Все
 
 
 


Friends or Foes? Changes in Cross-Border Practices and Attitudes Toward Neighbors along the Russian-Ukrainian Border after 2014
 
Код статьиS086954150016796-5-1
DOI10.31857/S086954150016796-5
Тип публикации Статья
Статус публикации Опубликовано
Авторы
Зотова Мария Владимировна 
Аффилиация: Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences
Адрес: Russian Federation, Moscow
Гриценко Антон Алексеевич
Аффилиация: Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences
Адрес: Russian Federation, Moscow
фон Лёвис Сабине
Аффилиация: The Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS)
Адрес: Germany, Berlin
Название журналаЭтнографическое обозрение
Выпуск№4
Страницы220-236
Аннотация

This article examines how the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine and the sharp deterioration of official relations between Russia and Ukraine have affected the environment and everyday life of the population of the border towns of the Rostov (Gukovo, Donetsk, Matveyev Kurgan) and Belgorod (Graivoron, Shebekino) regions of the Russian Federation. Based on a series of in-depth interviews with local residents and representatives of municipal authorities, our article studies the dynamics of cross-border practices after 2014, as well as people’s attitudes toward the border, the border regime, neighbors, and neighboring states. Our research shows that a radical change in cross-border practices and (formerly good) neighborly relations occurred, which contributed to the peripheralization of small border towns and complicated communication. Such changes have transformed the border from being simply a symbolic line on a map, separating the territories of the two states, into an actual border that is perceived and felt in everyday life. In the localities we analyzed, we found transformations of what had once been an integrated border area into coexisting yet independent sections of borderland. However, these processes took place for different reasons: in the Belgorod region, it was the tightening of the border regime and tensions in Russian-Ukrainian relations; in the Rostov region, it was refugees, the unrecognized status of the LPR and DPR, and fear of war.

Ключевые словаUkraine, LPR, DPR, Russian-Ukrainian border, cross-border practices, everyday life, attitudes toward neighbors
Источник финансированияThis article is a translation of: Зотова М.В., Гриценко А.А., Фон Лёвис С. Свои или чужие? Трансформация приграничных практик и отношение к соседям в Белгородской и Ростовской областях России после 2014 г. // Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie. 2021. No 1. P. 124–144. DOI: 10.31857/S086954150013601-1
Получено22.09.2021
Дата публикации28.09.2021
Кол-во символов52638
Цитировать     Скачать pdf
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной.

Оглавление

Introduction
The Theoretical Framework of the Study
Research Methodology
Dynamics of the Border Regime and Political Functions of the Russian-Ukrainian
The Border as an Unfortunate Misunderstanding or an Insurmountable Obstacle: The Belgorod Section of the Russian-Ukrainian Border
New Neighborhood, New Life? – The Rostov Section of the Russian-Ukrainian Border
Conclusion
1

Introduction
2 The incorporation of Crimea into Russia and the ongoing hostilities in eastern Ukraine have drawn international attention to Russian-Ukrainian relations. The political crisis has significantly changed the situation along the Russian-Ukrainian border, making it more tangible and creating a new everyday reality for border residents (Grinchenko and Mikheyeva 2018; Fournier 2017). Relations with neighbors have increasingly become determined by mutual stereotypes, which developed under the influence of economic and political, as opposed to ethno-cultural, factors (Babintsev et al. 2016; Sapryka et al. 2019).
3 The Russian-Ukrainian borderland is arguably among the most studied post-Soviet border regions (Kolosov and Vendina 2011; Besier and Stoklosa 2017). Researchers have considered it primarily in connection with nation- and state-building in Russia and Ukraine and with the adaptation of the population and economy to the emergence of new state borders. A number of scholars have focused on the problems of cross-border cooperation (Kolosov and Kiryukhin 2001; Anisimov et al. 2013), political and economic relations between countries, and the everyday needs of people (Borodina et al. 2009). Others have analyzed the strengthening of sociocultural differentiation across border areas through the prism of the regional and ethno-cultural self-identifications of the population (Krylov and Gritsenko 2012; Zhurzhenko 2006; Bublikov 2019; Sapryka et al. 2019). Research by sociologists has shown that, by the early 2010s, a majority of the population of the Russian and Ukrainian border regions had practically adapted to the emergence of the border and become habituated to its existence (Zhurzhenko 2013). Yet this did not lead to its acceptance by many local residents (ibid.), despite attempts to create distinct national identities and different images of a common past (Miller 2008; Snezhkova 2013; Gritsenko and Krylov 2013).
4 Throughout most of its existence, the Russian-Ukrainian border region developed as part of a single state. The common space and absence of borders in Soviet times encouraged ease of movement across the region: people easily changed their place of residence or moved to the territory of the neighboring republic to work or study. Cross-border relations and social perceptions of neighbors were formed without significant barriers to communication. Widespread and various interaction practices, the particularities of population settlement, and a robust network of transport communications contributed to the formation of close economic, cultural, and social ties across the border region (Popkova 2005); these factors also oriented the population toward large Ukrainian cities – namely, Kharkiv, Sumy, Donetsk, and Lugansk (Kolosov and Vendina 2011).
5 Although the border became a clear obstacle after the introduction of passport and customs controls, people did not consider such changes onerous (Kolosov and Vendina 2011). Cross-border travel was beneficial to both sides. The price differences allowed people to save on purchases by crossing the border, and the demand for a variety of goods and services stimulated the development of local trade and employment. The new economic opportunities partially compensated for the difficulties caused by the sharp decline in living standards and incomes of the population in the 1990s.
6 The cross-border practices of the Soviet and early post-Soviet periods laid a solid foundation for the formation of trust and close relationships in the borderland. Thanks to the unpredictable intertwining of human destinies, a strong sense of unity and cohesion between communities across the border emerged. People did not give much thought to the nationality of their friends and acquaintances; a dense social fabric closely linked the neighboring settlements of the two countries. Ukrainian cities served as regional centers for the entire borderland, and Russians were well-acquainted with them and felt comfortable there.
7 Despite the accumulated experience of residents living together for a long time, the events of 2014 led to the destruction of the usual order of life, the relationships between border communities, and, consequently, cross-border social integration. In such situations, the change in both the border regime and its perception by residents becomes the main factor influencing people’s interactions; it therefore requires the close attention of researchers.
8

The Theoretical Framework of the Study
9 In recent years, the field of border studies has undergone a rapid development. One of the key concepts in this research area is the term “bordering,” which means not only the formation and arrangement of borders but also changes in their regime, functions, and social meaning, including those influenced by shifts in the international situation and bilateral relations (Kolosov 2005; Newman 2011; Kolosov and Scott 2013). Multidimensional processes of “bordering” occur everywhere, albeit on different scales. They are most noticeable in borderlands, which are zones of intensive international contacts and social interactions, where the political and economic interests of neighboring states collide (Paasi 2009).

Всего подписок: 2, всего просмотров: 1173

Оценка читателей: голосов 0 

1. Anisimov, A. M., S. L. Barinova, L. B. Vardomsky, T. S. Vertinsky, A. A. Gertsen, S. P. Glinskaya, L. D. Golovina, A. A. Gritsenko, N. N. Evchenko, M. V. Zotova, A. M. Kirukhin, V. A. Kolosov, A. M. Libman, M. M. Lubanova, A. G. Pylin, A. B. Sebentsov, M. O. Turaeva, D. I. Uschkalova, and V. I. Chasovsky.  2013. “Prigranichnoe sotrudnichestvo regionov Rossii, Belarusi i Ukrainy: sostoianie i perspektivy” [Cross-border cooperation between the regions of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine: Status and prospects]. Evraziiskaia ekonomicheskaia integratsiia [Eurasian economic integration] 4 (21): 76–96. 

2. Babintsev, V. P., G. A. Borisov, L. V. Kolpina, and E. V. Reutov. 2016. “Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Crisis on Ethno-National Stereotypes of the Residents of Russian/Ukrainian Border Regions.” Man in India 96 (10): 3429–39.

3. Berg, E. 2000. “Deconstructing Border Practices in the Estonian-Russian Borderland.” Geopolitics 5 (3): 78–98.

4. Besier, G, and K. Stoklosa, eds. 2017. Neighbourhood Perceptions of the Ukraine Crisis: From the Soviet Union into Eurasia? London: Routledge. 

5. Borodina, N. D., and T. L. Borodina. 2009. “Kak peresech’ ukrainskuiu granitsu?” [How to cross the Ukrainian border?]. In Gumanitarnye resursy regional’nogo razvitiia (na primere prirodnogo i kul’turnogo naslediia) [Humanitarian resources of regional development (a study of natural and cultural heritage)], edited by S. S. Artobolevsky, Yu. A. Vedenin, and L. M. Sinserov, 345–55. Moscow: Eslan; IP “Matushkina I. I.”.

