Zelenskyy Visits Frontline Command Post in Donetsk
HOW DONETSK FEATURES IN THE PROXY WAR IN UKRAINE
And now onto our main discussion, regarding Ukrainian president Zelenskyy’s visit to Donetsk to the command post of the tactical group “Pokrovsk”. As we established earlier, this act alone has notable political ramifications – especially as far as ending the proxy war in Ukraine is concerned. Before we get into the bulk of our discussion, here’s footage from the visitation in question.
Well, to appreciate notable political ramifications of Zelenskyy’s visit to the Donetsk region, we have to understand the role of the Donetsk in the proxy war – which is rooted in some historical context – particularly the history of the Donbas. First, Russian-controlled separatists established two widely unrecognised republics in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. In March 2014, following Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity, Russia took over Crimea. Anti-revolution and pro-Russian protests began in Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk provinces, and these were collectively known as ‘the Donbas’.
Now, when looking at the history of the Donbas, it also offers some notable context on the proxy war – particularly context that refutes the notions of a Russian invasion. It was unpopulated up until the second half of the 17th century. In this period the region was under the control of the Ukrainian Cossack and Turkish Crimean Khanate, until the Russian Empire conquered and annexed their territories respectively. This then also saw the region’s large coal reserves be utilised and draw more Russian influence in the region.
At this point in history, a Russian Imperial Census in 1897, showed that Ukrainians comprised 52.4% of the population of the region while ethnic Russians comprised 28.7%. But, during the subsequent period of reconstruction, following WWII, the Donbass received a wave of Russian citizens after masses of Russian workers descended on the area after the war – much like the Crimea after WWII. According to another Soviet Census in 1989, 45% of the population of the region reported their ethnicity as Russian. This then makes it suspicious that in the 1991 referendum on Ukrainian independence, 83.9% of voters in Donetsk and 83.6% in Luhansk supported independence from the Soviet Union and this would later show in the unrest in the region just 3 years later in 1993.
In any case, the region’s economy deteriorated severely in the following years, and by 1993, industrial production had collapsed, with average wages falling by 80% since 1990. Donbas was then in crisis, with many accusing the new central government in Kyiv of mismanagement and neglect. But, in an interesting turn of events: Donbas’ invaluable coal miners went on strike in 1993, causing a conflict that was described as “a struggle between the Donbas region and the rest of the Ukraine country.” It is recorded that the cause was that the Donbas people had actually voted for Ukrainian independence because they wanted “power to be given to the localities, enterprises, and cities” and not because they wanted heavily centralised power moved from “Moscow to Kyiv”.
This strike was then followed by a consultative referendum on various constitutional questions in Donetsk and Luhansk in 1994, held concurrently with the first parliamentary elections in independent Ukraine. These questions included (a) whether “Russian” should be declared an official language of Ukraine; (b) whether “Russian” should be the language of administration in Donetsk and Luhansk; (c) whether Ukraine should federalise; and (d) whether Ukraine should have closer ties with the Commonwealth of Independent States, which the remnants of the Soviet Union. Almost 90% of voters voted in favour of these propositions; however, none of them were adopted: Ukraine remained a unitary state, Ukrainian was retained as the sole official language, and the Donbas gained no autonomy.
Now, matters intensified in 2014. In 2014, Ukrainian revolution marked by conflict between the Ukrainian military and separatists, large swaths of the Donbas experienced major unrest, and later grew into a fatal conflict. Pro-Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions took over government buildings in 2014, proclaiming the regions as independent “people’s republics” after Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. Ultimately, in 2014, the Donetsk People’s Republic declared independence, as people in Donbass rejected the coup d’état in Kiev. Donbass residents also demanded that they were allowed to freely speak their mother tongue, Russian, which was banned by Kiev junta authorities. Furthermore, the hostilities from the Ukrainian government (as you are about to see) became a significant driving force.
Following this conflict, in September 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin then announced the independence of the regions after meeting with the Russian Security Council, following a video appeal by the regions’ separatist leaders for the recognition of independence. But, Russia’s recognition of the independence of the regions in effect ends the Minsk Agreements, which were never fully implemented due to numerous violations from both sides. The agreements, which were signed in 2014 and 2015, had called for a large amount of autonomy for the two regions within Ukraine. More specifically, the implementation order of political and military steps was one of the conditions upon which Russia and Ukraine disagreed: while Russia argued that elections in the separatist republics needed to come before the withdrawal of military equipment, Ukraine insisted on the opposite.
And so, we can also infer from this historical and political context express intent to be independent from Ukraine, a referendum with no effect, Russian support, and Ukraine and the West’s condemnation.
BEFORE THE DONBAS, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ALSO UNDERMINED THE CRIMEAN REFERENDUM
Critical to note is that this was not the first time the Ukrainian government had responded in such a way to a referendum. More specifically, Historically, Crimea, had been part of the Ottoman Empire. But following the war between the Ottoman and Russian Empires, Crimea was annexed by Russia on the orders of the Empress of Russia, Catherine the Great, in 1783 – a move that was not resisted by the Tartars of the Crimea and which was recognised formally by the Ottoman Empire. During this time, Ukraine is still not a sovereign state. Not only this, but the Kyiv and Ukraine associated Cossacks broke away from the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and pledged their allegiance to the Russian Tsar.
After WWII, Soviet Russia transferred Crimea to Soviet Ukraine. However, the notion that the transfer was justified solely by Crimea’s cultural and economic affinities with Ukraine is not genuine. In the 1950s, the population of Crimea was roughly 75% ethnic Russian and 25% Ukrainian. This was certainly influenced by the Stalinist regime’s deportation of Tartars and those who were not Russian to barren sites in Central Asia, in reprovable efforts at ethnic cleansing in the region. But it does communicate that Crimea was predominantly Russian in culture and population after the 1940s.
Now, on political origin, we have to start on the 6th of March 2014. On this day, the Crimean parliament voted to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation, with a public referendum on the matter scheduled for March 16, 2014. This was supported by Russia and broadly condemned in the West, and the Ukraine Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. On the day of the referendum, observers noted numerous irregularities in the voting process, including the presence of armed men at polling stations. Nevertheless, the result was an overwhelming 97% in favour of joining Russia. The interim government in Kyiv at the time rejected the result, and the United States and the EU even imposed asset freezes and travel bans on numerous Russian officials and members of the Crimean parliament.
And so, Crimea also showed an express intent to be independent from Ukraine, had a referendum with no implementation, received Russian support, while Ukraine and the West condemned the referendum’s conditions.
HISTORICALLY, DONETSK FEATURED IN NOTABLE CONTENTIONS
But, now, what is also revealing of the political ramifications of this visit is the fact that Donetsk has previously featured in notable contentions – including the Minsk Agreements. For instance, in 2014 Igor Girkin, who was the first defense minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic, explained that the Minsk agreement was only a pause in the fighting and said that the fighting will continue; adding that only Ukraine benefits from a ceasefire.
Well, Igor Girkin’s sentiments that only Ukraine benefits from a ceasefire through the Minsk Agreements is not without context, and partly explains why the agreements failed. More specifically, as you’d recall, the Minsk agreements were a series of international agreements which sought to end the Donbas war fought between armed Russian separatist groups and Armed Forces of Ukraine, with Russian regular forces playing a central part. The first, known as the Minsk Protocol, was drafted in 2014 by the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, consisting of Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), with mediation by the leaders of France and Germany in the so-called Normandy Format. After extensive talks in Minsk, Belarus, the agreement was signed on 5 September 2014 by representatives of the Trilateral Contact Group and, without recognition of their status, by the then-leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR). This agreement followed multiple previous attempts to stop the fighting in the region and aimed to implement an immediate ceasefire.
The agreement, however, failed to stop fighting, and was thus followed with a revised and updated agreement, Minsk II, which was signed on 12 February 2015. This agreement consisted of a package of measures, including a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners of war, constitutional reform in Ukraine granting self-government to certain areas of Donbas and restoring control of the state border to the Ukrainian government. While fighting subsided following the agreement’s signing, it never ended completely, and the agreement’s provisions were never fully implemented.
In September 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin then announced the independence of the regions after meeting with the Russian Security Council, following a video appeal by the regions’ separatist leaders for the recognition of independence. But, it appeared that Russia’s recognition of the independence of the regions in effect ended the Minsk Agreements, which were never fully implemented due to numerous violations from both sides. And so, the agreements, which were signed in 2014 and 2015, had called for a large amount of autonomy for the two regions within Ukraine. More specifically, the implementation order of political and military steps was one of the conditions upon which Russia and Ukraine disagreed: while Russia argued that elections in the separatist republics needed to come before the withdrawal of military equipment, Ukraine insisted on the opposite. But, despite the challenges, diplomatic measures were actually explored, and notably with the intention of giving effect to the democratically expressed call for autonomy from the Russian speaking inhabitants of the Donbas and Luhansk regions.
But, in the status quo, well just a month ago Russia had seized Kyiv’s last stronghold in Donbas. And primarily, this is because the West has always undermined the Russian military – despite it not only being well financed, and Russia having one of the most adaptive brigades in most militaries – surpassing even NATO combined in capacity. For instance, kindly have a listen as, 2 years ago, Defence and Security Analyst, Prof Michael Clarke, examined Russian efforts to seize the Donbas region.
Well, after numerous advances, Russia has now seized Kyiv’s last stronghold in Donbas.
SO, IS THE DONBAS RUSSIAN OR UKRAINIAN?
So, is the Donbas (which includes Donetsk) Russian or Ukrainian or neither? Well, as we’ve already established, Russian-controlled separatists established two widely unrecognised republics in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. In March 2014, following Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity, Russia annexed Crimea. Anti-revolution and pro-Russian protests began in Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk provinces, and these were collectively known as ‘the Donbas’. In addition to this, on February 21, in the year 2022, Putin declared the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and “Luhansk People’s Republic” independent, signing a decree that laid the groundwork for “aid agreements” with Russian-occupied territories.
Following this, and also in 2022, Russia further recognised the independence of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) and later annexed them, along with the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, as part of the Russian Federation. And this appears to be on request of the Donbas region, that consists predominantly of Russian speaking people, who voted for the outcome in a referendum.
So, what then does all of this mean regarding Zelenskyy’s visit to Donetsk? That he is making military-related visits to an area that has chosen to be part of the Russia side – thus, possibly compounding the use of the territorial borders question to fuel conflict, as opposed to working towards peace. I think the simplest resolution to this is to either recognise the referendum because it was voted on by people in the region. Alternatively, there would be talk of a second referendum coupled with coupled Ukrainian elections – seeing that the Ukrainian constitution does not allow Zelenskyy’s present presidency, and the fact that Russia already held a presidential election in 2024, amid the proxy war. Ultimately, we have a categorical imperative to always to pray for leaders and nations, establishing the peace of God that brings prosperity to them all, and also waging a war against folly that tries to start or exacerbate wars.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso
