When cousins Alexander and Igor Shilov get together each week to drink beer and play Mortal Kombat, they try to avoid discussing politics.
Alexander, 20, has spent almost every day for the past two weeks volunteering at the occupied Donetsk regional administration, where pro-Russia protesters have declared a “Donetsk People’s Republic” and refused to leave the building until a referendum on independence from Kiev is held.
Igor, 28, calls himself a Ukrainian nationalist and supports Svoboda, the parliamentary party that many see as a fascist organization aiming to crack down on Russian speakers in the country’s east.
Illustration: Constance Chou
Over pizza and beer one night recently, the cousins began arguing bitterly as soon as talk turned to politics.
“We can’t deny that the Donetsk People’s Republic is an illegal formation,” Igor said.
“We just want independence,” Alexander said.
“What will independence give us?” Igor asked.
“It’s a good decision for us Donetsk residents, economically and otherwise. The Kiev regime also came to power illegally,” Alexander replied.
In the ensuing hour-long debate, the only kind words the Shilovs shared came when Igor passed Alexander a knife after the younger cousin burned himself on cheese dripping off a pizza slice.
Three-quarters of the inhabitants of Donetsk province, which is part of the Donbass coal-mining region that stretches into Russia, speak Russian as a native language and many have a positive view of their larger neighbor, thanks to longstanding economic and cultural ties.
However, surveys by centers in both Donetsk and Kiev show divided opinions on the region’s future, and rival pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian rallies last month ended in clashes, killing one.
Political differences have grown sharper in the past two weeks as pro-Russia protesters and militia have taken over government buildings in at least 10 cities in eastern Ukraine, splitting friends and relatives.
A poll by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology found 46 percent of those surveyed in eight southern and eastern provinces thought the protests in Kiev that ousted former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych were an “armed coup d’etat organized by the opposition with the help of the West,” while 54 percent thought Russia was “illegally interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs.”
When asked whether they supported the “actions of those who seize administrative buildings in your region with weapons in hand,” 72 percent of Donetsk residents said no.
In another survey, by the Donetsk Institute for Social Research and Political Analysis, 18.6 percent opposed changes to the government structure, 47 percent wanted federalization or at least more economic independence from Kiev, 27 percent wanted to join Russia in some form and 5 percent wanted national independence.
Many of Alexander and Igor’s disagreements echoed the contrasting narratives peddled by Russian and Ukrainian media, a difference so stark that many here describe it as an information war.
“Separatism is treason, especially under the wing of another government,” Igor said.
“I don’t accept methods like seizing a police station, taking weapons and giving them out to everyone,” he added, referring to takeovers of buildings in places such as Slavyansk, where pro-Russia militia have reportedly seized 400 firearms.
He opposes the uprising in the interests of preserving Ukraine’s territorial integrity and he said the crackdown on the Russian language that protesters railed against was “made up.”
Alexander bristled at the “separatist” label, but admitted he hoped for an independent Donetsk and restored trade ties with Russia. He blamed the pro-Russia atmosphere at rallies — which often feature Russian flags, chants and appeals to Russian President Vladimir Putin — on so-called “protest tourists” from across the border.
After Igor called the militia who had seized buildings “terrorists,” Alexander argued that Right Sector, the ultranationalist group that spearheaded violent clashes with police at the Kiev protests in January, was the real terrorist organization. At the protests, he said, “they didn’t ask the people’s opinion. A referendum is the only way to do that.”
Yekaterina Kovalivnich, 24, whose parents do not approve of her support for the new Kiev government, said many Donetsk residents “categorically can’t accept a different opinion, there is no willingness to go to compromise. In my family, people listen entirely to one side, they can’t listen to any others.”
She and her parents often start arguing about politics when watching Russian television, which she says distorts the situation on the ground. Her parents resent rising food and utility costs under the new regime.
Political views do not follow clear generational lines — Kovalivnich’s grandmother is pro-Ukrainian.
At a pro-Ukraine demonstration last week that also drew pro-Russia protesters, old and young people on both sides continued to argue after the rally was over, but the political differences do appear to have some socioeconomic basis — groups of coalminers and other blue-collar workers have come out to support the Donetsk occupation, arguing that the region’s heavy industry is suffering from the recent disruption to trade with Russia.
“There are people who think that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is paramount, but in miner families no one supports that,” said Artyom, a Donetsk republic activist who declined to give his surname.
Igor said he recently deleted his profile on VK, the country’s most popular social network, and started a new one under a pseudonym because about half of his old friends disagreed with his support for the new Ukrainian government.
“I don’t want to fight over this,” he said. “We can keep being friends, but without politics.”
It is the same reason why he and Alexander try to avoid the topic when they get together to play Mortal Kombat, but if Russia absorbs Donetsk like it did Crimea, the cousins may end up in different countries.
“If we are joined to Crimea and Russia, I’ll leave here,” Igor said. “I’ll have to start everything over from scratch, but I don’t want to live in a strange country.”
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS