence in Donbas was the biggest determinant of pro-separatist views, while self-identi-
fication as an ethnic Russian has the second strongest effect (see Table 4).
Residence in other major historic and geographic regions, other political party affilia-
tion, other religious confession, being a Russian speaker, education level, and settlement
type did not have any significant positive impact on support for separatism.
1
Conclusion
Separatists, the Yanukovych government, the Maidan opposition, the Maidan government,
far-right organizations, Russia, the US, and the EU contributed to the start and escalation of
violent separatist conflict in Donbas, and the de-facto break-up of Ukraine, in different
ways. They all misrepresented the conflict in Donbas to various extent, but their actions
did not all have an equal impact. The presumed covert involvement of the US and
Russia, the former in the violent regime change during the ‘Euromaidan’, the latter in
the start of the conflict in Donbas requires further research because of lack of publicly
available data concerning these events. Regional political culture in Donbas and Russian
ethnicity were strongest determinants of support for separatism in Ukraine after the
annexation of Crimea.
This study suggests that it is almost impossible in the foreseeable future to permanently
resolve the conflict in Donbas and thereby to unite Ukraine once again even without
Crimea. It is far more likely that this war can either turn into a frozen conflict, similar to
Transdniestria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh, or the violence can
once again escalate. The civil war in Donbas, with Russian military intervention, has
already led to the de facto independence of the DNR and the LNR, which control the
most populated parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions. Alongside the annexation
of Crimea, we are witnessing the de-facto break-up of Ukraine. But while the KIIS survey
shows that separatism has significantly higher support in Donbas compared to other
regions of Ukraine, it also suggests that other regions are not likely to follow Donbas
and separate from Ukraine.
Note
1. Voting preference for Solidarity actually had a negative effect on pro-separatist attitudes (see
Table 4). The attitudes towards separatism are measured on a scale from 1 to 3, with 1 indi-
cating support for preservation of the respondents’region in unitary Ukraine with current
EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 15
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
or expanded powers of regions, 2 defining support for federal Ukraine with significant regional
autonomy, and 3 expressing support for secession of their region from Ukraine and joining
another state or becoming independent.
ORCID
Ivan Katchanovski http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8266-9987
References
Arel, D. (2006). La face cachée de la Révolution orange: l’Ukraine et le déni de son problème régional.
Revue Detudes Comparatives Est-Ouest,37(4), 11–48.
Barrington, L., & Herron, E. (2004). One Ukraine or many? Regionalism in Ukraine and its political con-
sequences. Nationalities Papers,32(1), 53–86.
BBC Russian. (2016). Voennaia prokuratura RF otkazala v povtornoi proverke gibeli 159 soldat.
Retrieved January 26, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/russian/news/2016/01/160126_russia_
solders_death_check
BBC Ukrainian. (2015). Dmytro Yarosh: nam shche Krym povertaty. Retrieved February 11, 2015, from
http://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/politics/2015/02/150211_yarosh_interview_vs
Cabestan, J.-P., & Pavković, A. (Eds.). (2013). Secessionism and separatism in Europe and Asia: To have a
state of one’s own. Abingdon: Routledge.
Colonel, C. (2015). Ubiistvo Mozgovogo –Kto i zachem? Chast 1. Retrieved May 24, 2015, from http://
colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2198800.html
Colton, T. J. (2010, October). Thinking the unthinkable: Is the breakup of the Ukrainian state a real
threat? Sixth Annual Danyliw Research Seminar, University of Ottawa, Ottawa.
Czuperski, M., Herbst, J., Higgins, E., Polyakova, A., & Wilson, D. (2015). Hiding in plain sight: Putin’s war
in Ukraine. Washington, DC: Atlantic Council. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://www.
atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Hiding_in_Plain_Sight/HPS_English.pdf
Darden, K. A. (2010). Conditional property and regional political cultures: Challenges for U.S. foreign
policy in the post-Soviet space. In T. Colton, T. Frye, & R. Legvold (Eds.), The policy world meets aca-
demia: Designing U.S. policy toward Russia (pp. 70–78). Cambridge: American Academy of Arts &
Sciences.
Dzerkalo tyzhnia. (2015). Genshtab ozvuchyv ofitsiini vtraty za chas ATO. Retrieved November 27,
2015, from http://dt.ua/UKRAINE/genshtab-ozvuchiv-oficiyni-vtrati-zsu-za-chas-ato-191689_.html
Giuliano, E. (2015). The social bases of support for self-determination in East Ukraine. Ethnopolitics,14
(5), 513–522.
Institute of World Policy. (2015). IWP opinion poll: How do EU citizens perceive the war in Eastern
Ukraine? Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://iwp.org.ua/eng/public/1784.html
Interfax-Ukraine. (2015). Pochti tret ukraintsev schitayut chto na vostoke strany proiskhodit voina
mezhdu Ukrainoi i Rossiei –opros. Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://interfax.com.ua/
news/political/308022.html
Katchanovski, I. (2006a). Cleft countries: Regional political divisions and cultures in post-Soviet Ukraine
and Moldova. Stuttgart: Ibidem.
Katchanovski, I. (2006b). Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006. Nationalities Papers,34
(5), 507–532.
Katchanovski, I. (2008, August). Political regionalism in ‘orange’Ukraine. Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
Katchanovski, I. (2014, August). East or West? Regional political divisions in Ukraine since the ‘orange
revolution’and the ‘Euromaidan.’Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,
Washington, DC.
Katchanovski, I. (2015a). Crimea: People and territory before and after annexation. In A. Pikulicka-
Wilczewska & R. Sakwa (Eds.), Ukraine and Russia: People, politics, propaganda and perspectives
(pp. 80–89). Bristol: E-International Relations.
16 I. KATCHANOVSKI
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
Katchanovski, I. (2015b, September). The ‘snipers’massacre’on the Maidan in Ukraine. Annual Meeting
of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www.
academia.edu/8776021/The_Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine
Katchanovski, I. (2015c, May). The far right in Ukraine during the ‘Euromaidan’and beyond. Annual
Conference of the Canadian Association of Slavists, Ottawa.
Katchanovski, I. (in press). The Maidan massacre in Ukraine: A summary of analysis, evidence, and
findings. In J. L. Black & M. Johns (Eds.), The return of the Cold War: Ukraine, the West and Russia.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Kudelia, S. (2014). Domestic sources of the Donbas insurgency. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo, 351.
Retrieved July 17, 2015, from http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/domestic-sources-donbas-
insurgency
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault. Foreign Affairs,93(5), 77–89.
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine. (2015). Analiz vedennia antyterorystychnoi operatsii ta naslidkiv vtorh-
nennia Rosiiskoi Federatsii v Ukrainu u serpni-veresni 2014 roku. Retrieved August 13, 2015, from
http://www.mil.gov.ua/content/other/anliz_rf.pdf
Mostovaia, I. (2015). Shpion, vyidi von! Dzerkalo tyzhnia. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://gazeta.
zn.ua/internal/shpion-vyydi-von-_.html
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2015a). Report on the human
rights situation in Ukraine 15 August to 15 November 2015. Retrieved December 9, 2015, from
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/12thOHCHRreportUkraine.pdf
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2015b). Report on the human
rights situation in Ukraine 16 May to 15 August 2015. Retrieved October 2, 2015, from http://
www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/11thOHCHRreportUkraine.pdf
O’Loughlin, J., & Toal, G. (2015). The Crimean conundrum. Open Democracy. Retrieved March 15,
2015, from https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/john-o%E2%80%99loughlin-gerard-toal/
crimean-conundrum
Pechersk District Court. (2015a). Ukhvala, “Sprava 757/37009/15-k.”Retrieved January 26, 2016, from
http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/52580547
Pechersk District Court. (2015b). Ukhvala, “Sprava 757/42824/15-k.”Retrieved January 26, 2016, from
http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/54278484
Robinson, P. (in press). Explaining the Ukrainian army’s defeat in Donbass in 2014. In J. L. Black & M.
Johns (Eds.), The return of the Cold War: Ukraine, the West and Russia. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sakwa, R. (2015). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the borderlands. London: I.B. Tauris.
Shuster, S. (2014). Exclusive: Meet the pro-Russian separatists of Eastern Ukraine. Time. Retrieved April
23, 2014, from http://time.com/74405/exclusive-pro-russian-separatists-eastern-ukraine/
Sky News. (2015). Sky films troops ‘In Russian gear’in Ukraine. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from
http://news.sky.com/story/1329691/sky-films-troops-in-russian-gear-in-ukraine
Telekrytyka. (2015). Iakym ie riven pidtrymky mesedzhiv rosiiskoi propagandy u zoni konfliktu: sotsiolo-
hichne opytuvannia. Retrieved May 18, 2015, from http://osvita.mediasapiens.ua/mediaprosvita/
research/yakim_e_riven_pidtrimki_mesedzhiv_rosiyskoi_propagandi_u_zoni_konfliktu_
sotsiologichne_opituvannya
UNIAN. (2016). Poroshenko napoliahaie na zaboroni nepryiniatnykh dlia Ukrainy idei federalismu.
Retrieved January 30, 2016, from http://www.unian.ua/politics/1244658-poroshenko-napolyaga
e-na-zaboroni-nepriynyatnih-dlya-ukrajini-idey-federalizmu.html
Uppsala Conflict Data Program. (2015). UCDP conflict encyclopedia. Uppsala University, Department of
Peace and Conflict Research. Retrieved September 17, 2015, from www.ucdp.uu.se/database
US Department of State. (2014). Russian fiction the sequel: 10 more false claims about Ukraine.
Retrieved April 15, 2014, from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/04/224759.htm
Wilson, A. (2014). Ukraine crisis: What it means for the West. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Zhukov, Y. M. (2016). Trading hard hats for combat helmets: The economics of rebellion in eastern
Ukraine. Journal of Comparative Economics,44(1), 1–15.
EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY 17
Downloaded by [Ivan Katchanovski] at 20:35 16 March 2016
