Deterritorializing Conflict, Reterritorializing Boundaries

Home , Deterritorialization, Reterritorialization

Stockholm Studies in Sociology, New Series 78 Sofiya Voytiv Ideas, symbols and traditions connected to "homeland" usually have a special place in the activities and processes of diaspora. But what Deterritorializing Conflict, happens in the diaspora setting when a war suddenly errupts in the "homeland"? Reterritorializing Boundaries

Deterritorializing Conflict,Deterritorializing Boundaries Reterritorializing This dissertation is positioned at the intersection of diaspora and war Diaspora and Conflict in the "Homeland" in the "homeland", and attempts to theoretically conceptualize war in its meaning dimension in the diasporic setting. Sofiya Voytiv I discuss the multiple ways the war in the "homeland" can contribute to a shift in the group boundary making processes and shape relationships in the diasporic setting. While focusing on Ukrainian- Russian conflict and Ukrainian and Russian diaspora in Sweden, I argue that the phenomena of conflict deterritorialization and its reterritorialization in the country of residence might also be present in other contexts and settings of relatively free democracies.

Sofiya Voytiv is a sociologist interested in patterns of conflict transnationalization and diaspora

ISBN 978-91-7911-144-1 ISSN 0491-0885

Department of Sociology

Doctoral Thesis in Sociology at Stockholm University, Sweden 2020

Deterritorializing Conflict, Reterritorializing Boundaries Diaspora and Conflict in the "Homeland" Sofiya Voytiv Academic dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology at Stockholm University to be publicly defended on Friday 29 May 2020 at 13.00 in Nordenskiöldsalen, Geovetenskapens hus, Svante Arrhenius väg 12.

Abstract Ethnicized armed conflicts are usually studied in their territorial dimension and analyzed through the patterns of involvement of different direct and indirect actors. Mostly the focus lies on the multiple ways these direct and indirect actors affect the processes and outcomes of such conflicts. While direct actors mostly participate in the fighting itself, indirect ones can involve transnational advocacy organizations and diasporic groups. Diasporas in this perspective are usually considered to be either “peace-makers” or “peace-wreckers”. Less research has been done on the effects the ethnicized armed conflict in the “homeland” can have on diasporic communities. In this dissertation, I develop theoretical conceptualization of the intersection of armed conflict in the “homeland” and diaspora. I focus on a specific case of Ukrainian-Russian conflict and Ukrainian, Russian and conflict-generated diasporic groups in Sweden. I argue that the ethnicized armed conflict in the “homeland” can become deterritorialized. In other words, ideas, attitudes and ethnicized narratives of such conflicts can become detached from a certain geographical location and settle in the transnational space of interactions. Such conflict deterritorialization can in its turn trigger diasporization processes elsewhere. It can also mobilize the pre-existing diasporic organizations for “homeland”-related activism. If diasporic individuals and communities use the symbols, ideas and narratives of the conflict in the “homeland” in defining the Other, as well as their relationships and networks, another process – conflict reterritorialization – is at play. This process can subsequently shift group boundary making and maintenance processes. Together, the concepts of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization help explain the patterns and mechanisms of the armed conflict in its meaning dimension. In addition, such theoretical conceptualization enables the analysis of the effects the conflict might have in the diasporic setting, including the processes of politicization. Using the specific case of Ukrainian-Russian conflict (2014-ongoing) I analyze the collaboration networks of Ukrainian, Russian and conflict-generated organizations active in Sweden between 2013 and 2016 and interview Ukrainians and Russians from Ukraine living in Sweden. I show that both patterns of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization are present in this specific diasporic setting to different degrees. Study 1 theoretically conceptualizes conflict deterritorialization as a diasporization process using previous findings from different case studies. Study 2 investigates the mechanisms of diaspora politicization and the role of conflict-generated diasporas in facilitating these mechanisms. In Study 3 I find that during the most violent period of war in eastern Ukraine, the attitude towards the conflict might have become a leading factor for collaborations between diasporic organizations. And, finally, Study 4 explores the potentiality of armed conflict in the “homeland” to contribute to a shift in ethnic group boundary making processes in the diasporic setting. Taken together the four studies aim to shed light on the non-territorial meaning dimension of the ethnicized armed conflicts theoretically and empirically. Thus, the dissertation contributes to the development of the holistic understanding of war and diaspora while taking into account the importance of contexts, factors and conditions of the country of residence, the “homeland” and the transnational space.

Keywords: diasporic groups, ethnicity, ethnicized armed conflict, conflict deterrito-rialization, conflict reterritorialization, Ukrainian-Russian conflict, Ukrainians, Russians, Sweden, collaboration networks, group boundary making processes.

Stockholm 2020 http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-180741

ISBN 978-91-7911-144-1 ISBN 978-91-7911-145-8 ISSN 0491-0885

Department of Sociology

Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm

DETERRITORIALIZING CONFLICT, RETERRITORIALIZING BOUNDARIES

Sofiya Voytiv

Deterritorializing Conflict, Reterritorializing Boundaries

Diaspora and Conflict in the "Homeland"

Sofiya Voytiv ©Sofiya Voytiv, Stockholm University 2020

ISBN print 978-91-7911-144-1 ISBN PDF 978-91-7911-145-8 ISSN 0491-0885

Cover image: © Photographer Johanna Blom, Stockholm

Printed in Sweden by Universitetsservice US-AB, Stockholm 2020 To my mom

List of Studies

I Féron, Élise & Voytiv, Sofiya. Unpacking the ‘Diaspora Turn’: Toward the Theory of Conflict Deterritorialization. Submitted manuscript

II Voytiv, Sofiya. Politicization of Diasporic Organizational Net- work during the Armed Conflict in the ‘Homeland’. Submitted manuscript

III Voytiv,Sofiya. Ukrainian and Russian organizations in Sweden and the conflict “back home”. Connections.

IV Voytiv, Sofiya. Conflict Reterritorialization: Shifting Group Boundaries in the Diaspora during the Armed Conflict in the ‘Homeland’. Submitted manuscript

Abstract

Ethnicized armed conflicts are usually studied in their territorial dimension and analyzed through the patterns of involvement of different direct and indirect actors. Mostly the focus lies on the multiple ways these direct and indirect actors affect the processes and outcomes of such conflicts. While direct actors mostly participate in the fighting itself, indirect ones can involve transnational advocacy organizations and diasporic groups. Diasporas in this perspective are usually considered to be either “peace-makers” or “peace-wreckers”. Less research has been done on the effects the ethnicized armed conflict in the “homeland” can have on diasporic communities. In this dissertation, I develop theoretical conceptualization of the intersection of armed conflict in the “homeland” and diaspora. I focus on a specific case of Ukrainian-Russian conflict and Ukrainian, Russian and conflict-generated diasporic groups in Sweden. I argue that the ethnicized armed conflict in the “homeland” can become deterritorialized. In other words, ideas, attitudes and ethnicized narratives of such conflicts can become detached from a certain geographical location and settle in the transnational space of interactions. Such conflict deterritorialization can in its turn trigger diasporization processes elsewhere. It can also mobilize the pre-existing diasporic organizations for “homeland”-related activism. If diasporic individuals and communities use the symbols, ideas and narratives of the conflict in the “homeland” in defining the Other, as well as their relationships and networks, another process – conflict reterritorialization – is at play. This process can subsequently shift group boundary making and maintenance processes. Together, the concepts of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization help explain the patterns and mechanisms of the armed conflict in its meaning dimension. In addition, such theoretical conceptualization enables the analysis of the effects the conflict might have in the diasporic setting, including processes of politicization. Using the specific case of Ukrainian-Russian conflict (2014-ongoing) I analyze the collaboration networks of Ukrainian, Russian and conflict-generated organizations active in Sweden between 2013 and 2016 and interview Ukrain- ians and Russians from Ukraine living in Sweden. I show that both patterns of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization are present in this specific diasporic setting to different degrees. In Study 1 we theoretically conceptualize conflict deterritorialization as a diasporization process using previous findings from different case studies. In Study 2 investigates the mechanisms of diaspora politicization and the role of conflict-generated diasporas in facilitating these mechanisms. In Study 3 I find that during the most violent period of war in eastern Ukraine, the attitude towards the conflict might have become a leading factor for collaborations between diasporic organizations. And, finally, Study 4 explores the potentiality of armed conflict in the “homeland” to contribute to a shift in ethnic group boundary making processes in the diasporic setting. Taken together the four studies aim to shed light on the non-territorial meaning dimension of the ethnicized armed conflicts theoretically and empirically. Thus, the dissertation contributes to the development of the holistic understanding of war and diaspora while taking into account the importance of contexts, factors and conditions of the country of residence, the “homeland” and the transnational space.

