The Salience and Politicization of Identity in the Ukraine Crisis

This academic essay was written for a school paper assignment in grad school. 

Analyzing the Ukraine Crisis

          The Ukraine Crisis is one of the contemporary conflicts that threaten regional and global security. With over thirteen thousand deaths since 2014, the fighting continues which destroyed properties and killed innocent lives (DW, Several killed amid surge in violence in Ukraine, 2018; UN News, 2019). Currently, some 1.5 million persons have been displaced and left their homes for safety (UNHCR, n.d.). This major humanitarian crisis is caused by a volatile power struggle between Ukrainian groups aligning with the European Union against a separatist ethnic and pro-Russia. Since 2014, the exchange of fire between Ukrainian soldiers and Russian-supported separatists have ensued persistently. The Ukrainian side is resolved to defend its position and protect its population against internal and external threats. It seeks to regain territorial integrity and safeguard state sovereignty against rebels armed by a former imperial oppressor. Over the past years, Ukraine’s strategy to reclaim territories is heavily influenced by its inclination toward fostering a unified and dominant national identity. On the other hand, the separatists desire autonomy and self-determination. Although their grievances are informed by material, territorial, and economic interest, the need for identity recognition is highly visible. The common ethnic root of the separatists with Russia reaps the P5 member’s political and military support. This is manifested in Putin’s deployment of troops in eastern Ukraine and his public expression to “protect the rights of Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Crimea and southeast Ukraine “ (Percha, 2014). At the outset, both state and the insurgent groups have an interest in fabricating ingroup solidarity and outgroup hostility. Eastern demands more cultural autonomy which is viewed by many in Western Ukraine with suspicion toward federalization and increased Russian influence. Consequently, fellow citizens from the east are portrayed as unpatriotic, possibly even treasonous (Radnitz, 2014). Expectedly, these incompatible goals, identity differences, and competing narratives aggravated hostile and negative attitudes that translated into violent behaviors.

Although a long history of tension between Ukraine and Russia can be traced to decades past, significant domestic events transpired in Ukraine that escalated the conflict. Most notably, the abandonment of former President Viktor Yanukovych’s to forge stronger ties and greater economic integration with EU, in favor of closer ties with Russia triggered heavy protests by pro-Europe groups (Grytsenko, 2013; Sakhno, 2019). This resulted in heavy protests by Ukrainians who reject Russia. As a result of these protests, ethnic Russians were aggravated and started a counter-revolution movement in the semi-autonomous region of Crimea and Ukraine’s eastern provinces. This led to the controversial annexation of Crimea in March (Aljazeera, 2014). The conflict spread like a wildfire to another majority ethnic Russian Donbass region. Eventually, ethnic Russian rebels in the Donetsk and Luhansk held a referendum and declared independence from Ukraine. Indeed, the events that transpired after 2013 heightened political tensions and fueled a long-standing sour relationship marked with political tensions and ethnic divisions.

To resolve the conflict, some efforts and strategies have been attempted. For instance, the United States and the EU imposed economic sanctions against Russia in the hope of military support withdrawal (Eckel, 2018). NATO has also been active in supporting strengthen the military capacity of Ukraine (Watkins, 2016). In 2014, an informal meeting between Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany resulted in the formation of Normandy Format to facilitate dialogue between Ukraine and Russia. Following the initial meeting, the Trilateral Contact Group was created with the warring parties and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to commence diplomatic solution to the crisis. The conflict experienced a short-lived ceasefire after the Minsk I which helped mitigate skirmishes in eastern Ukraine. With France and Germany’s commitment to the process, a second ceasefire called Minsk II extended the agreement framework to include the political agreement. However, these agreements did not stick for long as peace was not restored and ceasefire violations continued (OSCE, Latest from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), based on information received as of 19:30, 21 June 2019, 2019; BBC News, Ukraine conflict: Will the ceasefire hold?, 2015). There are also domestic attempts for peacebuilding with mixed results. Recently, Ukraine and Russia settled on a prisoner exchange. An agreement was also reached between the Ukrainian government and pro-Russia separatists to continue the peaceful negotiations. Still, the conflict is far from over as the root causes of the conflict are not directly addressed.

