Russia’s annexation of Crimea and military engagement in eastern Ukraine have taken their toll on Ukrainians’ attitude toward relations between the two countries. According to a recent study, only 49 percent believe that a normalization of relations is possible in the distant future, while a mere one in 10 believes a swift improvement is possible. Twenty-four percent now consider that no normalization is possible at all.
Russians need not assume any deep-seated antagonism. As recently as February 2014, 78 percent of Ukrainians had a positive attitude toward Russians. By May of that year, after Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea and the mounting military conflict in eastern Ukraine, that figure had fallen to 52 percent. The number of Ukrainians who had a negative attitude had tripled during the same period – from 13 percent to 38 percent.
The latest survey, titled “Ukraine – Russia: What should be the format for future relations?” was carried out by the Razumkov Center together with the Democratic Initiatives Foundation on December 16-20, 2016, in all parts of Ukraine, except Crimea and areas of the Donbas under Kremlin-backed militant control.
Forty-seven percent saw normalization in relations as possible only with the end of the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Forty-three percent said that this could happen only on condition that military action ends and the Donbas ceases to be occupied. A smaller percentage – 31 percent – made such normalization contingent on Russia returning Crimea to Ukrainian jurisdiction.
Only 8 percent of respondents believed that relations would improve if pro-Russian politicians came to power in Ukraine.
A significant 35 percent believe that Ukraine should restrict contact with Russia to a minimum, end all cooperation, maintain sanctions and even introduce visas between the two countries. Here, however, there was a particularly clear geographical divide with that position supported by 54 percent of respondents in the west of Ukraine, but only 24 percent in the south and east. Twenty-eight percent supported limited cooperation in vital areas and bilateral dialogue, but with the proviso that there were red lines where compromise was impossible. Only 15 percent of respondents over all (with that figure higher in the east and south, lower in the west and center) were prepared to seek any kind of compromise for the sake of peace and a return to friendly relations.
There were interesting divergences with respect to optimism about normalization in the distant future. This time it was in the Donbas (63 percent) and the center (53 percent) that the largest number of people believed such normalization was possible. The percentage in the south (42 percent) who shared that positive assessment was lower even than in the west (43 percent).
It is perhaps significant that Russia continues to speak of conflict in the southeast of Ukraine, although the fighting has remained in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. This was not for lack of Russian efforts to fuel similar conflict in Kharkiv and Odesa. And, in his speech on April 17, 2014, Vladimir Putin called three eastern oblasts (Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv) and three southern (Kherson, Mykolayiv and Odesa) “Novorossiya.” His claim that they had not been part of Ukraine in tsarist times and that it was incomprehensible why they had been viewed as part of the republic during the Soviet period was viewed by many as a chilling indication of how much Mr. Putin was hoping to occupy.
The May 2 Group in Odesa has repeatedly suggested that the tragic disturbances and fire on May 2, 2014, acted as a wake-up call to many Odesa residents and prevented Odesa from following the scenario in the Donbas. At least one of the anti-Maidan activists involved in the events before and on May 2 stated that they received money from Russia, and there is considerable evidence of direct meddling, including by a top Putin adviser, Sergei Glazyev.
There have been several developments in Kherson Oblast, which borders directly on Crimea, which suggest direct attempts to destabilize the situation there also.
The article above was originally published on the information website of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (KHPG.org).