Sammanfattning

Etnifierade väpnade konflikter studeras vanligtvis i deras territoriella dimension och genom analys av mönster av medverkande av olika direkta och indirekta aktörer. För det mesta ligger fokus på de olika sätt dessa direkta och indirekta aktörer påverkar processer och utfall av sådana konflikter. Medan direkta aktörer för det mesta deltar i själva striderna, kan de indirekta aktö- rerna involvera transnationella förespråkningsorganisationer och diasporiska grupper. Diasporor anses vanligtvis ur detta perspektiv vara antingen “freds- skapare” eller “fredsförstörare”. Mindre uppmärksamhet har riktats mot de ef- fekter de etnifierade väpnade konflikterna i ”hemlandet” kan ha på diasporiska grupper i de länder de är bosatta. I denna avhandling, utvecklar jag teoretisk konceptualisering av konflikt i “hemlandet” och diaspora samt specifika fall av Ukraina-Ryssland konflikten och ukrainsk, rysk och konfliktgenererade diasporiska grupper i Sverige. Jag hävdar att etnifierade väpnade konflikter i “hemlandet” kan bli de- territorialiserade. Med andra ord, idéer, attityder och etnifierade narrativ av sådana konflikter kan bli frånkopplade från en viss geografisk plats och bli del av det transnationella interaktionsutrymmet. En sådan konfliktdeterritorialisering kan i sin tur framkalla diasporiseringsprocesser. Den kan även mo- bilisera redan existerande diasporiska organisationer för “hemland”-relaterad aktivism. Om disaporiska individer och organisationer använder ”hemlands”- konfliktens symboler, idéer och narrativ för att definiera den “Andra”, samt deras relationer och nätverk, ytterligare en process – konfliktreterritori- alisering – är aktiverad. Denna process kan därefter skifta gruppers gräns- skapande och upprätthållande. Tillsammans bidrar deterritorialiserings- och reterritorialiseringskoncepten till att förklara mönster och mekanismer av väpnade konflikters meningsdi- mension. Sådan teoretisk konceptualisering möjliggör även analys av effek- terna konflikten kan ha i det disaporiska sammanhanget, inklusive processer av politisering. Baserat på det specifika fallet Ukraina-Ryssland konflikten (2014-på- gående), analyserar jag samarbetsnätverk av ukrainska, ryska och konfliktgenererade organisationer aktiva i Sverige mellan 2013 och 2016 samt intervjuar ukrainare och ryssar från Ukraina bosatta i Sverige. Jag visar att båda mönst- ren av konflikt deterritorialisering och reterritorialisering är närvarande i detta specifika diasporiska sammanhang i olika grad. I Studie 1 använder vi tidigare rön från olika fallstudier för att teoretiskt konceptualisera konfliktdeterritorialisering som en diasporiseringsprocess. I Studie 2 undersöker mekanismerna av diasporapolitisering och konfliktgenererade diasporors roll i att främja dessa mekanismer. Studie 3 finner jag att attityden mot konflikten kan ha blivit en av de ledande faktorerna för samar- bete mellan diasporiska organisationer under den mest våldsamma krigspe- rioden i östra Ukraina. Slutligen utforskar Studie 4 utvecklingsmöjligheterna av väpnade konflikterna i ”hemlandet” att bidra till ett skifte i grupp-gräns- dragningsprocesser i det diasporiska sammanhanget. Tillsammans belyser de fyra studierna, teoretiskt och empiriskt, den icke- territoriella meningsdimensionen av den etnifierade väpnade konflikten. På så sätt, bidrar avhandlingen till utveckling av den holistiska uppfattningen av krig och diaspora med hänsyn till betydelsen av sammanhang, faktorer och förhållanden i bosättningslandet, “hemlandet” och det transnationella utrym- met.

Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my special gratitude to my main supervisor Jens Rydgren. While providing me the most insightful advice, you also gave me a lot of academic freedom. Your expertise and support in developing ideas as well as your professional guidance overall has taught me to have confidence and always strive for more. Our discussions were always fruitful and helped me to navigate my way through this project specifically and academic life in general. Thank you for encouraging me to do a semester abroad in New York. It was an incredible personal and professional experience which I am indebted for. To my second supervisor Fredrik Liljeros, I am grateful for showing me the value and importance of multidisciplinary collaborations and networking. You have encouraged me throughout my studies to be open to new and innovative methods and ideas as well as supported me with your valuable advice. To Hernan Mondani, who has numerously helped me with great feedback on my papers and ideas, you have been an incredible source of support and knowledge not only within the academic but also “real” life as a great friend. I am grateful to all additional support I have received from the Qualitative Methods Research group at the Department, especially to Anna Lund, Andrea Voyer and Vanessa Barker. Our discussions were extremely important for the development of this project, as well as you have given me support at times when I felt overwhelmed. To Élise Féron, who I met at the end of my dissertation work, but who have helped me tremendously to navigate across the theoretical aspects of my research. You have been an incredible person to work with but also shown me the amazing ways academics can come together from different fields and contribute in a meaningful way to knowledge production. To all the teaching and administrative stuff who all always supported me when I started teaching. Anna-Carin Haag and Peter Åkerbäck, thank you for always having your doors open to me, and your incredible support! A huge thank you also to you, Anna Borén and Katia Roboti Cronin for helping me out numerous times. To Daniel Ritter and Mikaela Sundberg, thank you both for having me as your teaching assistant for several first semesters of my teaching at the Department, - the experience of working with you on sociological theory and qualitative methods courses was amazing and encouraged me to teach in the future. Thank you all for giving me the opportunity to learn from all of you the importance of teaching. This experience has shaped my own research perspectives a lot. To all colleagues at the Sociology Department and the Demography Unit, the vibrant innovative and incredibly interesting scientific environment you all contribute to has been a major inspiration for me. Thank you for the numerous lunch debates, silly and serious, including the famous “which kind of a potato are you?”. To all the current PhD students as well as some from the cohorts before, thank you for being such a supportive group. Thank you for your friendships, Signe, Kati, Andrea, Serena, Jelena, Laure, Filip, Weiqian, Erik, Max, Petter, Simon, Thomas, Katarina, Anton, Rita, Erik, Johanna, Linda, Lauren and all the others. I am also especially grateful to you, Rosa Weber, for being a great officemate and an amazing friend throughout the years in Stockholm. Thank you, Daniel Dahl for being such a great new officemate. To my best friends in Sweden, Johanna, Klara, David, Andrew, Mattias, and Martin, - the appreciation I feel is beyond description. All our hangouts and discussions in Sweden and beyond have been a major source of support and fun to me. Having you around always feels like home. To Sanna, thank you for being a great friend and for sharing advice and experience with me. To Selcan, thank you for all the support to get through the lows of writing dissertation as well as personal life. To Miriam and Cecilia, you both have been great inspiration since the days in Lund. No matter the geography or time zones, we always are there for each other. To Ivo, thank you for introducing me to frozen pizzas and inspiring me to do a PhD. To my best and oldest friends in Ukraine, Anya, Polina, Orest and Nastya – we have been through a lot together, and I appreciate that you always have been there for me. To my family, my grandmother Bogdana, my grandfather Myroslav, my parents Yuliana and Vasyl, I love you all and I am forever grateful for always supporting my ambition, always encouraging me to do and be more. Without you I would never have achieved anything, including finishing this dissertation. To my siblings, Arden and Drew, you are my heart. Thank you for always being there for me, despite the different continents. To my partner, Filip, your love, kindness and understanding, as well as your incredible patience have lifted me up when it was the most difficult to. Finally, to all the participants of the studies this dissertation is based on. Your experiences, stories and trust have all made this project possible. Thank you for sharing it all with me.

Stockholm, April 2020

Contents

List of Studies ...... i Abstract ...... ii Sammanfattning ...... iv Acknowledgments ...... vi Introduction ...... 1 Research questions ...... 2 Ethnicity, Ethnicized conflicts, and the case of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict ...... 4 Diasporizing “Diaspora” ...... 8 The Diaspora Turn: Conflict in the “homeland” and diasporic communities 10 Theoretical Framework ...... 14 Deterritorialization and reterritorialization of the armed conflict ...... 14 Data and method ...... 18 Research context ...... 18 Analytical strategy ...... 19 Multiple methods research design ...... 19 Multilevel approach ...... 19 Data sources ...... 20 Micro level ...... 20 Organizational level ...... 21 Methodological discussion ...... 23 Interviews ...... 23 Exponential random graph models ...... 24 Cluster analysis ...... 25 Ethical considerations and positionalities ...... 27 Thesis structure and summary of the studies ...... 29 Discussion ...... 31 Limitations ...... 31 Conclusions ...... 32 References ...... 33

Introduction

In 2019, after the US withdrawal of its troops from Syria, Turkey started its military operation in north-eastern Syria that targeted hundreds of thousands of Kurdish population. Only a day after this news broke out, massive demonstrations involving thousands of people were organized across Stockholm, Sweden. During 2014 (as well as many other occasions at different time points) as Israel expanded its military ground offensive in Gaza, city streets of Paris, London, and Sydney among many others, were flooded by pro-Pales- tinian protesters. In late 2013, during the Revolution in Ukraine as well as the subsequent annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and war in eastern Ukraine, Ukrainians around the world showed their support for the “homeland”. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the American-led coalition was similarly answered by anti-war protests across the globe. These are just a few of many examples highlighting the modern armed conflicts’ potency to contribute to mobilizations, activism and diasporization processes elsewhere. Modern wars usually concern identity politics, such as ethnic, religious, national, or linguistic group belonging in contrast to the geo-political or ideo- logical goals of wars before the Cold War (Kaldor, 2012; 2013). There is also sufficient evidence for the increase in the political weight of diaspora communities that often play a crucial role in the modern armed conflicts (Demmers, 2002). Traditionally, however, armed conflicts have been studied as interactions between the actors directly involved in the military action, alternatively – indirectly through sending remittances and humanitarian aid from around the world (Kaldor, 2012). Less research has been done on understanding the patterns of conflict deterritorialization, i.e., the conflict’s potency to be reinvented, transported, or reflected across geographical space to the contexts of migrant and diasporic individuals. Having a special connection to the often ethnicized idea of “homeland” (Agnew, 2005), diasporic individuals might mobilize their ethnic and other identities for collective action in the country of residence as a response to the armed conflict or war “back home.” Increased speed of communication and cultural production of political boundaries can all contribute to such mobilization of identities (Demmers, 2002, p. 86). However, the special performa- tive capacity to “enact” conflicts that modern informational technology has (Cottle, 2006) can further “connect the war with the home” (Shapiro, 2011, p. 119), wherever that home might be.

1 In this dissertation, I aim to investigate if, why, and how the conflict can become relevant and symbolically transported or deterritorialized from its immediate location and become reinvented, reflected, or reterritorialized into diaspora settings and interaction spaces. I focus specifically on the Ukrainian- Russian conflict as a case of an ethnicized conflict and Ukrainians and Rus- sians in Sweden. The dissertation consists of a theoretical and general methodological cover chapter (kappa) and four articles. The cover chapter consists of a theoretical discussion on concepts of ethnicity and ethnicized conflicts, with a special focus on the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. This discussion is then followed by an overview of studies on diasporas during armed conflict in their “home- lands”. Overall, the chapter aims to highlight the narratives of ethnicity and ethnic belonging that have a potency to saturate diasporic identity elsewhere. Thus, it sketches the focus of the dissertation as being at the intersection of diaspora, ethnicity, and ethnicized war in the “homeland”. Following the theoretical discussion, I present a methodological strategy of the dissertation. The next four articles focus specifically on answering the research questions, with the case of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict and Ukrainian and Russian diaspora in Sweden and a theoretical discussion of different conflict deterritorialization cases in an attempt to move toward a wider theory of conflict deterritorialization.

Research questions I use the theoretical concepts of deterritorialization and reterritorialization as introduced by Deleuze and Guattari (1987 (1980)) to answer the following research questions: 1. To what extent does the armed conflict ongoing in the “homeland” have a capacity to be reflected in the diasporic setting? 2. How can the attitude toward the ongoing war in the “homeland” become embroiled in and shift the ethnic boundary-making and maintenance processes on the individual level in defining the Self and the Other? To answer these questions, I employ a set of methods, which allow the analysis to be conducted on micro and organizational levels. I interviewed 38 people with personal, organizational, and other experiences to investigate the micro level of ethnicity constructions and boundary making processes in relation to the conflict in the “homeland”. In addition, I studied collaboration networks of 59 different diasporic organizations active in Sweden to investigate the organizational level. I argue that both the history of previous interactions in the network and attitude toward the conflict in the “homeland” can deter- mine tie formations between these different organizations. I also investigate

2 the mechanisms of politicization of this collaboration network. All this was done with the context of Sweden carefully taken into account. I believe that taken together, these different levels of analysis will not only give a clearer perspective on the interaction between diasporic individuals/organizations, but also the patterns of mobilization during the armed conflict in the “homeland”.

3 Ethnicity, Ethnicized conflicts, and the case of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict

Ethnicity as one of the central concepts used in this dissertation is also one of the most discussed in social sciences. There are a number of theoretical perspectives on understanding ethnicity. Chow (2010) differentiates between two main theoretical paradigms. The first paradigm, she argues, conceptualizes ethnicity as an instance of culture. One example could be Eller (1999) who argues that ethnicity is a complex “reworking, remembering, sometimes reinvention, and always employ- ment of culture in the light and service of present and even future considerations” (1999, p. 5). In other words, it relates both to identity and subjective characteristic within a specific cultural context. This paradigm, however, tends to assume that each ethnic group was developed in isolation and by its own history. Such matching of culture and ethnicity has become a new realm for racism that works now through justification of discrimination and the no- tions of so-called cultural differences or incompatibility of cultural identities (Balibar, 2002). The second paradigm understands ethnicity through the politics of oppression and instead of seeing it as a condition of all, it analyzes the inequalities that ethnicity is articulated in (Chow, 2010). For example, discussing ethnicity in its relation to class through the implicit and explicit ranking within these two constructs (Hylland Erkisen, 2002). Ethnicity, according to this paradigm, is part of social relationships and requires actors to identify themselves as dis- tinctive from other groups. The groups are thus constructed in relation to the other groups. In other words, everyone is part of some ethnic group. Therefore, everyone is ethnic. Chow (2010) challenges this assumption and claims that “if everyone is ethnic, then nobody is”. The perceived universalism of the concept of ethnicity tends to be unable to account for the ethnic struggles that come together with hostility and intolerance (ibid, p. VII). In her reading of Foucault’s theorizing on biopower, Chow concludes that sexuality and ethnicity as well as race are coterminous, and furthermore suggests that looking at these separately would be counterproductive. In other words, racist strategies are inbuilt, in her opinion, into the stratification of knowledge and resource distribution. Others, like Calhoun (1993), trace ethnicity back to religious di- visions that were superseded by linguistic ones in the wake of nationalism.

4 For example, Protestantism, Calhoun (ibid) claims, developed the idea of sovereignty of people against the Church and monarchs, with the help of the conceptualizations of nation and ethnicity. He further argues that the ethnicity momentum comes to being when the cultural traditions of the everyday are changed into specific historical and territorial claims. A theoretical perspective I use in this dissertation is the social constructivist perspective on ethnic groups being created through the boundaries between the perceived us and them. These boundaries are not fixed and are maintained through different strategies (Barth, 1969). Therefore, ethnicity is created through the relations of different groups and exists through constant processes of creation and maintenance of the boundaries between them but also is contextualized within wider social processes of power and oppression (Barth, 1969; Jenkins, 1994; Wimmer, 2008). I argue that when the conflict in the “homeland” occurs, simultaneously with different diasporization processes, a shift in boundary-making and maintenance practices comes into existence, namely – the attitude toward the war (see, Article 4). This can be specifically the case where old grievances are reconsidered and when the conflict in the “homeland” uses narratives of ethnic belonging of certain territories. Often, studies on “ethnic conflicts” are based on the primordialist assumption of “realness” of the categories of ethnicity (Brubaker, 2002; 2014). They view ethnicity as a stable, fixed, category or characteristic that has a long history and tradition of making and is fairly easy to delineate (Chow, 2010). This perspective explains a war between “ethnic groups” purely on the ideas of some historical hatred. All the differences, like language, value sets, and culture, are viewed to be so very different that these groups simply cannot co- exist peacefully. For example, Brown (2010) lists several explanations for “ethnic conflicts”: systematic, domestic, and perceptual. Systematic explanations in Brown’s analysis include the nature of security systems of the groups and the proximity of residence of two or more ethnic groups. Domestic explanations are those that focus on the states’ effectiveness, nationalism, and inter- ethnic relations, as well as the effects of democratization. Finally, perceptual explanations are those focusing on the collective myths of the ethnic groups themselves as well as those of others. Evidently, this perspective views ethnic group as a fairly fixed category. Moreover, in its view, if such groups are ge- ographically close enough to each other, if there are no authorities to keep those groups from fighting, and governmental institutions are too weak to se- cure individual groups, then ethnic conflict most probably will take place. Thus, this perspective implies that groups are usually antagonistic to each other. These types of perspectives, however, are problematic and bring bias into the analysis of the ethnicized conflicts. As Brubaker (2004) argues, the unfor- tunate “commonsense” categorization and definition of the ethnic conflict as a conflict between two antagonist ethnic groups brings fallacy to the research by treating the potential outcome of the subject of the study, i.e., war, ethnic

5 hatred, xenophobia, and other, as its cause. To avoid such a bias, he suggests among others referring to the so-called “ethnic conflict” as “ethnicized conflict”. The term captures the complex relationship between violence and ethnicity, and the fluctuating ethnicized conceptualizations and narratives of war that depend on different conditions and contexts. Thus, I will use this term from now on in this dissertation when referring to armed conflicts that involve discourses on ethnic belonging of a certain territory. Current Ukrainian-Russian conflict can arguably be considered as an ethnicized conflict since it has often evoked the discussion of the ethno-linguistic divide of the Ukrainian territory into Russian and Ukrainian speaking regions (a narrative often used by pro-Russian actors). Evidently, though, a number of other factors like geo-political influence are at the core of the conflict among many others. The conflict can be traced back to the Revolution in the late 2013, which began with the then-President Yanukovych’s rejection to sign a trade deal with the EU. The conflict ended in violence and death of approxi- mately a hundred peaceful protesters and more than a dozen of police offic- ers1, and the fleeing of then-President Yanukovych by the end of February 2014. Soon after in March, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimean Pen- insula, which is an autonomous region within Ukraine. Later that year, Rus- sian-backed separatists supported by Russian army soldiers began an insur- gency in the eastern Ukraine regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. The first two years, of the war in 2014 and 2015, saw tremendous human loses, including the downing of a commercial flight MH17 in July 2014, a flight that claimed the lives of 298 passengers and crew. Most of the time since 2016, the war has usually been referred to as a “frozen conflict”, with fewer fatalities with each passing year. However, despite the official ceasefire, the fighting continues every day. In total, over 4 million people have been directly affected by the war (The World Bank, 2017). According to the OHCHR the conflict has led to more than 10,000 casualties (by 2017) and about 3,344 ci- vilians killed by the end of 2019 (OHCHR, 2019). Russian involvement, including the annexation of Crimea rests its argument on the so-called “defense of Russian peoples” against the Ukrainian far- right (see, Russian Federation President Putin’s address) as well as its propagandist machine, promoting and often glorifying the Soviet past. The presented divide between Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers and their territorial belonging has suddenly become palpable and even more political than ever before in the history of modern Ukraine. Evidently, the discourses on danger for Russian speaking populations were largely overstated and became the main tool for attempts to legitimize the occupation of Ukrainian territories

1 The investigations into the deaths during the Revolution are still ongoing and therefore the estimates are varying. According to official statement in 2019 of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine 78 protesters and 13 police officers were killed (Prosecutor General Office, 2019). Other sources give the estimate of 100 or more protesters having been killed.

6 in Russian politics. That being said, finding itself under the open and immi- nent attack of the Russian Federation, old national grievances and memory politics, including the Soviet period that is largely connected to the rule of Moscow (Portnov, 2013) as well as a more active discussion on the meaning of being Ukrainian have become more present in the public political discourses of Ukraine. Thus, the war in eastern Ukraine is usually discussed in the ethno-nationalist and ethno-linguistic narratives that overlap with the territorial claims of different groups involved. Media and political elites of both countries continuously use these ethnicized narratives. Apart from the military action in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, a massive “informational war” was initialized by the Russian propagandist regime (Hutchings & Szostek, 2015). A concept relatively new to most in 2014 has been connected to so-called “fake news” and misinformation cam- paigns that target people across the globe (Golovchenko et al., 2018). As mentioned briefly in the introduction, during and after the Revolution, annexation of Crimea and subsequent war in eastern Ukraine, a wave of mobilization around the globe of diaspora organizations, especially Ukrainian communities, took place. Many festivals, events, as well as protests and demonstrations were organized to raise awareness, show support, or condemn actions of the Russian Federation. Some of these were also organized to put pressure on the countries of residence of diaspora groups and their foreign policies toward Ukraine; others targeted specific individuals that were perceived to not represent the values the community shared. These, among many other features of the war in eastern Ukraine, have ap- pealed more to identity, heritage, and origin discussions, which in the case of diasporic communities are usually a central concern. It is thus of interest to further explore how such an ethnicized and mediatized conflict can become (symbolically) transported, or deterritorialized, from its locality and reterritorialized (reinvented, reflected, or recreated) in the diaspora setting. Addi- tionally, it is important to disentangle the way conceptions of ethnicity can be framed in this setting.

7 Diasporizing “Diaspora”

Defining “diaspora” has been one of the most debated topics in the last few decades (Brubaker, 2005). According to Anthias (1998), there has been two approaches to the concept of “diaspora” that academic interest picked up: using “diaspora” as a typological tool or treating it as a social condition and a societal process. In the case of the first approach, “diaspora” is a territorially dispersed homogeneous group (usually due to a catastrophe, or violence) with a strong desire to return “home,” spread out across the globe, and determined to build a “home away from home” (Clifford, 1994; Safran, 1991; Cohen, 1999; Sheffer, 2002 and others). However, a number of issues are problematic with such definitions. First, as Safran (1991) emphasizes, it is not always the commitment to return but more of an ongoing maintenance of the different types of connections and engagements with the collective myth about the “homeland” that is present in the diaspora. This myth is not necessarily connected to a territory and can be translocal as in the case of some religious groups. Dispersion, he suggests, might be both voluntary and involuntary, and not necessarily due to a catastrophe or violence. Finally, while common consciousness and solidarity between members of such groups often equate with the creation of organizations (Safran 1991 in Féron 2017, p. 361), these groups are rarely homogenous. Most of the above definitions, however, do treat diaspora groups as homogenous, not only across but also within a group and, thus implicitly build on essentialist assumptions that reduce the diasporic experiences simply to histories of migration (Chow, 2010). In sum, despite the attempts to shift the attention to the transnational processes and commonalities, most common conceptualizations of “diaspora” still privilege the “origins” and overlook the trans-ethnic commonalities in the constructions of identity and solidarity (Anthias, 1998). Another approach, namely, treating “diaspora” as a societal process concludes that diasporic communities are fluid as well as heterogeneous, often characterized with power struggles delineated along the intersectional lines of social class, gender, ethnicity, religion, and other (Agnew, 2018(2005)). Ac- cording to this perspective, what makes a migrant into a diasporic individual is a changeable set of ideas, symbols, narratives, and discourses that are specifically related to the idea of shared “heritage,” “roots,” and “routes.” All these contribute to a specific diasporic consciousness (Hua, 2005). This con-

8 sciousness is a paradoxical, double one, which by being caught in the multilo- cality of between “here” and “there” shapes the perception of the “shared roots,” including the sentiments to the “homeland” and symbols of ethnicity, attachments, involvement, and participation in the different spheres of the social life in the diasporic individual’s current home (Agnew, 2005). Becoming a diasporic individual, however, does not necessarily entail political mobilization in relation to the “homeland”. There is a difference between political activism targeted and concerned with the “homeland”, and a more general interest in the group and the maintenance of its “traditions” in the country of residence. Such maintenance can primarily refer to cultural identification, to participation in collective events, such as art and perfor- mances, sports competitions, regional cuisine exhibitions, and similar. For example, Spaaij and Broerse (2019) analyze sports as an aesthetic embodied practice of materialization of the Somalian diasporic imagination in the Neth- erlands. Other factors of diaspora mobilizations can include the size of the diasporic group and contextual factors of the country of settlement, including generational, economic, and social (Koinova & Tsourapas, 2018; Gamlen, 2014; Féron, 2017, p. 362). In this dissertation, I use a similar perspective on diasporic communities as processes that are conditional and contextual. In other words, an individual migrant can become a diasporic individual and vice versa – stop being diasporic. I do not assume that diaspora is a state that assumes a permanent group membership. Rather, I claim that there are different diasporization processes that can have stronger or weaker effects on different people, depending on: their personal experiences, racialized and gendered structural conditions, contexts stemming from the “homeland”, the country of residence as well as the transnational space (Agnew, 2005; Anthias, 1998; Chow, 2010; Koinova, 2014; Vertovec, 1997). These diasporization processes can formalize into diasporic organizations or other forms of activism and mobilization that are commonly referred to as “Diaspora”. In this sense, there can be many ways in which a group can become diasporic. One such diasporization process that I am specifically interested in in the current study is non-territorial and connected to the unraveling war in the “homeland”. This particular process of diasporization that will be discussed in the next chapter is specifically connected to the processes of conflict deterritorialization – the symbolic transportation of meanings and ideas from the “homeland” that is currently in the state of war.

9 The Diaspora Turn: Conflict in the “homeland” and diasporic communities

Two larger strands of social research that investigate the intersection of diasporic communities and war in the “homeland” can be defined: within peace and conflict studies and within diaspora studies. Within the field of peace and conflict studies, research is mostly focused on investigating the extent to which diasporic groups can contribute to both peace and violence in the “homeland” (Smith & Stares, 2007; Koinova & Tsourapas, 2018). While scholars that focus on the diasporic groups, primarily are interested in diaspora mobilization patterns, experiences of belonging, and/or discrimination within the country of residence due to or during the conflict in the “homeland” (see for example, Demmers, 2007; Brinkerhoff, 2011; Koinova, 2014; Féron and Lefort, 2019; Gamlen, 2014; Moliner, 2007). While both are valid perspectives, I argue that a more coherent theoretical explaination of the intersection of war and diasporas incorporating the “homeland”, the country of residence and transnational space should be developed. A number of researchers have contributed in recent years to developing a theoretical framework to understand and describe specifically the complex relationship between diaspora, country of residence, the “homeland”, and the war/conflict in the “homeland”. In her study on conflict importation, Féron (2017; Féron & Lefort, 2019) argues that conflicts in the “homeland” might be imported into the country of residence of diasporic communities (even long after the migration has occurred). However, she emphasizes that this process is not a mechanical reflection of the dynamics of the “homeland” conflict. The diasporic space, including intergroup relations, and the context of country of residence, will all shape and format the symbols and ideas taken from the narratives of war in the “homeland” into the specific context of a diasporic group and its relation to other groups where it will situate itself in a divergent way – a process she calls “conflict autonomization” (Féron, 2017; Féron & Lefort, 2019). One example to showcase this can be given by the work of Bahar Baser (2013) who in her study of Kurdish and Turkish diaspora found that the mobilization of Turkish diaspora followed the mobilization of the Kurds in the context of Sweden. In other words, Baser shows that mobilization along the lines of the conflict in the “homeland” can also be contagious between groups. She has also shown in her comparative study the Kurdish-Turkish diaspora

10 relations in Sweden and Germany that the context of the country of residence matters for the patterns of mobilizations and activisms (Baser, 2015). Many argue that the biggest fueling factor of diaspora involvement in the “homeland” politics is ethno-nationalism (Andersson, 1994; Glick Schiller, 2002; Sheffer, 2002 among many others). For example, one often-used concept is that of “long distance nationalism”. Although discussed quite early in social sciences as “home country nationalism” since at least the mid/twentieth century (Glick Schiller, 2018), the term has become more discussed in early 1990s and was particularly popularized by Benedict Anderson (Anderson, 1994; Glick Schiller, 2018; Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002). In the seminal lecture on long-distance nationalism (Anderson, 1992) he further discusses the connection between the development of capitalism, including the growing ac- cessibility of the communicational technologies that relativize time and space in information flows from afar, and possibility of production of the new forms of nationalism. Glick Schiller (2005), in her definition on the long-distance nationalism, states that it is “a set of identity claims and practices that connect people living in various geographical locations to a specific territory that they see as their ancestral home” (Glick Schiller, 2005). In that sense, long-distance national- ists are part of the “homeland”. However, as we discuss with Elise Féron in Article 1 in this dissertation, the paradigm suffers from bias and assumptions that dismiss the cases of both transnational solidarities, and non-ethno-nationalist motivations. Examples of such biases also include the implication that diaspora groups “remember” the “homeland” as it was during the time of em- igration, and do not change their view over time. In addition, most researchers within the paradigm argue that the levels of involvement of long-distance na- tionalists in the “homeland” politics or war is related to the fact that they are safe from persecution in the country of residence (Andersson, 1994; Dem- mers, 2002). However, research shows that diaspora groups can reinvent the conflict and respond to it, depending both on the developments ongoing in the “homeland” and the country of residence (Koinova, 2016; Brinkerhoff, 2011), and that persecution can come across borders and negatively affect an individual even in relatively safe cases (Lundgren Jörum, 2015). In other words, people do not always migrate to safe places after they leave their “homeland”. Overall, the long-distance nationalism theories while useful are not enough to explain the mechanisms of diasporization during the armed conflict in the “homeland”. While ethnicity and nationalism can be part and parcel of diasporic involvement in the “homeland” politics, the (non) “becoming” diasporic is a process that is contextualized by many factors, both in the “homeland” and the country of residence. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that the concepts of ethnicity, nationalism, and diaspora are closely related through their connection to the ideas of belonging and “heritage” (Calhoun, 1993).

11 A specific example of the nexus between diasporization and conflict deterritorialization can be showcased by conflict-generated diasporas. Féron (2017) regards conflict-generated diaspora as a type of a diaspora group, which, in addition to the above-discussed identity structuring processes and attachments to the “homeland”, can be characterized with deep running cleavages related to the ongoing armed conflict in the “homeland”. Different rival diaspora groups thus can reproduce and use the symbols and ideas from the raging conflict in the “homeland”. Such diaspora groups tend to target their activism not so much toward the actual conflict in the “homeland”, but toward organizations or institutions in the country of residence (often defined as to raise awareness, or gather aid) (Koinova, 2014; 2018). Often, these groups are mo- bilized in the different places or sites of expression such as churches, streets, the Internet, among others (Bernal, 2006; Brinkerhoff, 2009, 2011; Féron, 2017; Gayer, 2007; Mohammad-Arif, 2000). In this regard, conflict-generated diasporas are not a special case, but rather show the way in which the diasporization process can lead to creation of new, formalized diasporic organizations, in addition to already pre-existing diasporic groups. The concept of ‘Diaspora Turn,’ suggested by Demmers (2002), proves to be especially helpful. Demmers (2002) states that some conflicts have a capacity to mobilize migrants into becoming diasporic individuals and diasporic groups as well as activate already existing diasporic groups for action (for a more detailed analysis of the concept, see Article 1). When it comes to an ethnicized conflict like the Ukrainian-Russian one, where the political discourse usually incorporates the claims of “ethnic” territorial belonging, modern informational technology plays an important role. Through its intense developments, it has become possible to (virtually) participate in the war that can also create a sense of necessity to “do something” about the situation “back home” right now in the diasporic setting. Keeping in mind the well-documented relation of diaspora to the concepts of ethnicity, the particular ethnicized discourse generated “back home” might become a strong feature in the diasporization processes (for a larger discussion, see Ar- ticle 1). However, not every conflict has the potential to contribute to a diasporization process. As discussed above, actors involved as well as contexts and con- stellations of other factors can play a significant role in shaping diasporization patterns. Some conflicts have never been reflected in any mobilization of diasporic groups or similar. For example, Skrbiš (1999) found that not every individual with a background of migration from a specific country will have the feeling of strong connection and awareness or belonging to their “homeland” and be aware of the ongoing conflict there. In sum, the two processes of conflict deterritorialization and diasporization can be happening simultaneously, and can be triggered by each other, but conflict reterritorialization or reinvention/reproduction of “homeland” conflict patterns cannot happen unless the diasporization process has been at play. As

12 I have shown above, studies at the nexus of war in the “homeland” and diasporic experiences are scarce. They also tend to conflate the processes of conflict deterritorialization, such as transportation of the meaning dimension of the war, and reterritorialization – the actual usage of these symbols, ideas or narratives – in a certain context, which can be theoretically limiting. I suggest that while modern technology and overall transnationalization facilitate conflict deterritorialization at large, conflict reterritorialization is related specifically to a certain context. The next chapter focuses on the definition and theoretical overview of the processes of deterritorialization and reterritorialization that I claim give a better theoretical conceptualization than the ones described above.

13 Theoretical Framework

Deterritorialization and reterritorialization of the armed conflict

“The wasp is nevertheless deterritorialized, becoming a piece in the orchid's reproductive apparatus. But it reterritorializes the orchid by transporting its pollen.” (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, p. 8)

In 1980 (1987 saw the English translation), Deleuze and Guattari developed a complex relationship between the concepts of deterritorialization and reterritorialization of symbols and meanings, portraying it with a simple metaphor of an orchid and a wasp: the wasp “deterritorializes” the orchid by taking its pollen and “reterritorializes” it elsewhere as part of the orchid’s reproductive system (Chauvin in Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, p. 8). While seemingly unrelated, this metaphor is, in my opinion, extremely helpful for theoretically conceptualizing the way diasporization and war in the “homeland” can be related. This conceptualization also allows for the theoretical combination of both territorial and non-territorial or meaning dimensions of the phenomenon. The symbols, ideas, narratives, and beliefs related to the “homeland” conflict can become deterritorialized through media, migration, and other actors, and then reterritorialized or, in simpler terms, reflected/reproduced or trans- lated to fit the new contexts by different actors including migrants, diasporic individuals and groups, transnational organizations, political parties, among many others, but in a different geographical location. Thus, the conflict might become reterritorialized into the country of residence (especially so in the diasporic setting) and acquire new ways of interpretations of the war in the “homeland” which might affect the different social interactions there. Thus, it is a non-territorial process that stems from a territorial event that becomes territorial again yet in a modified way. There are many actors that can be involved in conflict deterritorialization: the “homeland” and its politics; transnational organizations such as UN or NATO or NGOs, such as Amnesty International; dispersed communities that

14 conceptualize the place at war as their ”homeland”; and the country of residence of those, to name just a few (for bigger discussion, see Article 1). The main medium to assist the conflict deterritorialization processes that these actors can use is the informational technologies. To better describe and display the processes in a simplified manner, the theoretical model is presented below (Figure 1). As discussed above, the process of conflict deterritorialization is primarily related to informational flows that make it possible for the narratives and symbols of the conflict to detach themselves from the geographical location of where it is happening. In this way, the conflict narrative becomes to some extent independent of the actual developments on the front line when deterritorialized as shown in the Figure 1 above. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that modern immediacy of news travelling as well as possibility of instant interactions across space that modern informational technology provides serve as one of the core mediums of conflict deterritorialization (Brinkerhoff, 2009). However, stating this does not mean that media cause conflict deterritorialization. The modern developments have made it faster and more intensified with never-ending flow and interactions not bound by the geographical space. Thus, conflict deterritorialization is related to the detachment of meanings, symbols, narratives of the war from its immediate location. Simultaneously, many other processes are unraveling while conflict deterritorialization occurs. One of the most important, especially for this thesis, is that of diasporization that can include other, unrelated to conflict in the “homeland”, processes and actors, as I have discussed in Chapter 1. With the diaspora turn (see Article 1 for a larger discussion), the conflict deterritorialization processes become pronounced in the country of residence, and the process of conflict reterritorialization is enabled.

Figure 1 Theoretical model of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization, simplified

16 Reterritorialization of the armed conflict is related to a process of reinventing, playing out, or acting on the attitude toward the conflict in regard to the others in the current country of residence. In other words, it is primarily related to “conflict autonomization” or “importation” discussed previously. This process then reshapes the already deterritorialized symbols, narratives, and discourses and grounds all those (upgraded in the relation to different contexts and factors) in the country of residence setting. Reterritorialization can happen on different levels and involve different groups (Figure 1). In the context of diasporic individuals, ethnicized conflict, once deterritorialized, can have the capacity to reterritorialize into the group boundary-making and maintenance, in both defining the Self and the Other, as well as the “adversary” group. More specifically, when constructing the boundary between the Us and Them, attitude toward the conflict can become an additional layer and shift the boundary of perceived belonging to a certain “ethnic” group. While this is not necessarily specific to diasporic communities and can also happen in the location of the war itself, reterritorialization in a diasporic setting will also incorporate the contexts of the country of residence, the history of interactions with the group now perceived as adversary, as well as the size of the community. In this regard, diasporic individual/group can become an actor of conflict reterritorialization (for more discussion, see Arti- cle 4). One example of conflict reterritorialization can be a sudden polarization of individuals, based on their attitudes toward the conflict. Moreover, other actors like different diasporic groups in other countries of residence, transnational actors like different NGOs, or even political decisions and policies toward other countries can become active in the processes of conflict reterritorialization and construct their agenda around the symbols and ideas connected to a certain conflict, e.g., the decision of the Swedish Parlia- ment to recognize the State of Palestine in 2014. To conclude, I argue that differentiating between the larger processes of conflict deterritorialization and specific instances of its reterritorialization can give a better conceptualization of wars and armed conflicts through their territorial and non-territorial dimensions, including their transnationalization. In my opinion, further distilling of the processes that can illustrate the complex transportation of meanings connected to an armed conflict is especially important for the conceptualizations of the mechanisms and processes involved. Finally, to understand conflict deterritorialization as a larger phenomenon of detachment of war-related meanings and symbols from its geographical location gives an opportunity to study different actors involved and patterns of such deterritorialization for different wars. While conflict reterritorialization has proven to be a useful conceptual tool to understand the specificity of sep- arate cases where the attachment of these conflict-related symbols and meanings can take place, including the different diasporic settings.

17 Data and method

Research context Current research took place over the years 2015–2020, with the data collection primarily taking place during 2015–2018. The focus of the dissertation is Ukrainian-Russian conflict, and Ukrainians and Russians in Sweden. The conflict had started just before the dissertation work started; thus, it was possible to follow the developments of both the war and the reactions, experiences, organizational activities, and other processes in real time while reflecting on the research objectives. Sweden, given its specific context to this research, has been an important factor in both how the war in eastern Ukraine is viewed and the way the people and communities of interest have shaped their activities and interactions. Sweden is a country of high civil society engagement that is also relatively free and encourages political and other activism, accounting for about 257 572 “civil society” organizations (SCB, 2017). A lot of organizations in addition to those also function online without official registration, using mostly social media. A lot of these are diasporic organizations. When it comes to Ukrainian and Russian organizations, their histories are similar yet different. Most of them track their history back to pre- World War I. Ukrainian diasporic organizations claim their existence mostly in honor of refugees from the Soviet Union, and thereafter at the end of 1980s and during the crises of 1990s and early 2000s – due to migration for economic reasons and marriage (Embassy of Ukraine to the Kingdom of Sweden). Majority of the 9,924 people born in Ukraine who live in Sweden are women (SCB, 2018). Russian diasporic organizations also tend to track their existence to World War I, 1917 Revolution, and subsequently also World War II. As in the case of Ukrainians, the majority of 21,930 people born in the Russian Federation, who live in Sweden are women (SCB, 2018). In addition, there are pan-Slavic organizations in Sweden that usually include Russian-speaking people from the countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. These are a special and interesting case for this project, since during the onset of the war in eastern Ukraine there was some friction within these organizations regarding whether they need to take a stand toward the war. In addition, Swedish political elites as well as media have been quite pro- Ukrainian in the matters of conflict. The media coverage was quite intense,

18 especially during the Revolution and subsequent annexation of Crimea, as well as during the first year of the war in eastern Ukraine.

Analytical strategy

Multiple methods research design The paradigm wars between quantitative and qualitative methods researchers has been ongoing for a few decades now, often being claimed that these sets of methods have different assumptions about the nature of truth and thus cannot be mixed or somehow integrated (Small, 2011). These so-called methodological purists, unfortunately, do not take into consideration the similarities that both paradigms share (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 15). The current study employs multiple methods to answer the different research questions posed in the pragmatist sense, i.e., uses the methods that are relevant for the research question, as well as emphasizes the need for triangulation in the research for the sake of advancing the relevant and reliable research conclusions.

Multilevel approach The processes of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization can happen on the micro and collective levels. First, once deterritorialized, the conflict might reterritorialize in the form of individual renegotiations of ethnic self- identification. This can be a result of a diaspora turn that was discussed earlier. In its turn, such renegotiation can lead to search for the “fellow” others. In other words, the micro level renegotiations of ethnic self-identification can lead to mobilization of pre-existing diasporic individuals as well as diasporize individuals with migration background from the relevant country, or vice versa, - diasporic organizations might mobilize resources for attracting more individuals to memberships in these organizations. Consequently, a creation of adversaries and solidarity groups might occur, which in turn can lead to polarization on the collective level. Thus, the war can be reterritorialized in the form of an additional boundary-making attribute that will shift the group differentiation and boundary making processes. Evidently, these processes happening at the different levels do not entail mechanical linearity and can prompt or strengthen each other in various ways and directions, as well as they might not even come to existence in different contexts. Therefore, it is important to investigate the phenomenon of conflict deterritorialization and its reterritorialization at these different levels as well as the relation between them.

19 This thesis attempts to achieve this goal by interviewing diasporic individuals that consider themselves Russian or Ukrainian while also tracking the collaboration practices between Ukrainian, Russian and Russian-speakers’ organizations during the most violent period of 2013-2016 of the war in eastern Ukraine.

Data sources

Micro level For this dissertation, I have talked to 38 people who identified themselves as Russian, Ukrainian or Russian speaking, but whose country of origin is Ukraine. This number also includes several interviews with representatives from other diasporic and conflict-generated organizations, including Kurdish, Serbian, Palestinian, Portuguese, Ukrainian and Russian. Sixteen of the participants are members of Ukrainian, Russian, or Russian-speaking (often pan- Slavic) diasporic organizations. Thirty-one of the participants were born in Ukraine and have lived in Sweden for at least one year (two cases a few months less but planned to stay in Sweden). I have decided to limit the analysis to the people who were born in Ukraine but have different ethnic identifications, in order to avoid the issues of nationality or citizenship being incorpo- rated into the discussions. The interviews conducted with other than Ukrain- ian, Russian or Russian-speakers’ diasporic organizations’ representatives were both personal experiences and informational to give me an overview of how the organizational field, including the issues of bureaucracy and collaborations, are usually dealt with. The interviews took place during face-to-face conversations as well as via video meetings. In sum, I talked to men and women across Sweden, including Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmo, Umea, Helsingborg, Norrkoping, Kalmar, Gavle, Lund, Jonkoping, Linkoping, Vasteras, and Uppsala. All of them were semi-structured and took up to 1.5 hour (see an Appendix B in Article 4 for the interview protocol). The questions included their experiences during the unravelling of the political situation in Ukraine, their emotions, and future prospects. We also talked about any issues relative to the war in eastern Ukraine that have affected any of their attitudes toward anyone else, including close and distant acquaintances and family. I asked them about their experiences of living in Sweden in general, including the trajectories and reasons for migration to Sweden specifically. Often, if a previous interview had raised an interesting aspect that I did not have in the interview guide, I would modify the questions and add discussion on these new aspects in the next interviews. Thus, the interviews, while being semi-structured, were fairly flexible and free in the sense of possibility to add other topics than those defined before.

20 Participants of the study included unemployed people, business owners (small and large), teachers, doctors, retirees, part-time workers, seasonal workers and students, as well as some working without permission from the Swedish authorities. They also come from different regions of Ukraine (see Appendix A in Article 4). The data collection method was guided by the idea that participants should identify themselves as Russian or Ukrainian, without the researcher’s ascription of identity to avoid essentialist assumptions. Therefore, I decided to pub- lish an announcement (since then deleted) on different Facebook groups that claimed some connection to identifying as Russian, Ukrainian, or Russian- speaking. Thus, the participants are a self-selective group that consists of the diasporic individuals that feel a strong connection to the “homeland” or certain “ethnic” group. Moreover, since the announcement clearly stated the aim of the interview, these people also had a strong attitude toward the developments of the conflict in eastern Ukraine (see discussion in Article 4).

