War and Displacement: The Case of Ukraine

Displacement can take many different forms. Beyond the local specificities of each case, there are also distinctive legal categories capturing different dynamics. UNHCR started recording the figures of internally displaced people (IDPs) systematically only after the end of the Cold War. Over the last decade, the number of IDPs has increased rapidly. Of the estimated 68.5 million forced migrants globally in 2017 (UNHCR 2018), about two thirds were IDPs and one third refugees crossing international borders. On the whole, however, IDPs tend to attract less international attention than refugees who become a political, legal or social policy issue by crossing interstate borders.

The ‘invisibility of displacement’, as an issue for both policymakers and researchers, has been acknowledged (Harrell-Bond & Voutira 2007; Polzer & Hammond 2008) but social science research on displacement (Cohen & Deng 1998; Korn 1999) and, in particular, on the role of the displaced as societal and political actors, is still in its infancy. The call by Castles for a ‘sociology of forced migration’ centred on human agency and social networks, and, more specifically, an approach that would be interdisciplinary and transnational (Castles 2003) has, by and large, remained unanswered. Instead, there has been a debate about whether to include the dynamics of internal displacement and whether this inclusion would dilute the focus and distract from refugees who lack the legal protection of their state (Turton 2003; Hathaway 2007; and responses by Cohen 2007).

The field of forced migration research tends to be driven and framed by policy concerns and categories, ranging from a focus on registered displaced individuals in camps to a variety of issues related to the legal and social conditions of the displaced (Bakewell 2008). The centrality of these policy concerns can partly be explained by the difficulties associated with access to those displaced individuals who ‘settle’ outside camps or are not registered, especially in rural or difficult terrain. Moreover, a focus on human rights violations connected to displacement risks victimising the displaced: ‘if we become fixed on this notion of violation, we will fail to recognize the ways in which refugees are actively building their world’ (Uehling 2017, p. 124). After all, forced migrants are ‘ordinary people’ and ‘purposive actors’ embedded in particular social, political and historical situations (Turton 2003).

The causes of displacement are one line of inquiry at the borderline between research on the study of internal conflict and war and the study of forced migration. A prominent hypothesis explored in individual case studies and large-n, cross-national work on displacement, links higher levels of violence to more displacement (Stanley 1987; Zolberg et al. 1989; Weiner 1996; Schmeidl 1997; Cohen & Deng 1998; Ball et al. 2002; Davenport et al. 2003; Moore & Shellman 2006). However, Melander and Öberg (2007) also find that the intensity of fighting, measured by battle deaths, is not a good general predictor of displacement.

A recent special issue of the Journal of Peace Research tried to bring together some of the rather disparate strands of the literature on forced migration in order to provide ‘a more comprehensive overview of the successive processes in the journeys undertaken by forced migrants’ (Braithwaite et al. 2019). Among the key questions explored by the authors assembled in the special issue are the causes and directions of refugee movements, the drivers behind host country policy responses to refugees, the impact of refugees on host communities, the response of refugees to political events in their countries of origin, and the drivers of international responses to mass refugee migration. While the special issue still reflects a strong emphasis on the effects of displacement on host societies and policy responses, thereby following in the footsteps of the broader trends in migration research, some of the contributions mark a step in the direction of integrating forced migrants into the discussion about transnationalism and thereby upgrade refugees to the level of ‘ordinary’ citizens and political actors.

The case of Ukraine

The war in Donbas began with Russia providing military support to local separatists in the aftermath of the Euromaidan protests and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Despite the Minsk I and II Agreements, negotiated in 2014 and 2015 by Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France and aimed at ending the war, there has yet to be even a lasting ceasefire. The negotiation process continues at different levels but so far it has only achieved intermittent temporary ceasefires, prisoner exchanges, some decoupling along the line of contact, and the rebuilding of infrastructure linking the two parts of the Donbas, and so forth. By August 2019, the war had incurred over 13,000 deaths, including over 3,000 civilians (OHCHR 2019).

A significant aspect of the war has been the creation of IDPs. Since 2015, Ukraine has been among the ten countries with the largest IDP population worldwide (UNHCR 2016a). In summer 2016 the Ukrainian Ministry for Social Policy had registered close to 1.8 million IDPs (Smal’ 2016). While official numbers have fluctuated somewhat over the months and years, they have remained high: by January 2020 the Ukrainian Ministry for Social Policy recorded over 1.4 million IDPs from the non-government-controlled areas in Donbas and Crimea.¹ The number would have been higher if the IDPs from the government-controlled areas of Donbas were included. In general, the real number of IDPs is bound to be higher, as not all of them went through an official registration process. Thus, depending on the timing, the source of the estimates and the included origins of the IDPS, the figures provided by the authors in this special issue vary somewhat.

Compared to the IDPs, the individuals who fled from Donbas to Russia amidst a war that pits Ukraine and Russia against each other are even less visible—in Ukraine, in the Russian Federation and in international policy debates. It is estimated that at least one million individuals have fled from Donbas to the Russian Federation (UNHCR 2016b).

Through their displacement, the affected individuals tend to disappear from official view. They hardly figure in international media reports, and in policy circles they are primarily seen as a social policy or humanitarian aid issue. Their overall number, territorial spread and extreme experiences make the displaced a constituency that both the Ukrainian and Russian national and local governments—as well as Western governments more generally—need to take into account. While the displaced are politicised, they represent no cohesive political or social force. Many remain dependent on state or family support, while keeping in close contact with the areas and people they left behind. Official Ukrainian data of 2016 on the socio-demographic profile of the IDPs indicated that the majority was concentrated in the middle age categories, and that two thirds were women (Smal’ 2016).

The emerging scholarship on displacement within and beyond Ukraine has contextualised the social and political challenges involved (Pikulicka-Wilczewska & Uehling 2017; Woroniecka-Krzyzanowska & Palaguta 2017; Kuznetsova 2018). The discussion about displacement from Donbas has been also connected to the issue of the displaced from Crimea (Uehling 2017). Scholars have addressed the adaptation strategies of the displaced (Mikheieva & Sereda 2015), and pointed to the dynamics of ‘othering’ in the social interactions with the displaced (Bulakh 2017; Ivashchenko-Stadnik 2017). Building on these studies, this special issue brings together an international group of social scientists engaged in empirical research on the displaced in Donbas and Crimea. The scholars bring the perspectives and methodological approaches of their respective disciplines—sociology, political science, anthropology, geography and economics—to the topic and reflect upon the particular challenges tied to research on displacement. Through its multidisciplinary approach and the inclusion of comparative dimensions—IDPs compared to the displaced in Russia; IDPs from Donbas and Crimea, and IDPs compared to the rest of the population—this special issue provides insights into a broad range of political, socio-economic, cultural and legal issues linked to displacement. Three major themes run through the issue: the attitudes and identities of the displaced; the societal and economic integration of the displaced; and the regional context in the two parts of Donbas.

Each contribution engages with one or more of the following questions:

• Who are the displaced in terms of their demographic and socio-economic profiles?

• What legal, social, economic and political challenges do they face?

• How do the displaced themselves reflect upon their own experiences and their sense of belonging?

• What factors shape the preferences and identities of the internally and externally displaced?

• How have the Ukrainian and Russian states responded to the displacement from Donbas?

• What role, if any, do the displaced play in Ukrainian and Russian media and public discourses?

• How do local, national and international policymakers address the issues linked to displacement?

• What are the political, economic and social impacts of war and displacement on the Ukrainian state?

In the first contribution to this special collection, Gwendolyn Sasse and Alice Lackner analyse the political attitudes of the displaced. Based on original survey data on the displaced in Ukraine and Russia as well as the resident population in both parts of Donbas, their essay compares self-declared levels of political interest and domestic and foreign policy preferences along three axes: the displaced relative to the resident population; the displaced in Ukraine relative to the displaced in Russia; and the displaced from the (non-)government-controlled areas relative to the resident population in the (non-)government-controlled areas of Donbas. Overall, the analysis highlights the diversity of attitudes held by the displaced but it also shows similarities in attitudes across displacement locations (Ukraine and Russia), and points to the strong effects of personal experiences with war casualties. By slicing the data in different ways, the essay makes a more general methodological point about the need to vary the reference groups when analysing the attitudes of the displaced.

Pavlo Iavorskyi and Hanna Vakhitova investigate the employment differentials between displaced and non-displaced households in the territories close to the war zone. Based on a rare dataset including both registered and unregistered IDPs from the government-controlled and the non-controlled areas, their quantitative analysis highlights that, on the one hand, the observed differential is somewhat misleading, as IDPs tend to be more educated, younger and more active in their job search. On the other hand, male displaced household heads are shown to be particularly vulnerable to discrimination in the labour market.

Viktoriya Sereda’s essay focuses on the hierarchies of belonging experienced by the internally and externally displaced from Donbas and Crimea. The interview data demonstrate that the fear of social distancing and ‘othering’ is prevalent among the displaced. The notion of citizenship takes on additional significance for an individual’s identity when the rights associated with citizenship prove hard or impossible to exercise (for example, through registration procedures). The sense of being a full member of a state community is at stake. This is a much more important perceived division arising from the war than other ethnic, linguistic or regional characteristics. In some cases, the dividing line runs between different groups of IDPs, with IDPs from Crimea feeling superior to IDPs from Donbas, or even within the same reference group—for example, between Crimean Tatars and other IDPs from Crimea, or within the communities displaced from Donbas. These processes of ‘othering’ may be stronger than those between the displaced and the host communities. The cross-regional analysis of social distancing shows that hierarchies of belonging do not correspond to traditional macro-regional classifications of Ukraine or ethno-linguistic criteria. The ‘othering’ trend is strongest both in Galicia and Transcarpathia and in the regions bordering Donbas.

Austin Charron’s essay concentrates on the displaced who left Crimea in connection with the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Based on his interviews and focus groups with Crimean IDPs, Charron traces the experiences that have triggered the migration of Crimeans to mainland Ukraine since 2014. The analysis reveals both structural and agency-related dynamics behind the political, socio-economic and emotional factors driving these displacements. The boundary between voluntary departure and displacement is shown to be a fluid one in this case.

Based on interviews and public discourse data, the essay authored by Tania Bulakh focuses on the interactions between IDPs and the state, highlighting how displacement limits individual rights and freedoms while simultaneously increasing the level of state control. Citizenship becomes fragmented and redefined. More specifically, the IDPs do not have the legal status of refugees and encounter bureaucratic marginalisation and social exclusion. Their access to social welfare and electoral rights is complicated, and they are exposed to control measures imposed by the state through additional administrative procedures. Bulakh’s findings call for a more critical analysis of how state–citizen relations are being reconstituted as a consequence of war.

Emma Rimpiläinen examines the differences in the official Ukrainian and Russian government discourses on the displaced by comparing the narratives presented in the Ukrainian and Russian government-owned newspapers, Uriadovyi Kurier and Rossiiskaya Gazeta. The Ukrainian newspaper is found to delimit the nation by distinguishing between ‘real’ IDPs deserving help, and ‘fake’ IDPs assumed to be guilty of siphoning Ukrainian taxpayers’ money to the non-government-controlled areas. By comparison, the Russian government newspaper stresses the Russian state’s competence in managing displacement while silencing the voices of the displaced themselves. Both countries’ governments instrumentalise the theme of displacement to address other political topics. Rimpiläinen argues that Uriadovyi Kurier instrumentalises the issue of displacement to consolidate Ukrainian nation-building, whereas for Rossiiskaya Gazeta, this very issue represents one example to showcase state capacity.

Irina Kuznetsova’s focus is on the displaced in Russia, by scrutinising Russian state policies towards the displaced from Donbas. Her analysis is based on in-depth and semi-structured interviews with individuals displaced from the non-government control areas of Donbas and nearby territories to Russia including Moscow, Moscow Oblast’ and regional cities. Interviews with public officials, civil society representatives and international organisations help to frame the analysis. Russian legislation has granted displaced Ukrainian citizens from Donbas privileged access to temporary asylum and citizenship, thereby setting them apart from immigrants. Kuznetsova argues that these policies and the accompanying official rhetoric about the ‘compatriots’ from Donbas are a reflection of Russia’s transborder nationalism and its geopolitical claims in its neighbourhood.

Vlad Mykhnenko’s contribution helps to contextualise the issue of displacement, by offering an economic geography perspective on the causes and consequences of the war in eastern Ukraine. He describes pre-war Donbas as being neither an economic powerhouse nor a struggling region and therefore discards the notion of separatist economic grievances leading to war. He also details the vicious cycle of the mounting human and economic costs of the ongoing war, including depopulation and stalled economic development.

The contributions to this special issue share an emphasis on the displaced as social and political actors. Many of them start from the perceptions of the displaced themselves, giving them a voice, and highlighting the diversity of their experiences and attitudes. They also demonstrate that war and displacement are not primarily characterised or accompanied by clear-cut regional and ethno-linguistic cleavages. Data collection on the displaced poses additional challenges, but as the scholars assembled here show, it is possible. Their essays demonstrate both the necessity and the scope for additional research on the displaced from Donbas. Taken together, the authors’ different perspectives underline the multi-faceted nature of displacement and help to grasp some of the linkages between the social, political and economic dimensions of displacement, for example the interlinked mechanisms of social exclusion, stigmatisation, state control and labour market dynamics, or the links between the state, media and public discourses related to displacement. The special issue contributes to the study of forced migration by placing the emphasis on individuals rather than amorphous groups, by opening up different lines of comparison between these individuals, and by pointing to policy-relevant linkages between the socio-economic, political and identity dimensions of displacement.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gwendolyn Sasse

Gwendolyn Sasse, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford, Nuffield College, New Road, Oxford OX1 1NF, UK. Director, Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS), Mohrenstrasse 60, Berlin 10117, Germany. Email: [email protected]

Notes

1 ‘Oblikovano 1437406 vnutrishno peremishchenikh osib’, Ministerstvo sotsialnoi polityky Ukrainy, available at: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/news/oblikovano-1-437-406-vnutrishno-peremishchenih-osib, accessed 30 January 2020.