• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Lilia Shevtsova"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Ukraine"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Civil Society"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

Ukrainian Suspense: How Far From the Rubicon?

The south and even the east of Ukraine do not express massive support for separatism. The violent clashes in Odessa may signal a turning point—indicating that Ukrainian society itself is trying to stop the country’s fragmentation.

Link Copied
By Lilia Shevtsova
Published on May 5, 2014

From a Facebook post: “Odessa has saved Kiev.”

I am talking about the violent clashes in Odessa on May 2, which claimed the lives of more than 40 people and left 200 more injured. This has been the bloodiest incident since the fall of the Yanukovych regime. It resulted from the skirmishes between the supporters of a unified Ukraine and the pro-Russian separatists, in which the former prevailed. It is evident that the separatists were devising a provocation in Odessa that would lead to takeovers similar to those in the Eastern Ukraine. The obvious plan was to create a chain of separatist “independent republics,” which were to declare their independence on May 11, becoming the “New Russia” (“Novorossiya”) that President Vladimir Putin was talking about. As evidenced the by film footage taken at the scene of the clashes, the police actively aided the provocateurs, which only confirms the fact that the law-enforcement system of southeastern Ukraine has effectively disintegrated.

However, the ordinary Odessa residents were able to resist the pro-Russian militants, which attests to the fact that Ukraine’s southern regions supports the idea of unified Ukraine, and the separatists are unlikely to be able to form their “independent” enclaves there even if the country’s central government remains weak. Perhaps the events in Odessa signal a turning point—indicating that Ukrainian society itself is trying to stop the country’s fragmentation. In some sense, Odessa has saved Kiev.

Actually, Ukraine’s East does not look so unequivocally pro-Russian either. According to recent polls conducted by the Ukrainian newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli and Kiev’s International Institute of Sociology, in the Donetsk area, where the separatists have established themselves, the Russian incursion is supported by only 19.3(!) percent of the respondents. The rest of the population would prefer to live in an independent Ukraine. True, a significant number would not resist occupation: 46.9 percent of respondents in the South-East say that they would stay home and not interfere if the Russian troops were to cross the border (in Donbas, 55.4 percent would stay home).

With that being said, a lot of Ukrainians are ready to defend their state. Look at these numbers: in Kherson, 36.9 percent of the people are prepared to resist the aggressor; this number is 31 percent in Nikolayev, 26 percent in Dnepropetrovsk, and 24.9 per cent in Odessa. In Donetsk, the area viewed as a stronghold of pro-Russian separatism, 11.9 percent of the people would fight the Russian troops; in Lugansk, 10.7 percent would.

Thus, the south of Ukraine does not express massive support for separatism. Even the east of the country is not particularly rushing to secede from Ukraine. Forcefully separating these regions from Ukraine will not stabilize them; it is more likely to breed more instability and fuel the growth of pro-Ukrainian sentiments. Those who are still trying to create the “New Russia” inside Ukraine should keep this in mind.

About the Author

Lilia Shevtsova

Former Senior Associate, Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program, Moscow Center

Shevtsova chaired the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, dividing her time between Carnegie’s offices in Washington, DC, and Moscow. She had been with Carnegie since 1995.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    Putin Has Fought His Way Into a Corner

      Lilia Shevtsova

  • Commentary
    How Long Russians Will Believe in Fairy Tale?

      Lilia Shevtsova

Lilia Shevtsova
Former Senior Associate, Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program, Moscow Center
Lilia Shevtsova
Political ReformSecurityCivil SocietyRussiaEastern EuropeUkraine

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Article
    Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio Politics

    “Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.

      Jennifer B. Murtazashvili

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    In Russia, Private Companies Have Been Left to Pick Up the Tab for Ukrainian Drone Attacks

    The cost of air defense has become an unregistered tax on revenue for businesses. While military rents are consolidated in the federal budget, the costs of defense are being spread across the balance sheets of companies and regional governments.

      Alexandra Prokopenko

  • Tiananmen Gate with US and Chinese flags
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump and Xi Should Tackle a Previously Impossible AI Conversation

    Previous dialogues ended in failure. This time could be different.

      Scott Singer

  • A drone flies in front of an Iranian flag in southern Tehran, Iran
    Article
    The Unintended Consequences of Iran’s Asymmetric Strategy and America’s AI War

    The Iran war is unique in the scope and scale of asymmetric warfare and AI-enabled conflict. These will test the limits of protecting civilians.

      Steve Feldstein

  • A visitor looks at a simulator for "electronic warfare" at the booth of German Federal Armed Forces Bundeswehr during a tour of the Hannover industrial trade fair for mechanical and electrical engineering and digital industries, in Hannover, northern Germany on April 20, 2026.
    Article
    The Effect of Military AI on Contemporary Battlefields

    AI in warfare has numerous impacts, including how they shape human responses to target recommendations and how they increase the speed at which lawful targets can be recommended.

      Yahli Shereshevsky

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.