CC BY-NC
6THE WAR FROM WITHIN: ANALYZING A CONTESTED ENTITY'S PERSPECTIVE
DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-144-146
Matveeva A. Through Times of Trouble: Conflict in
Southeastern Ukraine Explained from Within. -
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2018. 337 p.
Disputes over the Donbass conflict between Russia and the West are grounded in understandings of the events and their escalation that contrast each other. In this detailed analysis, Anna Matveeva seeks to provide a grassroots explanation that erases several myths and misunderstandings commonly held in the West. Among these are the role of the Kremlin and Putin himself, the domestic roots of the conflict, the impact of Kiev's Donbass policies over the years, and the broad motives for supporting or joining the conflict among volunteers from Ukraine, Russia, and beyond. Matveeva's significant on-the-ground investigation and source collection result in an uncommon, effective presentation of a conflict with roots and motivations deeper and more complex than many realize.
Extensive background on the identity divide in Ukraine is one of the book's main added values. A sizable portion of the manuscript covers this issue and events prior to the 20142015 Donbass conflict. Matveeva describes Kiev's questionable decision to refuse greater autonomy for the Donbass region and its severe, restrictive policies on the Russian language. Western Ukraine's monist nationalism, Matveeva contends, was elevated nationwide. The Donbass region is portrayed as disparaged, unappreciated, at times isolated, with growing links to Russia in varying forms such as labor remittances. After extensive travel and supporting interviews, the author's claim that "the feeling of being unloved and considered inferior resonated in the region [Donbass] while the policy of Ukrainianisation was interpreted as a collective payback for its distinctness" appears rational (p. 77). Some variety of a backlash to Kiev's approach in Donbass becomes increasingly understandable. A described connection between these feelings and those of antiestablishment sentiments in Europe and the United States is also compelling for western readers.
While occasional attempts are made to address both sides of the story, Matveeva's conclusions do appear more favorable to Donbass and Moscow. Bias is of course impossible to eliminate entirely. The author has connections to both Russia and the West. A Russian-born scholar, with a degree from Moscow State University, Matveeva has for decades lived in the West and was a research fellow at King's College London at the time of the book's publication. She makes it clear in the introduction that her book "[...] does not try to put both sides of the argument [...] because much is written about the perspective of Kiev already..." (p. xv). Would Matveeva's analysis be solidified by a more balanced perspective, with greater inclusion of pro-Ukrainian sources, such as from parts of Donbass that remained under the Ukrainian government control during the time period covered by the book? Perhaps, but that is not the primary goal of the piece; Matveeva seeks to provide what she believes is a unique perspective on the conflict that is lacking in western discourse, and in this objective, she has largely succeeded. Her interviews of the people of Donbass, including some high level rebels, in tandem with a more perceptive discussion of
Moscow's reactive participation will undoubtedly make many western readers give the conflict a second thought and get rid of some stereotypes.
A key impression Matveeva seeks to disprove is the commonly held belief that Russia's actions in Ukraine, from the Crimea to Donbass, were carefully preconceived actions of dominance by the Kremlin and Putin himself. On the contrary, she suggests the Kremlin was reactionary and regularly surprised by the grassroots nature of events in Donbass. The annexation of the Crimea fits the same theme. According to Matveeva, "Putin can be accused of taking advantage of the situation, but it was laid out for him by the turbulent events within Ukraine and the existing pro-Russian sentiment" (p. 66). With a detailed presentation of succeeding events alongside the material from the Russian sources, the author's description of a more complex reality is impressive. Pressure from participants in Donbass, reaction to the events in Odessa in May 2, 2014 (when pro-Russian activists were set on fire and some burnt alive by Ukrainian nationalists), and the diverse nature of foreign volunteer combatants suggest the struggle in Donbass did resonate with many and was not simply constructed in Moscow.
Primary sources and research conducted by Matveeva describe a broad, pro-Russian demographic in the Donbass region that could foment a rebellion from the bottom up. This is key to her argument that the struggle's sparks are an indigenous phenomenon. However, the views espoused by some interviewees closely align with what has been presented by Russian media and the Kremlin for years. A key example is the ongoing debate over the prevalence of neo-Nazi views among a segment of the Ukrainian armed forces and general population. On the one hand, Matveeva's claim might be better supported by further examination of the media's impact on views toward Ukraine in Donbass; on the other, she correctly suggests that whether the combatants were right or wrong in their perceived threat of Ukrainian nationalism does not impact their devout determination. I contend that if there is a correlation between the Russian media's discussion of Ukrainian neo-Nazis and concern over this issue in Donbass, Moscow's role in the embryonic stages of this conflict may not be quite as insignificant as Matveeva claims.
Indeed, while the scrutinization of interviews and personal memory is a difficult and delicate task, Matveeva's acceptance of her interviewee's presentation of facts and events may lead to an authentic, but perhaps less accurate, understanding of the conflict. She does admit to these potential limitations, and an explanation of the interviewing technique does shed some light on methodology employed. One example is the impact of civilian injuries and deaths incurred by Ukrainian armed forces on rebel motivation. From interviews this appears to be a powerful catalyst for the Donbass combatants. While it is very difficult if not impossible to confirm or deny such claims, Matveeva could have added more analysis on the difference between deliberate and incidental attacks against civilians and the challenges of identifying actors that perpetrated collateral civilian damage. As we see in the contemporary conflict between Ukraine and Russia, deciphering between accidental and pre-meditated violence against civilians is often extremely difficult.
With much of the world's attention once again on the war in Ukraine, Anna Matveeva's "Through Times of Trouble" is an essential read for those looking to better understand the Donbass conflict and origins of the current Russia-Ukraine war. Matveeva supplies us with a rare frame of reference, a "bottom-up" story, and excellent primary source collection that provides deeper awareness of the rebels and their self-identification (p. xv). The author successfully questions the level of the Kremlin's involvement in the conflict's foundations
and paints a more complex reality. This accomplished analysis is perhaps even more timely now than when it was published in 2018. Scholars of the Donbass conflict and contemporary war should reckon with its compelling explanations.
Benjamin Green (USA) European University at Saint Petersburg ORCID: 0000-0003-1753-9224