Organizational level Social network analysis allows one to quantify the qualitative features of interactions between social actors, and thus allows for the analysis of the structures in a certain social context or space on the organizational level. Studying collaboration networks of the different Russian, Ukrainian, Russian-speakers’, and conflict-generated diasporic organizations can help to track the developments of their attitudes in time as related to the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Therefore, it is possible to test if the clustering, polarization, or similarity (homophily) across different ethnic identifications and attitudes toward the conflict tend to be important factors in the collaborative practices of diasporic organizations, which would signalize processes of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization being at play. I have collected collaboration data dating to September 2013 and until De- cember 2016. The data collection was primarily based online and constituted of me backtracking any mentioning or weblink that a certain organization had toward another. I started with the webpages of the Embassies of Ukraine and Russia, which have some details on the biggest respective diasporic organizations active in Sweden. Thereafter, I found each one of these organizations’ website or Facebook page and wrote down in an edgewise format all Ukrain- ian, Russian, Russian-speakers’ or conflict-generated organizations they have mentioned or collaborated with between September 2013 and December 2016. Through these referrals I found more organizations than mentioned by both Embassies. I performed exactly the same backtracking process for each respective organization that the first one referred to. When the referrals stopped mentioning organizations that were not already in the data set, I stopped the data collection. Some of these referrals took me outside of Sweden. However,

21 those organizations that were not active in Sweden were not included in the data set. As a result, the cumulative data for the period from 2013 to 2016 included 59 organizations2 located in Sweden (including international ones with a chapter in Sweden) during the period 2014 to 2016. The data set also includes node attributes of each organization that include: type of organization (independent, umbrella, multinational), side taken by the organization in the conflict (pro- Russian, pro-Ukrainian, neutral/no explicit statement), and “ethnicity” of the organization (Ukrainian, Russian, mixed Russians, and Ukrainians, other ethnicity, no connection to any ethnicity/nationality). Information on whether the organization was conflict-generated or pre-existing diasporic organization was also available. To analyze this data, I used descriptive social network analysis, cluster analysis and Exponential Random Graph models (ERGM).

2 For Article 2 59 organizations were used, but for Article 3 – 58. This was due to missing information on one of the organizations that was necessary for the analysis.

22 Methodological discussion

Interviews Interviewing, as a technique, exists in many different qualitative perspectives. The one I used in this dissertation is based on the ethnographic approach which facilitates understanding of ethnic group boundary-making and maintenance processes as constructed by personal accounts and narratives of the participants. That being said, the interviewing was done primarily with an explor- ative agenda to be able to more closely understand the existence of patterns of conflict reterritorialization. To analyze the data, I performed thematic analysis informed by the grounded theory elements (Glaser, 2002). Thematic analysis follows six steps: familiarization with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, re- viewing themes, defining and naming themes and producing the report (Braun and Clarke, 2006). For this project I have modified the approach, since the data collection has been informed by the research questions and research design that involved semi-structured interviews as discussed above. Therefore, initially two larger themes were identified. To find nuance through the analysis of other themes that could be placed within these two larger ones, I have found several sub-themes that were based on the generation of codes from the data. In doing so I followed with the developed by Attride-Stirling (2001) thematic networks approach for the analysis of the data. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001) identifies three levels of the themes that could be identified in the data: global, organizing and basic. Basic themes are generated through organizing the codes. Organizing themes accumulate together several basic themes. And finally, the global themes are the ones that are interpreted as in relation to the research objectives. She suggests that thematic analysis can be done on the explicit or semantic level or implicit latent. The former looks for explicit meanings as narrated by the participants, while the latter searches for the latent hidden discursive meanings in the data. I analyzed data on the explicit level. Thus, the interviews were mostly used as accounts of personal experiences, i.e., no discursive or linguistic analysis was planned. I identified two global themes before the analysis that were theoretically informed. The organizing themes within these two larger or global themes were, however, found through the coding and grouping of the basic themes. Therefore, a mix of deduction and induction was used.

23 The two global themes I focused on in Article 4 are the subjective identification (Self) with ethnicity and group boundary making processes as related to the experiencing the critical developments in Ukraine while living in Sweden. These two global themes where modified with the third, relational one, that interlinks them and concerns the Other, that was found inductively. Basic themes within the theme of subjective identification were “Home- land”, citizenship/nationality and language. Basic themes of language spoken and attitude towards the conflict where grouped under the organizing themes of construction of groups of Ukrainians, Russians, Russian-speakers and gen- eralized others that all were placed within the global theme of group boundary making (for larger discussion see Article 4). The global relational theme of the Other was constructed on the basis of the two organizing themes of ethnic identity ascription by others and identifying others as. Agreement, dis- agreement and indifference to the ascription of a certain ethnicity would con- stitute the organizing theme of ascription by others, while language, attitude towards the conflict, region of origin/nationality would be the basic themes the identifying others as organizing theme is built upon. Since the aim of the qualitative element of the study was exploration of the possible patterns of subjective identification and ethnic boundary-making and maintenance as in relation to the conflict in the “homeland”, I have not cen- tered my attention on gendered and other identity experiences. I have also not focused on the differences of experiences that can be related to the duration of time spent in Sweden. This does not mean that I consider those to be of less importance, quite the contrary. Nonetheless, I aimed to see these themes of interest across the interviews, irrespective of the personal experiences to lay grounds of the potentiality of these happening in different contexts. Neverthe- less, I strongly suggest that further research on the individual experiences of these phenomena should be conducted.

Exponential random graph models For a long time since the development of social network analysis, not only as a methodology but also as a theoretical perspective on social interaction, the issue of statistical inference and social networks’ modeling has been at the core of the agenda (Carrington et al, 2005; Borgatti et al, 2013). Moreover, not only the issue of developing tools to account for probabilities based on structural network characteristics like transitivity or density, but also nodal attributes such as age, gender, or occupation. Evidently, both the network statistics and the nodal attributes should play a crucial role in the tie formation process.

24 ERG models (also commonly known as p* models) allow the researcher to do exactly that: model the probability of a tie formation, depending on both network statistics and nodal attributes. Moreover, unlike the Logistic regres- sion models that are often used for similar purposes, ERG models do not follow the assumption that the observations are independent of each other. ERG models follow the assumption that the network is generated by some (un- known) stochastic process as a self-organizing system of relational ties that depend on the presence or absence of other ties and nodal characteristics (Rob- ins et al., 2007: 177). I use ERG models in Article 3 of this dissertation. The way ERG models work is in simpler terms related to comparing an observed network with a finite number of other possible ways that the ties in this particular network could be formed, i.e., the distribution of all possible graphs (which potentially becomes a very large number of possible network states) (Lusher et al., 2013, p. 34). The observed network, in terms of modeling the effects is not extreme but central, and the model estimation assigns probabilities accordingly (ibid). Because of these complex computations that even in a relatively small network data set, e.g., 40 nodes, will lead to large numbers, a lot of models in the empirical research do not converge due to technical reasons. Another issue that usually can occur in these models is the problem of de- generacy (the case when the model cannot be fitted to a data set), especially when the model includes the triadic parameters. This is due to dyadic depend- ence implied by cycles (transitive triads) (Morris et al., 2008). To avoid this issue, geometrically weighted parameters have been developed and show better results. Overall, ERG models work best with complete network data.

Cluster analysis Cluster analysis is based on the concept of equivalence, or similarity, of different nodes in the network. This equivalence in the simplest form investigates the actor’s position in a social space and the extent of the similarity that other actors have in the same social space. Basically, it is calculated through a definition of who the other actors are that these two are connected to (Borgatti et al., 2013). Such equivalence is usually defined within the social network research in two ways: structural or regular. Structural equivalence presupposes actors to be connected to exactly the same actors in exactly the same way. The regular equivalence relaxes this re- striction and defines actors as equivalent if they are similar in other ways, e.g., patterns of advice seeking or relationship to other actors (even if these actors are not exactly the same). One example could be the case of different teachers

25 that teach different students but are still similar in the way that they both ex- hibit the same relationship to the students and are defined similarly by their connections to the students (Borgatti et al., 2013). What cluster analysis then does is group together such similar actors in one of these definitions into clusters. In Article 3, I used Hierarchical Cluster analysis to analyze the politicization of the collaboration network of Ukrainian, Russian, and Russian-speakers’ organizations. This algorithm starts by assuming that one node is a cluster on its own and then agglomerating the similar actors into one cluster, resulting into n-1 clusters. Thereafter, this process continues by adding two most similar clusters together, resulting in n-2 clusters; the process then continues until every actor is in the cluster (Borgatti et al., 2013). This process thus gives a hierarchical classification tree, which can be analyzed by investigating the specific attributes of each actor in a relevant cluster.

