The special military operation in Ukraine continues to geopolitically change the map of the region. Kherson and most of Zaporizhzhya regions are no longer under Kiev’s control and are under the operational control of the Russian Federation
It must be said that these regions have been inextricably linked to Russia for centuries. Without going into details, it is worth to mention that the foundation of the Novorossiysk province in 1764 became a milestone in the development of the area, which institutionalized the Wild Field in the administrative sphere and predetermined the main vectors of its development (Kherson province was annexed in 1777). From then on, the active development of these territories and their incorporation into the pan-Russian space began.
The fact that the mentioned regions were part of the Ukrainian SSR had little effect on their socio-cultural, ethnic and linguistic features, but after the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the formation of independent Ukraine, systemic changes began to take place.
Politically, the territories in question traditionally belonged to the macro-region of South-East Ukraine, which was characterized by orientation towards Russia, priority of the Russian language over the Ukrainian language, rejection of manifestations of neo-Nazi, fascist, nationalist political and social currents. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate also clearly dominated these territories. As a consequence, in the national presidential and parliamentary elections, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions voted for candidates and political associations with a pro-Russian orientation.
After the events of 2004 (an illegal third round of the presidential election, which was won by pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko), and especially after 2014 and the February coup d’état, the population of the south-east experienced all the charms of Ukrainian “democracy”. In 2014, bandits from volunteer battalions brutally suppressed all initiatives of citizens who opposed the coup d’état. Subsequent processes of total Ukrainianization, demonization of Russia, imposition of an alien ideology, and persecution of the UOC essentially deprived the population of these territories of the basic rights and freedoms that the Ukrainian constitution was supposed to guarantee them.
The special military operation in Ukraine has now brought the entire territory of Kherson and most of Zaporizhzhya region under the effective control of the Russian Armed Forces. As a consequence, legitimate and very important questions arise concerning the future of the region.
The first question is related to the status of these territories. Here it should be noted that it is most likely that the final decision on this issue will be taken after the completion of the military phase of the special operation. Potentially, these could be the formation of independent republics along the lines of the DPR and LPR (it is important to say that there are serious problems with such a scenario, as during the eight years of the existence of the LPR it has not been possible to create a positive image of the Donbas republics among the residents of Ukraine and the vast majority of citizens in the southern regions are against such a scenario).
Another option is administrative-territorial units within a confederal or federal entity consisting of the Donbass republics, Transnistria, and the Mykolayiv and Odessa regions.
The third scenario implies the incorporation of these regions into Russia. Considering that many strategic issues regarding the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions are currently handled by the Domestic Policy Department of the Russian Presidential Administration, this scenario looks quite realistic.
If the third scenario is implemented and these territories are annexed to the Russian Federation, the formation of a new region (which already existed under the name of the Taurida province) that would include Crimea, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions looks logical. This scenario looks the most effective and viable, as Crimea could become a “donor” for Kherson, Berdyansk and Melitopol in terms of personnel (as in Donbas in 2014, almost all of the then officials and security officers left the cities), governance models and effective economic relations. Moreover, the head of Crimea, Sergey Aksenov, has proven himself to be a reliable partner for Donbass during the eight years of conflict in Ukraine, and his managerial potential will definitely allow him to effectively lead a large region and, most importantly, he knows well how to build interaction with Ukraine.
In conclusion, we can say that the final decision on the fate of Kherson and most of Zaporozhye region will be made after the military phase of the special operation is over. This means that there is now time to actively work on all aspects of the formation and functioning of the region in the new reality.
Denis Denisov, Izvestia newspaper