6. Borodina, T. L., I. N. Volkova, and T. V. Litvinenko. 2009. “Rossiisko-belorussko-ukrainskie prigranichnye gumanitarnye sviazi” [Russian-Belarusian-Ukrainian Border Humanitarian Relations]. Territoriia novykh vozmozhnostei. Vestnik Vladivostokskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta ekonomiki i servisa [The territory of new opportunities. The bulletin of the Vladivostok State University of Economics and Services] 4 (4): 95–100.

7. Bublikov, V. V. 2019. “Osobennosti identichnosti russko-ukrainskogo naseleniia prigranichnykh territorii Rossii” [Features of Identity of the Russian-Ukrainian Population of the Border Territories of Russia]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie [Ethnographic review] 6: 138–57.

8. Fournier, A. 2017. “From Frozen Conflict to Mobile Boundary: Youth Perceptions of Territoriality in War-Time Ukraine.” East European Politics and Societies 32 (1): 23–55.

9. Ghosh, S. 2011. “Crossborder Activities in Everyday Life: The Bengal Borderland.” Contemporary South Asia 19: 49–60.

10. Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

11. Grinchenko, G., and O. Mikheieva. 2018. “From Contact Zone to Battlefield Area: (Un)Real Borders of (Un)Declared War in Eastern Ukraine, 2014–2016.” In Post-Cold War Borders: Reframing Political Space in the EU’s Eastern Europe, edited by J. Laine, I. Liikanen, and J. W. Scott, 169–188. London: Routledge.

12. Gritsenko, A. A., and M. P. Krylov. 2013. “Identichnost’ i politika skvoz’ prizmu ukrainskogo gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva (Kruglyi stol: ‘Sovremennoe sostoianie i perspektivy vnutripoliticheskogo razvitiia Ukrainy: osnovnye stsenarii’)” [Identity and politics through the prism of Ukrainian state construction (discussion: “current state and prospects of internal political development of Ukraine: main scenarios”]. Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia [World economy and international relations] 9: 99.

13. Ilyin, V. I. 2006. Dramaturgiia kachestvennogo polevogo issledovaniia [Dramaturgy of qualitative field research]. St. Petersburg: Intersotsis.

14. Jansen, S. 2013. “People and Thigs in the Ethnography of Borders: Materializing the Division of Sarajevo.” Social Anthropology 21 (1): 23–37.

15. Kolosov, V. 2005. “Border Studies: Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches.” Geopolitics 10: 1–27.

16. Kolosov, V., ed. 2018. Rossiiskoe pogranich’e: vyzovy sosedstva [Russian borderland: Challenges of the neighborhood]. Moscow: IP “Matushkina I.I.”.

17. Kolosov, V. A., and A. M. Kiryukhin. 2001. Prigranichnoe sotrudnichestvo v rossiisko-ukrainskikh otnosheniiakh [Cross-border cooperation in Russian-Ukrainian relations]. Politia [Polity] 1: 141–65. 

18. Kolosov, V. A., and O. I. Vendina, eds. 2011. Rossiisko-ukrainskoe pogranich’e: dvadtsat’ let razdelennogo edinstva [The Russian-Ukrainian border: Twenty years of separate unity]. Moscow: Novyi khronograf.

19. Kolosov, V., and J. Scott. 2013. “Selected Conceptual Issues in Border Studies.” Belgeo 4: 9–21.

20. Kolosov, V. A., M. V. Zotova, and A. B. Sebentsov. 2014. “Structural Features of the Economy and Gradients of Socioeconomic Development of the Border Regions of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.” Regional Research of Russia 4 (4): 286–300.

21. Konrad, V., J. P. Laine, I. Liikanen, J. W. Scott, and R. Widdis. 2019. “The Language of Borders.” In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map, edited by S. Brunn and R. Kehrein, 1–17. Berlin: Springer.

22. Krylov, M., and A. Gritsenko. 2012. “Regional’naia i etnokul’turnaia identichnost’ v rossiisko-ukrainskom i rossiisko-belorusskom porubezh’e: istoricheskaia pamyat’ i kul’turnye transformatsii” [Regional and ethno-cultural identity in the Russian-Ukrainian and Russian-Belarusian borderlands: Historical memory and cultural transformations]. Labirint. Zhurnal social’no-gumanitarnyh issledovanii [Labyrinth. Journal of social and humanitarian research] 2: 28–42.

23. Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

24. Laine, J., I. Liikanen, and J. W. Scott, eds. 2018. Post-Cold War Borders: Reframing Political Space in the EU’s Eastern Europe. London: Routledge.

25. Lamont, M., and V. Molnár. 2002. The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195.

26. Martínez, O. J. 1994. Border People: Life and Society in the US-Mexico Borderlands. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 

27. Merkens, H. 2019. Auswahlverfahren, Sampling, Fallkonstruktion [Selection process, sampling, case construction]. In Qualitative Sozialforschung [Qualitative social research], edited by U. Flick, E. V. Kardorff, and I. Steinke, 286–99. Hamburg: Rowohlt.

28. Miller, A. I. 2008. “Proshloe i istoricheskaia pamiat’ kak faktory formirovaniia dualizma identichnostei v sovremennoi Ukraine” [The past and historical memory as factors in the formation of the dualism of identities in modern Ukraine]. Politicheskaia nauka [Political science] 1: 83–100.

29. Newman, D. 2006. “Borders and Bordering Towards an Interdisciplinary Dialogue.” European Journal of Social Theory 9 (2): 171–86.

30. Newman, D. 2011. “Contemporary Research Agendas in Border Studies: An Overview.” In Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies, edited by D. Wastl-Walter, 33–47. Oxford: Ashgate Publishers.

31. Newman, D., and A. Paasi. 1998. “Fences and Neighbours in the Postmodern World: Boundary Narratives in Political Geography.” Progress in Human Geography 22 (2): 186–207.

32. Paasi, A. 2009. “Bounded Spaces in a ‘Borderless World’: Border Studies, Power and the Anatomy of Territory.” Journal of Power 2 (2): 213–34.

33. Paasi, A., and E. K. Prokkola. 2008. “Territorial Dynamics, Crossborder Work and Everyday Life in the Finnish-Swedish Border Area.” Space and Polity 12 (1): 13–29.

34. Pfoser, A. 2015. “Between Security and Mobility: Negotiating a Hardening Border Regime in the Russian-Estonian Borderland.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41 (10): 1684–1702.

35. Popkova, L. I. 2005. Geografiia naseleniia rossiisko-ukrainskogo prigranich’ia [Geography of the Population of the Russian-Ukrainian Border Area]. Smolensk: Universum.

36. Prokkola, E. K. 2009. “Unfixing Borderland Identity: Border Performances and Narratives in the Construction of Self.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 24 (3): 21–38.

37. Sapryka, V. A., V. A. Babintsev, and A. N. Vavilov. 2019. “Rossiia i Ukraina: protivorechiia postsovetskogo prigranichnogo khronotopa” [Russia and Ukraine: Contradictions of the Post-Soviet Border Chronotope]. Vestnik rossiiskoi natsii [The bulletin of the Russian nation] 3 (67): 59–69.

38. Scott, J. W., F. Celata, and R. Coletti. 2019. “Bordering Imaginaries and the Everyday Construction of the Mediterranean Neighbourhood: Introduction to the Special Issue.” European Urban and Regional Studies 26 (1): 3–8.

39. Snezhkova, I. A. 2013. “Mekhanizmy postroeniia novoi natsional’noi identichnosti v Ukraine” [Mechanisms for building a new national identity in Ukraine]. In Transformatsiia etnicheskoi identichnosti v Rossii i v Ukraine v postsovetskii period [Transformation of ethnic identity in Russia and Ukraine in the post-Soviet period], edited by I. A. Snezhkova, 196–222. Moscow: IEA RAN.

40. Wilson, T., and H. Donnan. 1998. “Nation, State and Identity at International Borders.” In Border Identities: Nation and State at International Frontiers, edited by T. Wilson and H. Donnan, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41. Wilson, T., and H. Donnan. 2012. “Borders and Border Studies.” In A Companion to Border Studies, edited by T. Wilson and H. Donnan, 1–25. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 

42. Zhurzhenko, T. 2006. “The New Post Soviet Borderlands: Nostalgia, Resistance to Changes, Adaptation: A Case Study of Three Near Border Villages, Kharkiv Oblast, Ukraine.” In Border Crossings: Territory, Memory and History in North and East Europe, edited by M. Hurd, 57–87. Eslöv: Gondolin.

43. Zhurzhenko, T. 2013. “’We Used to Be One Country’: Rural Transformations, Economic Asymmetries and National Identities in the Ukrainian-Russian Borderlands.” In Border Encounters: Asymmetry and Proximity at Europe’s Frontiers, edited by J. L. Bacas and W. Kavanagh, 193–214. Oxford: Berghahn.

44. Zotova, M. V., A. A. Gritsenko, and A. B. Sebentsov. 2018. “Povsednevnaia zhizn’ v rossiiskom pogranich’e: motivy i faktory transgranichnyh praktik” [Everyday life in the Russian border region: Motives and factors of cross-border practices]. Mir Rossii – Universe of Russia 27 (4): 56–77.

Система Orphus

Загрузка...
Вверх