This paper investigates the endeavors to solve the Donbas Conflict typologically. The first and most consistent policy was the Minsk Accord belonging to the category of federalization. As has been the case with other post-Soviet secession conflicts, federalization was a hopeless policy, which produced serious commitment problems, while contradicting the real interests of both the parent state (Ukraine) and the secession polities (the DPR and LPR). In the context of the Donbas War none proposed the second type of solution, that is, land-for-peace. Ineffective diplomatic endeavors induced both Ukraine, Russia, and the DPR/LPR to solve the situation in a military way. Azerbaijan’s victory in the Second Karabakh War in 2020 disposed Ukraine for a coercive solution of the Donbas problem (the reconquest policy). The Russian political and military leadership split into two groups: one supporting the policy to make the secession polities (the DPR and LPR) Russia’s protectorates and another supporting the policy to destroy the parent state (Ukraine). The unsatisfactory results of Russia’s choice in 2008 of the protectorate policy vis-à-vis South Ossetia and Abkhazia and underestimation of Kyiv’s defense capacity made the Russian leaders opt for the destruction of Ukraine itself.

In this study I will try to survey how Ukrainian oligarchs acted in the course of 2014 upheaval.

Viktor Yanukovich’s Party of Regions, whose rule collapsed as a result of the Euromaidan Revolution in 2014, had been a party of interests, not of ideology. For the first couple of years (2010–2011) it was rather a coalition of several factions, with their interests more or less respected.

The balance of power and interests of early years came to be disrupted by greedy expansion of the Yanukovich Family. It began to grow rapidly assumedly around the end of 2011 or the beginning of 2012. The President’s son Oleksandr Yanukovich coordinated building of the Family empire, with help from intimate oligarchs like Serhiy Kurchenko and Yuliy Ivanyushchenko. Even some Ministers of national government contributed to money making schemes for the Family. Its spheres expanded sometimes even to the detriment of oligarchs who had been loyal to the regime. By the time mass demonstrations began at the end of 2013, the regime was no longer monolithic, losing full loyalty from Rinat Akhmetov and Dmitro Firtash, the 2 giant oligarchs of the Yanukovich era.

Petro Poroshenko supported the Maidan movement most actively among famous oligarchs. Akhmetov, who used to be the biggest sponsor of the Yanukovich Regime, is also believed to have financed Maidan. Key persons of the Yanukovich Family and Andriy Klyuyev, on the other hand, insisted on ruthless suppression of Maidan.

Vitaly Klichko, one of the most popular potential candidates of upcoming presidential elections, announced withdrawal from the race in March 2014. This even more ensured victory of Petro Poroshenko in elections on 25 May. Some experts believe that Firtash arranged Poroshenko=Klichko alliance, fearing that his rival Yuliya Tymoshenko might become president and get revenge on him. In Ukraine’s elections, most candidates traditionally appeal to anti-oligarch propaganda. Paradoxically it was Poroshenko, one of the most famous oligarchs in Ukraine, who won the 2014 presidential elections.

There are no clear evidence that the oligarchs, who have business interests on the Crimean Peninsula, either supported actively Russia’s incorporation of Crimea or, oppositely, resisted it. It is well known, however, that Sergei Aksenov, who became Premier of Crimean AR and led its incorporation into Russian Federation, had been fostered by Firtash as a politician. Some experts hence believe that Firtash at least tacitly approved incorporation of Crimea. But in reality Firtash’s business on the Peninsula, for example titanium business, is threatened by changes of jurisdiction.

In April–May 2014 some suspected that Rinat Akhmetov, a longtime lord of the region, stood behind pro-Russian separatist movements in Donbass. It is true that Akhmetov contacted separatists and attempted to use them. But he only needed a bargaining chip in relations with Kiev. It is very doubtful wheather Akhmetov really committed to separatism of Donbass. If Donbass will be independent from Ukraine or incorporated into Russian Federation, his ferrous metallurgy will inevitably collapse. At present Akhmetov is in distress because of warfare in Donbass and other unpleasant realities.

Up until 2013 Russia had exerted pressure on Ukraine, threatening to close its market to a variety of Ukrainian goods in an effort to bring Ukraine into Russian-led Eurasian integration. This attempt, however, failed due to the 2014 Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine. Russia retaliated by unilaterally introducing tariffs on imports from Ukraine, in violation of the CIS Free Trade Agreement. What followed was a fully-fledged trade war between the two countries.

Meanwhile, we need to analyze the economic processes of the so-called Donetsk & Lukhansk Peoples’s Republics separately from the bilateral economic relations between Russia and Ukraine because, as grey zones between the two countries, their situations are unique. Although DNR/LNR initially and oddly coexisted with the Ukrainian mainland, they were cut off from the Ukrainian economic space in the wake of the Donbass blockade. DNR/LNR became Vneshekonomservis’ turf, allowing the notorious oligarch of the Yanukovich regime Oleksandr Kurchenko to freely make money. However, as Russia started to have more direct control over the Donbass economy, Kurchenko was replaced by Yevgeniy Yurchenko, who was believed to be a more effective economic manager.

The perspective of a split of modern Ukraine into the East (Donbass) and the West (the rest) remains one of the most pressing issues in the discussions over pessimistic scenarios of the current unfolding crisis. While the US and the EU have imposed an array of sanctions on Russia in response to the annexation of Crimea and the crisis in the Donbass region, the first Minsk ceasefire has failed on the ground. From this point of view, this study aims, firstly, to clarify the actual conditions that explain the so called “east- west division” in modern Ukraine, based on an analysis of previous research and qualitative data, and putting a particular focus on the timeframe from Euromaidan to the war in Donbass. In the following section, this study aims to explore the actual conditions prevailing in Ukrainian society and in people’s minds as a result of the changing dynamics themselves, using reference data from the Kyiv International Institution of Sociology and the Razumkov Center, in addition to the questionnaire survey that was conducted by the author.

The actual information provided by statistics and sociological research indicates that the issue of the country’s split is a kind of myth and is basically a product of an artificial concept inspired mainly by both internal and external political actors. In other words, the division in Ukraine stems from political struggles rather than an east-west divided society originating in the cleavage of Ukraine as well as in Europe and Russia. Indeed, at the time of the Euromaidan demonstrations in Kyiv, protestors made it clear that the challenge was not between one region and another, but between the corrupt elites and the people, whatever region they are from. It is obvious that Euromaidan, in essence, was aimed at achieving the drastic political reforms, however, the Crimean and Donbass crisis should be defined as a political phenomenon, which includes the external factors.

Although the current situation should be defined using the above-mentioned elements, some analysts still argue that the crisis has exposed deep divisions in Ukrainian society between the European-oriented west and the Russian-oriented east. However, this understanding is not adequate, and it maybe more correct to state that no single factor can capture or explain this crisis. What is happening in Ukraine is complicated and is driven by many factors. This means that we should take into consideration changes in the social environment of Ukraine as well as the other factors that exists in Ukrainian society and that caused the “division”. In this process, it becomes clear that the consciousness of civil society has produced some positive changes in demonstrating a sense of solidarity. On the other hand, political and economic issues significantly influence the Ukrainian society, and they are the conceivable cause of this divided society. Nevertheless, this study is still ongoing and needs further consideration before revealing what the causal co-relations and its final conclusions are.