Scholars explained that the complex and multi-level nature of the Ukraine Crisis calls for a holistic understanding of appropriate and comprehensive resolution. While it is labeled as the “Ukraine Crisis”, the reality of the conflict is shaped by security issues in and around Ukraine. Unarguably, the crisis resolution will face some obstacles courtesy of its geopolitical, bilateral, and internal nature (Filipchuk, Zakharova, & Yaroshenko, 2016). A wealth of literature points to the importance of material and territorial interests in promulgating the conflict. While these are important, it is imperative that scholars offer new perspectives to make sense of the Ukraine Crisis. One of the developments in peace and conflict is the focus on the role of identity. It is argued that identity has a powerful role in triggering violent conflict (Gonzales, 2009; Azar & Burton, 1986; Gurr, 2008). Hence, this paper will contribute to the narrative of identity-conflict relationship by investigating the salience and role of identity in the Ukraine Crisis. The author recognizes that identity per se is not the problem; the weaponization of identity is. This paper will explore how ethnic group’s identity assertion translates into violence and how identity is politicized to justify support for conflict. The author will attempt to establish the connection of identity and other sources of the Ukrainian Crisis. Recommendations to move forward for a peaceful Ukraine are discussed.

Interpreting the Ukraine Conflict

          The root causes of the Ukrainian Crisis can be associated with many factors: economic, social, political, historical, etc. These factors explain specific elements of the crisis and numerous studies have been conducted to support them. In addition, the role of regional and international bodies has influenced the current status of the crisis. Notwithstanding their explanatory power, the author will make sense of the Ukrainian crisis using the lens of identity. Specifically, its salience, relation to conflict, and politicization will be discussed.

The Salience of Identity

The focus on material and geopolitical interests in the Ukraine crisis is valuable but oftentimes miss the importance of understanding the basic need for identity recognition. The perceived difference of identity in the country has infuriated a group of unrecognized separatists in communion neighboring populations. This partition traces its history to the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 that amplified cultural and ethnic divides. Over the past decade, scholars have posited that identity plays a crucial part in explaining civil wars, and violent armed conflicts in general (Azar & Burton, 1986; Gurr, 2008). One of the proponents of this contention is Edward Azar who posited that the state’s incapacity to effectively satisfy ethnic or other identity-based gaps in its governance will result in the emergence of violent conflict. Coining the term protracted social conflict, Azar would make sense of the Ukrainian crisis as classic example of state’s failure is to satisfy the basic identity recognition of people (Azar & Burton, 1986). The Ukraine conflict fits Azar’s argument that the predominant source of conflict lies within the state, in particular the communal group level. This fundamental level asserts that identity group—racial, religious, ethnic, and cultural—are the main unit in analyzing social conflict (Azar & Burton, 1986). A closer look at the Ukraine crisis confirms the marked distinction between minority ethnic Russian separatists and majority ethnic Ukrainians who are running the state. This type of division is common among pre-colonial states but in the case of Ukraine, it is largely a legacy of an imperial past that resulted in the rise of dominant single ruling Ukrainians. Showered with inherent privileges, these chosen rulers ethnics took the leadership and sidelined the needs of minority ethnics living far from the capital Kyiv. Subsequently, the perception of unresponsiveness to the needs of the minorities bred wider fragmentation and gradual conflict.

The crisis in Ukraine is another case proving that identity groups are motivated by more than greed or power. What is interesting to note is the organization of ethnic Russian separatists around a shared identity to benefit the collective. This internal cohesion among both ethnic identity groups is strengthened by the cultural and historical bonds (Gurr, 2008). Scholars have argued that “antagonistic group history, exclusionist myths, demonizing propaganda, and dehumanizing ideologies serve to justify discriminatory policies and legitimize atrocities”. Notably, ethnic division in Ukraine has existed since the early ninth century. The logical implication is that over the years, their shared experiences have reinforced the said division. For minority eastern separatists who share common descent, advancing their interests in ethnocultural frames makes it easier for their leader to mobilize them for collective action and incentives.

