This paper investigates the interplay between competing ideological narratives and institution-building in Ukraine’s Donbas region since 1991, emphasizing mechanisms through which ideology shapes—and is shaped by—local political, economic, and social institutions. It distinguishes three periods with distinct institutional matrices and ideological contexts: (1) 1991–2014: dominance of local politico-economic elites (“Donetskie”), who consolidated power via the Party of Regions and a specific “Donetsk” identity; (2) 2014–2022: division between self-proclaimed DPR/LPR and post-Maidan Kyiv, with competing Ukrainization and separatist ideologies influencing institutions; (3) 2022 onward: Russian occupation and annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, marked by expansion of “Russian World” ideology.While much literature examines ideology’s unidirectional impact on institutional matrices (stable, historically embedded systems governing economy, polity, and society), this study advances a reciprocal perspective. It tests the hypothesis that local economic, geographic, demographic, and socio-cultural factors (values, ethnicity, language, traditions) not only determine whether an ideology takes root but actively adapt and transform it. Using historical institutionalism, the paper traces interdependence between evolving ideologies and institutional matrices. Methodologically, it integrates document analysis, economic/demographic statistics, interviews, surveys, and process tracing.The analysis has two main parts: first, tracing origins, motivations, dissemination strategies, and policy/institutional translations of key ideological dogmas across the three periods; second, examining how Donbas’s formal and informal institutions—along with structural and “soft” characteristics—facilitated or obstructed the spread, entrenchment, and evolution of these ideologies, including emergence of hybrid forms. By emphasizing bidirectional causalities, the paper provides fresh insights into the resilience and adaptability of ideological projects in contested post-Soviet borderlands, particularly under annexation and wartime ideologization.

The conventional explanation for the escalation and radicalization of identity politics in Ukraine over the past decade attributes it primarily to Russia’s hybrid warfare, which later became full-scale aggression. Without denying this factor, this paper broadens the perspective by examining the dynamics of interests, actions, and interactions among key initiators and actors of identity politics—especially right-wing and populist groups, organizations, and their allies.The focus is on two interconnected domains: historical and linguistic identity politics. The chronological scope shows that escalation began before the Russian–Ukrainian war. The paper analyzes identity politics and its actors in the context of symbolic capital accumulation, instrumentalization, social advancement, and material interests. Particular attention goes to internal mechanisms, including intra-party and bureaucratic dynamics, and the ways ideas and practices are generated and promoted.

Much discussion of Ukrainian society since 2022 has been shaped by a teleological narrative of national consolidation resulting from _maidan_ revolutions and war with Russia. This narrative suffers from exceptionalism and methodological nationalism, while relying on paradigms that have dominated post-Soviet studies: democratization theory, postcolonial frameworks, and patronal politics models. The war's course increasingly challenges this narrative and its underlying knowledge paradigms, raising questions about the durability, scale, and social heterogeneity of post-2014 and post-2022 consolidation. This paper presents preliminary results from a cross-national collaborative project based on representative surveys conducted in 2025 across four post-Soviet countries—Ukraine, Armenia, Russia, and Belarus—that experienced successful, suppressed, or preempted revolutions and subsequent variable involvement in wars. By situating Ukrainian developments in comparative context, the analysis reveals patterns obscured by nation-centric frameworks. Rather than viewing Ukrainian wartime ideologization and volunteerism as primarily bottom-up processes of national identity consolidation, this study examines how class asymmetries and hegemonic crisis dynamics shape civic activism, tolerance of draft dodging, nationalism, and government support. The paper contributes to a research program on post-Soviet and post-invasion transformations grounded in dynamic class analysis. It contextualizes regional developments within the global hegemony crisis and reveals how material interests mediate ideologies, civic participation, and support for political regimes across the region.