11 September 2015: The conflict in Ukraine has divided east from west. Maureen Flaherty discusses local views of independence and the conflict, from across the geographical divide.

Maureen Flaherty has traced the complex personal histories of some of those caught up in the Ukrainian conflict. Image credit: Ivan Bandura. Protests took place across Kiev in the winter of 2014-21014. Maureen Flaherty has traced the complex personal histories of some of those caught up in the Ukrainian conflict. Image credit: Ivan Bandura.

Summer 2014 found me in Ukraine, conducting research with men born and raised in Soviet times
The summer of 2014 found me in Ukraine, conducting research with men born and raised in Soviet times. This followed up on a previous study completed in 2010, with Ukrainian women. That study, at the time of Ukraine’s fourth presidential election, sought to understand how Ukrainians had managed to maintain civility across diversity, and to explain some of the barriers to building a stronger, democratic Ukraine.

By the time I reached the country in July 2014, Crimea had been annexed by Russia, and armed conflict was taking place in the east. The participants with whom I spoke were generous with their time and appreciative of the interest from ‘outside’. They shared their life stories, current experiences, and hopes for the future, for themselves, their families and their country. This provides a crucial insight into Ukraine’s struggle today, as well as clues to nation-building in Ukraine and other struggling countries.

Independence and history – views from east and west

When asked about independence itself, all participants in both studies said they had voted for it in the sudden referendum of 1991. All but one man from the west said they had been thinking about and hoping for Ukraine’s independence. Given western Ukraine’s history of freedom fighters, I was surprised at this anomaly.

In contrast, none of the men from the east said they had considered independence prior to the vote; rather, some had been focused on how to change the Soviet Union. My own experience as a counsellor for trauma survivors meant I knew that a key element needed to move to strength after trauma is creating a relatively clear vision for the future, and then identifying concrete steps to move towards that vision. How could people move towards democracy if they had not thought about democracy, or what a democracy might look like?

The men’s relationship to their own history was also conflicted. There were experiences common across regions: a strong connection to family, and a sense of responsibility to them and to friends; pride in good higher education – yet the necessity to work multiple, menial jobs; flexibility and adaptability; an almost unshakeable determination; and a tremendous sense of humour, most often dark and ironic.

A return to the past?

Participants were adamant that there is a role for everyone in building the country
While all of the participants reported voting for independence and initially losing much economically, only one man from the east voiced any hint of regret for change from the Soviet system. This same man said that intellectually he knew independence was the right choice for Ukraine, but with times as tough as they were for himself and his family, rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia for a relatively simple youth were tempting.

Considering the past, many men from the west were critical of what they viewed as a sense of nostalgia for Soviet times, seemingly evidenced in numerous statues of Lenin in city squares. They were more impatient to move on to the future. Some men from the east criticised their western brothers for not appreciating their shared history. They were worried that if it were not acknowledged, their own lives and histories would be minimised or diminished. One scholar said a shared Ukrainian future could be built only if the foundation of the past was acknowledged, warts and all. All participants were clear that armed conflict is “barbaric”. Men also spoke about the importance of upholding laws and boundaries for the country to survive. Many mentioned a regret that Ukraine’s military was not stronger – at least to the point of being able to present an appearance of being able to defend its borders, in order to be taken seriously.

The need for accountability

All participants in both studies were clear they wanted a shared future – a united Ukraine – and they liked the EU style of living. However, they were also clear that Ukraine is a separate country; a one-size-fits-all approach will not suffice to honour Ukraine’s history and culture or to build a strong future. All spoke passionately about the need for strong, honest leaders schooled in business as well as politics – not in power because of historical connections to the party.

Participants were also adamant that there is a role for everyone in building the country that is Ukraine. They said that each individual citizen must become involved in civil society, holding leaders accountable – something that is only beginning to happen in Ukraine. They suggested that roundtable discussions should begin at all levels, including the grassroots, bringing people together to share their visions of how to build a new Ukraine.

Presently, more than 1.3 million people have been displaced within Ukraine – people who have left the remains of home and family to seek sanctuary in the west and south. Despite so-called cease-fires, armed conflict continues, with wildly differing estimates of casualty numbers. All participants voiced deep gratitude that outside nations had offered some help – and concern that help must continue. At the same they were clear that with outside support, solutions must come from within Ukraine. Ukrainian voices must inform a Ukrainian peace.


Amala Bublik on Sept. 12, 2015, 12:13 p.m.

1) It is necessary to understand that the Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk area have very strongly suffered from famine and from it many people were lost. After these events on this territory a considerable quantity of people from Russia has been moved. It is all Stalin's national policy which helps to create presently conflicts there where them should be never. 2) Corruption and underworld in Ukraine for years of independence have reached the huge sizes-it one more factor which has created crisis and opposition in the east to Ukraine and certainly to Donbas for all these years there was the first in corruption and underworld development. 3) the Basic force which has helped and has developed the conflict in the east of Ukraine -It is Russia. The power of Russia lives for a long time already under crime laws and consequently when the people of Ukraine have told Are not present to a crime and to a mafia that reaction of the power of Russia was such what we have seen and we see today. At us the big country especially big from the east on the West but to search for distinction between the West and the east-it simply expenditure of time. We one nation also were and we will be it always

More from the blog

Peace Direct's Senior Research Officer, Megan Renoir, shares the lessons learnt through Facilitating Financial Sustainability (FFS), our joint USAID-funded research project in collaboration with LINC and Foundation Center. Read more »

28 November 2018

This month’s Peace Insight newsletter features resources on building peace across borders, reconciliation in Rwanda and more. Read more »

08 December 2018

It is not difficult to find heroes at the UN: individuals and communities who, in the face of enormous challenges, maintain a commitment to peace and nonviolence. Najlaa Sheekh, a Syrian refugee in Turkey, exemplifies the power of nonviolence in the midst of the ravages and soul-grinding consequences of war. Read more »

23 January 2019

More from the blog