The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine. By Serhii Plokhy. Basic Books. 2015. xxiv + 395pp. £25.00.

Palko, Olena

doi:10.1111/1468-229x.12367

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…53−54). Despite being prominent in eastern Ukraine, assimilation and integration of the Russian language were resisted by western Ukraine, which has been under Russian control for a shorter period of time and where Ukrainian is spoken (Gee, 1995;Plokhy, 2015). Language differences notwithstanding, most people living in Ukraine, including Ukrainian and Russian speakers, generally identified themselves as ethnically Ukrainian (A. J.…”

Section: Regional Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas the protests were peaceful, the police used force on the student protesters, which led to more than half a million people coming out to protest against state-perpetrated violence (Plokhy, 2015, p. 339). The Revolution of Dignity signaled the desire of Ukrainians to live in an independent country and readiness to drift politically from Russia (Cancio et al, 2020;Judah, 2016;Plokhy, 2015;Reid, 2015, pp. 258−271).…”

Section: Crimea Annexation and The Donbas Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Forced to flee out and down: Depression following the Russian invasion and displacement of the Ukrainian people.

Timmer¹,

Johnson²,

Antonaccio³

et al. 2023

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During wartime, individuals suffer from high levels of mental health disorders, with depression being one of the most common mental health issues. Even as peace returns, the loss of personal, social, and emotional resources can make widespread depression difficult to overcome. Internally displaced people (IDPs) are a particularly vulnerable group, which has received relatively little attention in the peace and conflict literature. Thus, there is an urgent need to better understand and address mental health issues of IDPs. Focusing on Ukraine, we use survey data collected from 300 IDPs in two major urban areas who were forced to flee their homes due to the Russian invasion that started in 2014. Specifically, we examine the influences of war trauma, daily stressors, and social support on depression. We find that having been exposed to war, both directly and indirectly, is not significantly associated with depression among IDPs in Ukraine, suggesting that war exposure may have reached a ceiling effect. On the other hand, experiencing daily stressors (e.g., prejudice, financial problems etc.) significantly increases depressive symptoms. Finally, social support, including emotional, task, and financial support from family (but not from other sources), reduces depression among IDPs. This study lays the foundation for the development of policies aimed at reducing daily stress among Ukrainian IDPs and reuniting them with their family members. Public Significance StatementOur research findings demonstrate that various daily hassles (e.g., financial problems, discrimination and prejudice, issues at work/study) increase depressive symptoms among IDPs in Ukraine, whereas different forms of social support from family serve as protective factors against depression. This suggests the need for the development of new initiatives that focus on stress management and family reunification among IDPs in war-torn societies.

show abstract

Section: Regional Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Crimea Annexation and The Donbas Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forced to flee out and down: Depression following the Russian invasion and displacement of the Ukrainian people.

Timmer¹,

Johnson²,

Antonaccio³

et al. 2023

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet addressing problems means facing facts, and in this case, the fact, however unpleasant, is that some of the Donbas' population and political leadership support Russian annexation—precisely because it is viewed as a means of de‐peripheralization. According to some of the most authoritative accounts available (Matveeva, 2017; Plokhy, 2021; Reid, 2015), the Russian invasion, however vicious, is rooted in history and has been given a sour patina of legitimacy by the sort of inequality and grievance rife within Ukraine's space‐economy. It is also rooted in the despotism of that Soviet era, to the point of using the very same tactics of economic coercion, societal oppression, and military violence that were used to establish the Iron Curtain in eastern Europe during the middle part of the twentieth century (see Applebaum, 2012).…”

Section: Endogeneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In February 2022, the Russian Federation initiated a full‐scale invasion of neighboring Ukraine. Those familiar with the nations recognized the action as an escalation of a longer conflict that began running hot with Russia's taking of Crimea in 2014 (Mykhnenko, 2020; Plokhy, 2021; Reid, 2015). In fact, since at least then, Russia has prosecuted a cold campaign of cyberwarfare against Ukraine, culminating in the 2017 release of the NotPetya malware, created by a Russian hacking group called Sandworm , which crippled business and infrastructure operations there and far beyond (Greenberg, 2019; Perloth, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endogenously driven de‐peripheralization through political secession: The case of the Donbas region

