Military Conflict in Eastern Ukraine and its Social and Political Dimensions

Authors

  • Andrii Pospielov Ph D in History, ODC «Odessa Academy of Continuing Education of Odessa Regional Council», Odesa, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenphs/8.1/33

Keywords:

military conflict, great state, parallel state, social networks, geopolitical influence

Abstract

Social networks have become tools of geopolitical influence that Russia fully used during annexation of Crimea and inflaming of war in Eastern Ukraine. The pro-Russian pages "In Contact" created the image of Ukraine as a foreign country for the population of Donbas and Crimea, Southeastern Ukraine - as a part of Greater Russia, NATO and the EU -  as the main enemies whose actions have led to the conflict. The narrative concerning Ukraine was dominated by the theme of describing the actions of the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainian authorities as "punishers", making an emotional message and appealing to allegories of World War II, which was intended to deepen the sense that Ukraine is an enemy. The second dominant issue was the questioning of Ukraine as a political entity, through appealing to it as for "failed political project". The third dominant issue for Ukraine was the widespread criticism of former-Ukrainian authorities, which was referred to as the "Kyiv authorities" to emphasize the differences between the interests of the Center and local interests. Abovementioned issues of the geopolitical narrative were complemented by issues of domination of oligarchs in Ukraine, who exploited the population and allowed themselves to violate human rights and freedoms. Russia, in its turn, created for itself the image of a "great state" capable of resisting the enemy and being culturally closer to Southeastern Ukraine (so called the concept of "Novorosiya"). The annexation of Crimea was used as the sample of "success story" in pro-Russian narratives.

References

Aras, D. (2007). Chetvertaya mirovaya voyna [Fourth world war]. Astrel.

Berill, S. I., Galynskiy, I. N., & Blagodatskykh, I. M. (2008). Ot samoopredelyeniya k mezhdunarodnomu priznaniyu: Abkhaziya, Nagorniy Karabah, Pridnestrovie, Yuzhnaya Osetiya [From self-determination to international recognition: Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, South Ossetia]. Tyraspol.

Gay-Nyzhnik, P. P. (2017). Rossiya proti Ukraini (1990-2016 rr.): Vid politiki shantazhu do viyni na poglinannya ta sproby znishchennya [Russia against Ukraine (1990-2016 rr.): A type of policy of blackmailing to chastening and to slaughtering]. MP Lesya.

Kaddafi, M. (2009). Ukraina – nebezpechna problema [Ukraine is not a safe problem]. Moscow.

Kaplan, P. (2015). Mest geographii. Chto mogut rasskazat geographyheskiye karty o gryadushchih konfliktah I bitve protiv neizbezhnogo [Places of geography. What geographic maps can tell about upcoming conflicts and the battle against the inevitable]. KoLibry.

Lebedeva, M., & Gajiyev, K. S. (1997). Mezhdunarodnye processy [International processes]. International Relations.

Perepelitsa, G. N. (1996). Voenno-politicheskiy conflict: metodologiya issledovaniya i uregulirovaniya [Military-political conflict: research and settlement methodology] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Kyiv.

Rushchenko, I. P. (2015). Rossiysko-Ukrainska gybridna viyna: Poglyad soiologa [Russian-Ukrainian hybrid war: A glance from a soiologist]. FOP Pavlenko O.G.

Rushchenko, I. P., & Zubar, N. V. (2017). Viyna informatsyi [Information war]. Oboronniy Vysnik, 8, 4-12.

Troyan, S., & Kiridon, A. G. (2014). 2008 — Ukraina 2014: zaparallelennya rosiysykih stratagem [2008 - Ukraine 2014: Parallelism of Russian stratagems]. Zovnishny Spravy, 8, 33—37.

Downloads

Published

2020-10-14

How to Cite

Pospielov, A. (2020). Military Conflict in Eastern Ukraine and its Social and Political Dimensions. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Philosophy & Humanistic Sciences, 8(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenphs/8.1/33