An additional aspect that should be considered is the geographic structure of Ukraine.
The current Ukrainian territory comprises two quite distinct regions:
1. Territory that pre-1917 was part of the Russian Empire (the East)
2. Territory that pre-1917 was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (the West)
An additional aspect that should be considered is the geographic structure of Ukraine.
The current Ukrainian territory comprises two quite distinct regions:
1. Territory that pre-1917 was part of the Russian Empire (the East)
2. Territory that pre-1917 was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (the West)
Much of the population in the first region is pro-Russia, and would be quite happy to join Russia and see their living standards move up to the level of their Russian neighbors. That region is also the location of most of Ukrainian industry and mineral resources, and thus produces the bulk of the country's GDP. The population here is well aware that they are subsidizing the rest of the country.
The population in the later (Western) region is adamantly anti Russian (or "nationalist" if you want to use that term). The people are mostly Catholic (as opposed to Orthodox in the East) and have no cultural affinity to Russia at all. The region is also underdeveloped and agricultural, subsisting on subsidies from the central government. For them, a loss of the East would be a loss of the tax revenues that fund those subsidies. Further, a resolution of the conflict would lead to decline in the funds flowing from Europe and the IMF (again impacting the availability of the subsidies).
This means that the "nationalist" parties cannot tolerate a settlement that would be acceptable to either Russia or the Donbass population, because any such settlement would dramatically reduce the funds flowing to the region - thus destroying their political credibility.
The funny thing about the nationalistic western part is that without the hated Soviet and specifically Stalin they would still be either in Poland, Romania, or maybe Hungary or Slovakia, but definitely not in Ukraine:
An additional aspect that should be considered is the geographic structure of Ukraine.
The current Ukrainian territory comprises two quite distinct regions:
1. Territory that pre-1917 was part of the Russian Empire (the East)
2. Territory that pre-1917 was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (the West)
Much of the population in the first region is pro-Russia, and would be quite happy to join Russia and see their living standards move up to the level of their Russian neighbors. That region is also the location of most of Ukrainian industry and mineral resources, and thus produces the bulk of the country's GDP. The population here is well aware that they are subsidizing the rest of the country.
The population in the later (Western) region is adamantly anti Russian (or "nationalist" if you want to use that term). The people are mostly Catholic (as opposed to Orthodox in the East) and have no cultural affinity to Russia at all. The region is also underdeveloped and agricultural, subsisting on subsidies from the central government. For them, a loss of the East would be a loss of the tax revenues that fund those subsidies. Further, a resolution of the conflict would lead to decline in the funds flowing from Europe and the IMF (again impacting the availability of the subsidies).
This means that the "nationalist" parties cannot tolerate a settlement that would be acceptable to either Russia or the Donbass population, because any such settlement would dramatically reduce the funds flowing to the region - thus destroying their political credibility.
The funny thing about the nationalistic western part is that without the hated Soviet and specifically Stalin they would still be either in Poland, Romania, or maybe Hungary or Slovakia, but definitely not in Ukraine:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/cc/6b/40/cc6b404b499810993bbac0cde4aa80a8--maps.jpg