It is imperative to understand how identity is strongly associated with human needs which are commonly used to explain the origins of conflict. Burton is the popular proponent of this theory that links the needs and identity. In the Ukraine case, it is evident how the need for feeling valued and recognized and attain a satisfying level of group identity is present among the minorities. Since these needs are shared, the ethnic Russia group and culture play a role in mediating them. Supporting Azar, the frustration of these needs is push factors for ethnic groups to resort to armed conflict. This explains how the insufficient response of Ukrainian government to the needs of the minorities turned to frustrations that translated into rebellion. In addition to ethnic issues, linguistic which closely linked with ethnicity had been serious concerns among minority Ukrainians (Kolisnichenko & Rosenbaum, 2009). These issues became more pronounced as residents interacted with Russia, and Russians moved into eastern and southern Ukraine This sentiment for respecting their ethnicity and linguistic had unacceptable response from the national government in Kyiv. In 2017, the Ukrainian government passed a controversial law that banned schools from teaching in minority languages beyond primary school level (Prentice, 2017). This indicates that the Ukrainian language will be the main means of communication in schools. This validates a clear insensitivity to the identity and needs of minorities which added fuel to the fire. Obviously, the salience of identity is useful in viewing the Ukraine crisis. Still, caution should be taken in inferring conclusions based on identity as some studies have pointed that outgroup intolerance of Ukrainian minorities is rooted in factors not related to ingroup identification (Hansen & Hesli, 2009). This does not rule out, however, the strong connection of Ukrainians and ethnic Russians to their identical roots. In reality and theory, one can infer the strong link between identity and the conflict.

The Politicization of Identity

The identity ploy to secure interests is not a new phenomenon. In fact, former leaders of the Soviet Union were known to use appeals on nationalism to advance their personal political agendas. Likewise, the usage of identity narrative to legitimize force has been prominent in the Ukraine crisis. Both parties openly assert their objectives using ethnicity and national identity as tools. For the eastern separatists, it had always been their mantra to be disassociated from the Ukrainians that favor Europe integration. Their inclination towards Russia has been largely driven by their shared past and identity. What is perhaps the most politicalized use of identity to justify force has been that of Russia’s. Putin has been transparent on his goal to “protect the welfare of people with Russian origins but living outside the Russian territory”. He is convinced that ethnic Russians in Ukraine are discriminated and oppressed which calls for military and political protection. Consistent with Gurr (2008), sympathizers, in this case Russia, can significantly enhance the separatist’s cohesion and political mobilization to fight the Ukrainian forces. The willingness of Russia to spend large amount of money in support of the separatists has been received by local Russians. This is demonstrated in the boost of Putin’s approval rating among Russians when he announced strong stance against Ukrainian government. However, this ‘savior of ethnic Russian’ rhetoric is aimed at geopolitical motives and projection of power, more than protecting ethnic Russians (Conant, 2014).

Certainly, this politicization of identity narrative is not limited to the separatists and Russia. The Ukrainian state has been using the same tactic in deploying regional, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious division to derive its own selfish interests. In fact, the Ukrainian government had pushed for programs to strengthen a nationalist Ukrainian historical narrative in the hope of creating a Ukrainian national identity since 1991. This exploitation to create a dominant single national identity manifested in the revision of historical school textbooks. While its main goal was to establish a national identity, the programs (un)intended consequences were the perceived targeting of ethnic Russian identity roots. This was heavily contested by eastern Ukrainian teachers because of their unwillingness to pit ethnic identities against each other (Rodgers, 2007). This narrative has also been used by politicians in their political campaigns. For instance, the election campaign of Poroshenko was built on forming a united national identity. Also, the development of some divisive policies might lead to extreme identical and political polarization. If this trend continues, the possibility of weaponizing ethnic and national identity will feed on the conflict. Nonetheless, this was a clear effort to force a national identity at the expense of ancestral ethnic identity loss among minorities.

Resolving the Ukraine Crisis

Resolving the Ukraine crisis is an arduous task. Given the multi-faceted and volatile character of the conflict, the efforts for peace should be holistic, proactive, and inclusive. In the past, the conflicting parties have made progress in reaching an agreement. However, from what happened, it was a failure as the ceasefire violations continued and positive peace still was elusive. Currently, with President’s commitment to peace, there’s hope and progress for reconciliation. Interventions mainly involved macro-level solutions (Filipchuk, Zakharova, & Yaroshenko, 2016). Coming from the realist and traditional school of thought, the nature of the talk is very bilateral (vis-à-vis Russia) and globally participated (with OSCE, Germany, France). While these are valuable in their own right, there are inadequacies and gaps in terms of local participation that need to be filled. Acknowledging the saliency and politicization of identity, the author with his modest understanding of peace and conflict resolution is proposing some recommendations. Since bilateral and other macro processes are being undertaken right now, the main focus of these proposals is more internal and inward-looking to Ukraine and its people.

These recommendations are rooted in the fundamental need for identity and recognition among the parties. It seeks to rebuild relationships, respect, and understanding among Ukrainians and the eastern separatists. With the understanding that resolution won’t be achieved without national cohesion, it aims to transform relationships and narratives. Guided by the recommendations of Gurr (2008), these recommendations rest on the assumption that multi-stakeholder engagement and political will are key for positive change. With the existing real and perceived internal ethnic division, it is imperative that the Ukrainian government recognize and encourage group political, cultural, ethnic, and economic rights of minorities. Structural changes should be established to accommodate diverse ethnics, cultures, religions, and other identity categories. Ensuring that executive and legislative actions of the government do not discriminate inadvertently against any ethnic groups will mitigate violent conflicts. Also, collective cultural and political rights should be actively respected and monitored. In addition, giving minorities a real stake in the social arena is expected to stop the cycle of violence. Openness and mutual accommodation will break or make the resolution and reconciliation.

          Provided that continued negotiation sets ideal preconditions, a national and subnational dialogue is an effective strategy to materialize the proposed changes aforementioned. This platform will enable expanded participation where voices of minorities will be given attention. Dialogues as an inclusive political process will ensure national ownership to generate agreeable consensus (Berghof Foundation, 2017). It is necessary that this proposed national dialogue design social agenda that can gather different ethnic groups from different regions. In the case of Ukraine, agenda should include crisis management which will reference heavily from the Minsk Agreement and rethink its flaws. Other critical agenda that should be included are on national identity and unity, decentralization, and integration of different ethnic identities. At some point in the dialogue, addressing Russian influence can also be tackled. These agenda should be future-oriented, flexible, and proactive to changes.

Given the tension-laden history of the conflict, a constructive, respectful, and well-facilitated dialogue is essential. The government should take a leading role with the involvement of the humanitarian organizations, academics, and local civil society organizations in the process, along with locals representing the affected groups. It is necessary that all throughout the process, constant consultations with returnees, internally displaced people, and groups living in the non-government-controlled territories in the east be conducted. The international community can extend support by sharing financial and technical assistance. They can also serve to monitor the process and use effective rewards and punishments to motivate the parties to honor the succeeding outcomes and actions, especially on the devolution of powers and demobilization.

Lastly, promoting dialogues, especially on Ukraine community grassroots level, can facilitate healing within a community. Provided safe spaces are guaranteed, dialogues can improve trust-building and psychosocial well-being. Dialogues will pave the way for reconciliation and integration. They can also serve to correct twisted narratives into objective and hopeful ones. Perhaps one of the strengths of dialogue is its process-oriented features that banks on connection and gradual rebuilding of broken relationships.

These proposed interventions are primarily intended to address identity-related issues. But since identity is also closely tied to other factors as either its antecedent or consequent, addressing them effectively will involve multi-level and holistic approaches. The author acknowledges the limitations of this analysis and recommendation. Hence, there’s a need to further investigate the causes and brainstorm ideas for resolution to secure stability and peace in Ukraine. Nevertheless, this brief paper contributes to the discussion on the importance of identity in making sense of the Ukraine Crisis.

“Ukraine is our country but it is multifaceted. It’s a bouquet of different colors, it has different scents, different tastes…but it’s all us. It’s all Ukraine.”

–Svitlana Orishko, Civic and Political Activist

References

Aljazeera. (2014, March 22). Putin signs Crimea annexation into law. Retrieved from Aljazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/03/russian-parliament-approves-crimea-annexation-201432172722744933.html

Azar, E., & Burton, J. (1986). International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

BBC News. (2015, February 12). Ukraine ceasefire: New Minsk agreement key points. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31436513

BBC News. (2015, May 12). Ukraine conflict: Will the ceasefire hold? Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32695098

Berghof Foundation. (2017). National Dialogue Handbook A Guide for Practitioners. Berlin, Germany: Berghof Foundation Operations.

Conant, E. (2014, May 2). Ethnic Russians: Pretext for Putin's Ukraine Invasion? Retrieved from National Geographic: nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/5/140502-russia-putin-ukraine-geography-crimea-language/

DW. (2018, May 21). Several killed amid surge in violence in Ukraine. Retrieved from DW: https://www.dw.com/en/several-killed-amid-surge-in-violence-in-ukraine/a-43872111

DW. (2019, October 01). Ukraine signs key agreement with pro-Russia separatists. Retrieved from DW: https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-signs-key-agreement-with-pro-russia-separatists/a-50669547

Eckel, M. (2018, January 26). U.S. Imposes New Sanctions Over Ukraine Conflict As U.S., Russian Envoys Set To Meet. Retrieved from Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty: https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-new-u-s-sanctions-ukraine/29000684.html

Filipchuk, V., Zakharova, O., & Yaroshenko, Y. (2016). International Peacekeeping and the War in Eastern Ukraine: Are There Any Points of Contact? International Centre for Policy Studies, 6-29.

Gonzales, J. (2009). Conflicts, Disputes, and Tensions between Identity Groups. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.

Grytsenko, O. (2013, November 24). Ukrainian protesters flood Kiev after president pulls out of EU deal. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/24/ukraine-protesters-yanukovych-aborts-eu-deal-russia

Gurr, T. R. (2008). Minorities, Nationalists, and Islamists Managing Communal Conflict in the Twenty-first Century. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall, Leashing the Dogs of War Conflict Management in a Divided World (pp. 131-160). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Hansen, H., & Hesli, V. (2009). National Identity: Civic, Ethnic, Hybrid, and Atomised Individuals. Taylor & Francs Group, 1-28.

Haukkala, H. (2015). From Cooperative to Contested Europe? The Conflict in Ukraine as a Culmination of a Long-term Crisis in EU-Russia Relations. Journal of Contemporary European Studies.

Kolisnichenko, N., & Rosenbaum, A. (2009). Building a New Democracy in Ukraine: The Unacknowledged Issue of Ethnic and Linguistic. American Society for Public Administration, 932-940.

OSCE. (2019, June 22). Latest from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), based on information received as of 19:30, 21 June 2019. Retrieved from OSCE: https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/423860

OSCE. (n.d.). The crisis in and around Ukraine. Retrieved from OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe: https://www.osce.org/ukrainecrisis

Percha, J. (2014, March 18). Transcript: Putin says Russia will protect the rights of Russians abroad. Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/transcript-putin-says-russia-will-protect-the-rights-of-russians-abroad/2014/03/18/432a1e60-ae99-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

Prentice, A. (2017, December 8). Criticism of Ukraine's language law justified: rights body. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-language/criticism-of-ukraines-language-law-justified-rights-body-idUSKBN1E227K

Radnitz, S. (2014). The Psychological Logic of Protracted Conflict in Ukraine. PONARS Eurasia, 1-5.

Remler, P. (2015). Ukraine, Protracted Conflicts and the OSCE. Security and Human Rights, 88-106.

Rodgers, P. W. (2007). 'Compliance or Contradiction'? Teaching 'History' in the 'New' Ukraine. A View from Ukraine's Eastern Borderlands. Taylor & Francis Group, 503-519.

Sakhno, Y. (2019). Geopolitical Orientations of the Residents of Ukraine. Kyiv: Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.

UN News. (2019, July 16). Human cost of Ukraine conflict is growing, Security Council told. Retrieved from UN News: https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/07/1042561

UNHCR. (n.d.). Internally Displaced Persons (IDP). Retrieved from UNHCR The UN Refugee Agency: https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/internally-displaced-persons

Watkins, T. (2016, July 08). Four NATO Battalions to Go to Eastern Europe to Deter Russia. Retrieved from Military.com: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/07/08/four-nato-battalions-go-eastern-europe-deter-russia.html