Through Times of Trouble. Conflict in Southeastern Ukraine Explained from Within

Endogenously driven de‐peripheralization through political secession: The case of the Donbas region

“…Yet addressing problems means facing facts, and in this case, the fact, however unpleasant, is that some of the Donbas' population and political leadership support Russian annexation—precisely because it is viewed as a means of de‐peripheralization. According to some of the most authoritative accounts available (Matveeva, 2017; Plokhy, 2021; Reid, 2015), the Russian invasion, however vicious, is rooted in history and has been given a sour patina of legitimacy by the sort of inequality and grievance rife within Ukraine's space‐economy. It is also rooted in the despotism of that Soviet era, to the point of using the very same tactics of economic coercion, societal oppression, and military violence that were used to establish the Iron Curtain in eastern Europe during the middle part of the twentieth century (see Applebaum, 2012).…”

“…Within Ukraine, the two capitals of the Donbas, eponymous with their surrounding oblasts, are only weakly in the orbit of Kiev; both are overshadowed by Kharkiv to the northwest. Indeed, in her book, Through Times of Trouble , Matveeva (2017, pages 69–91) titled her chapter on the Donbas 'a much unloved powerhouse,' and in it, she explains how and why the region's transition to an industrialized economy from an agrarian economy was not accompanied by a corresponding transition, using Krugman's (1992) and Fujita et al's (1999) terms, to core from periphery. Much like the people of Appalachia in the United States, the people of the Donbas—representing about 15% of Ukraine's nearly 45 million—have been left behind, and this neglect exposes what is perhaps the root of the ongoing war: remote, resource‐laden areas have long been understood to be vulnerable to exploitation and/or elite capture (see Perloff et al, 1960 and Blas & Farchy, 2022, respectively, for historical and contemporary perspectives).…”

“…This shortcoming derives from the region's 150‐year‐plus focus on the exploitation of its metals—including the discovery, extraction, processing, manufacturing, and export of them—combined with a painful history of othering of the very people who do this hard and important work. Because of this treatment, in 1994, only about half of the Donbas' residents favored joining the new Ukraine (Matveeva, 2017). Prior to the 'fall,' as Meir (2005) calls the inauspicious end of the Soviet Union, the Donbas had been relatively integrated, both vertically and horizontally, because economic development policy during the Soviet era favored a spatially balanced approach to growth that was aimed at promoting convergence among regions (Mykhnenko & Swain, 2010).…”

“…Together, the two contested oblasts, highlighted in yellow on the map presented in Figure 1(a), are known as the Donbas and Russia has militarily supported secessionist elements within them, at least since seizing Crimea. The Donbas is a region with a distinct history, shaped by past disputes plus its vast resource endowments, unique cultural identity, and very location (Matveeva, 2017). While the war is first and foremost a crisis of world affairs-an act of Russian aggression that has rightly drawn international horror and condemnation-the social sciences, including regional science, have a responsibility to analyze its causes and consequences in real time.…”

“Decentralize or Else”: Russia's Use of Offensive Coercive Diplomacy against Ukraine

“…Igor Girkin, an ex‐GRU/FSB employee, was one of the leaders who took part in the occupation of Crimea. Having admitted that he had been in the peninsula since February 21, 2014, Girkin was one of the militants who forced the members of the Crimean parliament to vote in favor of seceding from Ukraine (Matveeva 2018, 63). Upon seizing the parliament, militants, including Girkin, installed the pro‐Russian politician Sergey Aksyonov as the new Prime Minster of Crimea (De Carbonnel 2014).…”