Bower¹,

Minton

Carruthers³

2023

Regional Science Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a case study of the Donbas region, located in eastern Ukraine, focusing on efforts to de‐peripheralize the region prior to and after the outbreak of violence that engulfed it with the Russian invasion in early 2022. It sets out to use the lens of regional science and its sibling field, peace science, to impose some structure for understanding the still ongoing war. It does this by developing an economic history of the Donbas and a conceptual model for thinking about conflict and conflict resolution there. The implications of the model are explored using data on public opinion from 2014, a time of great uncertainty in the region. The model is also used to consider various counterfactual scenarios, and ultimately, to highlight the manner in which a peaceful solution escaped and the region's future was shattered by war. Overall, the paper represents an attempt to use the perspective of regional science to understand a complex and shifting conflict in real time. The project was undertaken with the aspiration that, by adding to knowledge on the Donbas and helping to disseminate awareness of its situation, it may contribute to the eventual recovery of Ukraine and its people.

show abstract

“…Russia's annexation of Crimea is often interpreted as the continuation of Moscow's strategy to preserve control over the post-Soviet space (its "near abroad") through various means (Toal 2016;Biersack and O'Leary 2014;Macfarlane 2016;Rosefielder 2016). Academic analyses delve into the reasons for Russian engagement in Crimea (Ambrosio 2016;Sakwa 2014;Tsygankov 2015;Malyarenko and Wolff 2018;Treisman 2016;Teper 2015;Menon and Romer 2015;Toal 2016;Wilson 2014;Plokhy 2015), the sources of its leverage (Hughes and Sasse 2016), the discourses justifying Crimean annexation, the legal issues of its legitimacy (Allison 2014;Hopf 2016;Laruelle 2015), or the link between the Crimean events and domestic Russian legitimacy and identity (Kolstø 2016). We acknowledge that without the Kremlin's backing turning the annexation of Crimea from a vague idea into an actual plan and then reality would have not been possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Krym. Rossiya…Navsegda? Critical Junctures, Critical Antecedents, and the Paths Not Taken in the Making of Crimea’s Annexation

Fumagalli

Rymarenko

2022

Nationalities Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 is widely framed as an outside-in process, not only enabled but also enacted by the Kremlin. Prevailing accounts privilege geopolitical analysis and place those developments in a broader narrative of tension and competition between the West and Russia. Such a narrative downplays the involvement of local actors and the importance of the choices they made prior to and during those events. This article revisits the period leading up to March 2014 through a focus on critical junctures, critical antecedents, a near miss, and the path not taken. It argues that a full account of Crimea’s incorporation into Russia – while acknowledging Moscow’s role – cannot ignore the local contingencies that preceded and shaped it. We understand the region’s annexation as a key moment of institutional change in Ukraine and focus our attention on explaining how that outcome was determined, identifying the path to such a political outcome. Yanukovych’s decision to “catapult” political-economic interest groups from Makeevka and Donetsk into the peninsula led to the marginalization of the local elite. Regime change in Kyiv and a slow and cumbersome response from the new authorities in February-March 2014 triggered, but did not cause, Crimea’s exit option.

show abstract

The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine. By Serhii Plokhy. Basic Books. 2015. xxiv + 395pp. £25.00.

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Forced to flee out and down: Depression following the Russian invasion and displacement of the Ukrainian people.

Forced to flee out and down: Depression following the Russian invasion and displacement of the Ukrainian people.

Endogenously driven de‐peripheralization through political secession: The case of the Donbas region

Krym. Rossiya…Navsegda? Critical Junctures, Critical Antecedents, and the Paths Not Taken in the Making of Crimea’s Annexation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About