A woman passes in front of the Slaviansk sign, which is covered in bullet holes from clashes between the Ukrainian government and rebel groups, 3 April 2019. Photo by Cristopher Rogel Blanquet/Getty Images
5. Conclusion
Almost six years of Russian aggression has demonstrated Ukraine’s capacity to persevere against difficult odds. The country has proven more difficult to subjugate than the Kremlin expected. However, the struggle is far from over and Vladimir Putin shows no sign of changing his objectives. The armed conflict is likely to continue and will exert further pressure on Ukrainian society and politics for the foreseeable future.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s presidency represents a challenge for the Kremlin. His victory undermines the dominant Russian narrative that Ukraine is a ‘nationalist’ and ‘fascist’ country that discriminates against the Russian-speaking population and wants to destroy the Russian World. This artificial threat is used to justify Russian interference in Ukraine’s affairs.
Until now, the Kremlin has also actively used anti-Ukrainian rhetoric and disinformation to dispel growing domestic dissatisfaction with the Russian government and to deter protests. The Revolution of Dignity is portrayed as the main cause of disruption and chaos in Ukraine, a path that would supposedly lead to disaster if followed by the Russian people. Steady positive development of Ukraine could shatter these narratives. Zelenskyy embodies a generational change and a new kind of politics that, if successful, could resonate widely in the post-Soviet region. Therefore, Moscow will likely increase its pressure on Ukraine.
The Kremlin still has the upper hand to coerce Ukraine using energy, in particular the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline and Ukraine’s dependence on Russian petroleum products for diesel and other types of fuel. New threats could come from environmental risks related to spikes in hostilities, the disruption of mining in occupied Donbas, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, support to anti-government radical groups to ferment violence, and new forms of malign manipulation of the mass media. In the near future, the Kremlin will also use its connections to parties like the OPFL to influence local elections.
However, the most critical risk factor to Ukraine is the ongoing conflict in Donbas and its political, social, economic and security consequences. The continuation of the low-intensity war should not prevent the government and civil society from envisaging ways to regenerate conflict-affected areas controlled by Kyiv and the future reintegration of the NGCA with the rest of Ukraine.
Just being aware of and acknowledging these threats is a large part of being resilient. Another part, as demonstrated by the case studies in this research paper, is a capacity to bridge divides and to establish flexible structures that engage a multiplicity of perspectives for the benefit of the community. Ukraine’s current resilience capital is precious. It remains one of the country’s main assets at times of armed conflict and domestic political turbulence and it should be nurtured to enable the establishment of the European rule-based society that so many Ukrainians aspire to.