Donbas Interviews, Part II: "The Donbas will be Russian forever"
"Ukrainian elites ... dehumanized the residents of the region for decades."
Read Part I here and Part III here.
The subject of this interview is Alexey Larkin, a Russian journalist.
How likely is it that the conflict will resume?
I hear about another escalation of the Donbas conflict several times every year. And every time, no escalation happens. This time, many of my acquaintances in military circles and elsewhere insist that “this is it, now it’ll flare up for sure,” but I heard the same thing last year.
Contrary to popular belief, the Donbas war is not over, and the ceasefire is basically ignored; it’s just that the fighting tends to be very low-energy. But every now and then, the intensity ramps up; this attracts media and public attention, and then comes news that “the fighting will resume any time now.” In reality, the war never ended, and residents of the Donbas have been forced to suffer through this every day for the past seven years.
If you’re asking whether or not a full-scale war could resume – I think for this to happen, some fundamentally significant developments would have to occur in politics, the economy, and so on. So far, I don’t see any such developments; and not being a political scientist, I can’t predict them. The situation in the Donbas mostly suits the Ukrainian government, the Russian government, and the economic elites – the Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs who profit from industries in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics.
If we look at public opinion, it coincides with my own personal aspirations: I want to see a full-scale offensive take place, because only then can the Donetsk and Lugansk republics – and possibly the Russian Federation – respond in force and achieve a resolution to the conflict, thus ending the suffering going on right now.
Does the Ukrainian government have enough initiative and Western support to retake the Donbas?
I think Ukrainian elites understand that the population of the Donbas and Crimea is lost to them: they dehumanized the residents of the region for decades, then overtly committed genocide against them (on the basis of language and ethnicity) and are making no effort to win back the people’s sympathies with their propaganda and cultural policies. So the Ukrainian government has no chance of taking the Donbas, unless they physically destroy its entire dissenting population, but the Ukrainian military couldn’t pull this off.
On the other hand, the Donbas region is quite important for the economy of Ukraine, and she’ll never be able to cut ties with it. Today, Ukraine continues to live off the Donbas coal industry; all the trade and economic relationships have moved into the grey market but still function, and this arrangement suits everyone.
Western support is overhyped in many ways; as we can observe in practice, military aid in the form of weapons and equipment arrive in Ukraine in unserviceable condition, while financial aid and International Monetary Fund tranches are regularly looted by politicians. Besides, no one in Russia genuinely believes the West will fight for Ukraine – this is unrealistic.
Is formally recognizing or even annexing the Donbas in the Russian government’s interest? What will relations between the Russian Federation and the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk republics look like in the near future?
To the Kremlin, the Donbas is a lucrative economic asset (cynical, I know, but this is more important to the Russian government than human lives, national interests, etc.) But tapping the Donbas economy while under sanctions – even the current ones, not to mention the ones that would accompany a potential annexation – presents quite a difficult task. Besides, the main consumer of Donetsk coal is Ukraine. First, you won’t find another buyer like this; second, leaving Ukraine without coal, gas, and other resources would spark a humanitarian catastrophe that would leave millions of Russians living there to die. In terms of economic and administrative integration, the issue of the New Russian* republics has stalled and will remain frozen in its current state until a solution is developed. (Right now, these solutions are actively being developed.)
At the same time, the Donbas republics have adopted a doctrine known as “Russian Donbas” – this is an official statement of principles, which defines the Donetsk and Lugansk republics as Russian ethnic states. (It’s worth noting that even Russia doesn’t have something like this.) Political and administrative decisions will undoubtedly trend towards Russia for many years to come.
As I’ve already said, 100 percent integration is impossible for now, so Donbas residents are being given Russian passports. Not everyone has them yet, but the effort is proceeding at an aggressive pace.
All parties involved (politicians, the media, and ordinary people in Russia, Ukraine, and the Donetsk and Lugansk republics) understand that from now on, the Donbas will be Russian forever.
*Novorossiya, or New Russia, is one of several historical terms for the Donbas region.
In the West, some on the political right sympathize with Ukrainian nationalism, comparing it to other European right-wing movements. Is this perspective accurate?
As a Russian, I don’t care whether those who kill my countrymen in the Donbas are “right-wing,” “left-wing,” or “apolitical.” You could reasonably discuss the fact that all right-wing movements in Ukraine are nonsensical and self-contradictory, but even the premise of this question seems futile to me.
It’s especially entertaining to watch “right-wingers” support Ukraine, seeing as LGBT ideology and replacement migration from Africa and the Middle East are advancing even faster in Ukraine than in the Russian Federation.
Who should European and American right-wingers support? Well, they could support a mighty European nation which has a thousand-year-old culture, and which protects its own, or they could side with an aggressive Eastern European country of which there was no coherent mention even a century ago.
Is there anything else you would tell Western audiences to improve their understanding of the conflict?
I already explained the conflict itself, so I’ll add a few personal thoughts: I would advise Western audiences to treat the people of the Donbas with respect, and observe the the society they’re building right now: one that is conservative and even representative of “good old-fashioned American values.” I think many Americans arriving in Donetsk would be pleasantly surprised by its atmosphere, order, and level of culture; America doesn’t have that anymore.
Today, the city of Donetsk is safe for visitors, so I invite all those interested (once the borders are opened) to come and see everything for themselves.
Interview translated from Russian and lightly edited for clarity.