26 Ethical considerations and positionalities

Before I started this project, I have reflected a lot about how I as a Ukrainian woman living in Sweden feel about the Revolution and subsequent war. It was in late 2013 that I saw Ukrainians that lived in Sweden organizing and mobilizing to support Ukrainian revolution. I have followed and witnessed these activities, as well as the rise of support to the pro-Russian side in the conflict. This has shaped my interest and raised my curiosity to research the exact mechanisms behind these diasporic mobilizations. Even though I could feel the arguments on my own skin, I set upon research to understand how the war in one’s “homeland” can reflect, shape and form attitudes and identifications of different people living elsewhere. On the continuum of being an insider or outsider, I would position myself a partial insider as by Chavez’s conceptualization (2008). If a total insider is someone who is part of the social group she is studying, and a total outsider is someone sharing absolutely no similarity in experiences, the partial insider presupposes sharing some experiences or attitudes on certain issues or characteristics (Greene, 2014). While being a Ukrainian migrant, I had to some extend similar experiences with some of the participants of the study. Living through turbulent times in Ukraine while being in Sweden also helped me to connect with other Ukrainians who with worry were following the developments in Ukraine. This emotional connection was especially important in discussing the multiple ways participants of the study managed their emotions and feelings during the Revolution and war. With many I could also share the similar experiences of being a young migrant woman. Precisely the category of being a migrant could also create a perceived insiderness in terms of social class with some participants. However, mostly my insiderness would relate to being Ukrainian only. I believe this was also dictated by the research design. I have (as discussed in the previous sections) aimed for an exploration of the phenomena of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization, and thus rarely did we discuss with participants of the study their experiences related to social class, age, gender or other explicitly. In sum, even though a lot of these similar experiences could give me lighter access to different communities, I did not have much knowledge about the organizational field in Sweden at large. My knowledge was limited to activities of diaspora based in Malmo and Lund during the late 2013 and beginning

27 of 2014 only. While this previous knowledge and social contacts gave me better access to the field, I was an outsider for many in Stockholm and other places I have taken interviews in. Especially so when it comes to non-Ukrain- ian diasporic and conflict-generated organizations. I would even emphasize that in most cases I was perceived as a researcher mainly, who happens to be Ukrainian. However, it is important to note that some participants would pre- sume I know everything “basic” they refer to. As Oakley (1981) emphasizes in her famous discussion on interviewing women, some areas of female re- spondents’ lives are often described by them in a way that they would expect only the female interviewer to understand simply because they are both women. I argue that the same mechanism could be at play with other forms of identifications, such as perceived and self-identified ethnicity, age, religion, or sexuality. In those cases, I would ask follow-up questions. The project has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Board. However, in addition to this formal vetting, during the research I have paid continuous attention to the ethical implications it might have for the participants of the study, not the least since the war in eastern Ukraine is still ongoing. During the interviews, I have openly presented myself and my research; moreover, each participant received a printed information sheet on the project and contact details. Those who I met face-to-face also received an informed consent document. I have also been continuously in touch with some of the participants when some new development in Ukraine took place.

28 Thesis structure and summary of the studies

The dissertation consists of an overarching introduction (kappa) that includes the discussion on the theoretical and methodological issues and strategies, and four articles that deal with different aspects of the phenomena of interest, namely, conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization. Article 1 “Unpacking the Diaspora Turn: Toward a Theory of Conflict De- territorialization” is an attempt to assemble together different case studies of conflict deterritorialization as a diasporization process and build up wider theoretical conceptualization. Together with my co-author, Élise Féron, we discuss the ways in which conflict in the “homeland” can both mobilize the pre- existing diasporic organizations to political engagement as well as lead to for- malization of new, conflict-generated, diasporic groups. In both cases, the conflict deterritorialization patterns can be understood not as a simple reproduction of the conflict “back home,” but also reinvention of the conflict in the country of residence that becomes autonomized while building on some symbols and narratives from the actual conflict. Notably, we argue that not every conflict will lead to a diaspora turn and be deterritorialized, and that not every individual with migration background will become diasporic and engage her- self with “homeland” politics because of the war. Rather, depending on a con- stellation of factors and contexts in the “homeland”, in the country of residence as well as in the transnational space of interaction, the diaspora turn might occur in different ways, including not at all. In Article 2 “Politicization of Diasporic Organizational Network during the Armed Conflict in the “Homeland””, I focus on investigating the structural properties of the collaboration network of Ukrainian, Russian, Russian-speakers,’ and conflict-generated diasporic organizations. The network has different reciprocity values during different time periods, with the highest when the war has stabilized, which might signalize a growing importance of history of interactions. I argue that with appearance of the conflict-generated organizations in the network, the triadic formations can shed some light on the exact mechanisms of diaspora politicization in relation to the conflict in the “homeland”. Using cluster analysis, I show that history of interaction with the current “adversary” even if this took place before the war unraveled can lead to avoidance of interactions. Based on that history as well, the choice of a conflict-generated organization to collaborate with an already existing diasporic organization is leading the politicization of the network. In other words, it makes other actors

29 in the network judge the organization that the conflict-generated one collaborated with as sharing the same attitude toward the conflict. Article 3 “Ukrainian and Russian Organizations in Sweden and the Conflict ‘Back Home’” focuses on the same collaboration network, however, with an aim to account for probabilities of tie formation based on both the network statistics and nodal attributes of each organization. The parameters of interest here are identification with a certain ethnicity and an attitude toward the conflict in eastern Ukraine. I use Exponential Random Graph models and show that during the most violent periods of the conflict, the attitude toward the conflict was more steering in collaborations than ethnicity. Finally, Article 4 “Conflict Reterritorialization: Shifting Group Boundaries in the Diaspora during the Armed Conflict in the ‘Homeland’” focuses on the micro level. Using interviews, it aims to investigate if the conflict in the “homeland” has had any reflection in the way that Ukrainians and Russians from Ukraine identify themselves with a certain ethnicity, and whether the conflict has shifted the way they draw the group boundaries between Us and Them. I argue that especially for those participants that identify as Ukrainian, being pro-Ukrainian might have become part of the meaning of being Ukrain- ian. In addition, I differentiate between strategies that show the reterritorialization of the conflict into the way a participant sees the Other and the Self, signaling a potential shift in ethnic boundary-making between what it means to be Ukrainian and Russian in this particular diasporic setting. In sum, these four articles showcase the patterns of conflict deterritorialization and its reterritorialization on theoretical, organizational, and micro levels. In addition, all of them contribute to a deeper understanding of diasporization processes at times of war in the “homeland”.

30 Discussion

Limitations There are several limitations of this study: theoretical, methodological, and those related to generalizability. All of these limitations were thought through before the start of the research and are the result of weighted choices that I have made as a researcher. Theoretical limitations include the partial disregard of other theoretical approaches that might be beneficial to understanding the phenomenon of conflict deterritorialization. One example is the little attention given to the issue of collective memory, which can make certain diasporic groups more prone to mobilizations. However, while being an important and interesting potential factor in the diasporization processes, it relates more to the strength and level of activism or mobilization, as well as the probability of diasporic identity saturation. The scope of this dissertation, however, is limited to the exploration of processes related to the ethnicized conflict as deterritorialized and then reterritorialized in the diaspora setting. The same argument relates to the lack of detailed investigation of intersectional experiences of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization. This is also partly related to the fact that the majority of Ukrainian and Russian diasporic individuals are women. Future studies should focus on in-depth analysis that will cover these limitations. Methodological and technical limitations are related to computational limitations of some models in the analysis of the diasporic collaboration networks. These were purely technical and related to the computational power of the machines currently at use. This led to the need for simplifications of some models, especially when accounting for interactions between parameters. Finally, an evident limitation of the project is generalizability. The focus of the dissertation is a specific case. It would be beneficial to use a comparative perspective to investigate if processes of conflict deterritorialization can have similarities for different groups of people and different conflicts. However, it is possible to argue that similar phenomena as discussed in the dissertation can take place in other western democracies.

31 Conclusions War in one’s “homeland” is a tragic period that can lead to many horrible and terrifying consequences for many people. It takes over the everyday of individuals and narrates the history of specific territory as referred to by the often- ethnicized arguments for fighting. As I have shown in the theoretical chapter, war does not imply only a physical fighting at a certain geographical location but also a larger meaning producing process that can be re-invented by the different actors elsewhere. In this dissertation, I have attempted to theoretically conceptualize and empirically highlight that war in the “homeland”, its symbols and ideas, can travel to the context of country of residence and shape the identities, lives, and meanings for diasporic individuals elsewhere. It can both mobilize pre-existing diasporas to action and create new formalized organizations. Mostly, due to the availability of information about the “homeland” that suddenly makes events there palpable and real, the conflict is deterritorialized from its immediate location. It can thereafter reterritorialize itself in many ways in the diaspora setting, both on the micro and the organizational level. Understanding armed conflicts as occupying not only the area limited to the physical dimensions, but also as such that create meanings with potency to mobilize people elsewhere is unfortunately a rare perspective. Investigating the way armed conflicts can be reinterpreted and narrated outside of their immediate location is essential for holistic research on war and peace. It is also beneficial to be able to understand the mechanisms behind humanitarian and military participation of diaspora in different conflicts, as well as conceptualizing the reasons for individuals with seemingly no relation to a certain location at war to suddenly decide to travel abroad and take active part in the fighting. In the modern age of technology development and information sharing, the attitudes toward any particular armed conflict can also overlap with other meaning structures and incorporate general and specific values, like freedom, democracy, or advocacies for a new world system.

32 References

Agnew, V. (2005). Diaspora, Memory and Identity: A Search for Home. University of Toronto Press. Agnew, V. (2005). Introduction. In Agnew V. (Ed.), Diaspora, Memory, and Identity: A Search for Home (pp. 3-18). Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. Amnesty International. (2018). Ukraine 2017/2018. [online] Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/ukraine/report- ukraine/. [Accessed 20 Aug. 2019]. Anderson, B. (1992) Long- Distance Nationalism: World Capitalism and the Rise of Identity Politics. Wertheim Lecture 1992, Center for Asian Studies Amsterdam. ———. 1994. Exodus. Critical Inquiry 20 (2): 314–27. https://doi.org/10.1086/448713. Andén-Papadopoulos, K. & Pantti, M. (2013) The Media Work of Syrian Diaspora Activists: Brokering Between the Protest and Mainstream Media. International Journal of Communication 7 (0): 22. Anthias, F. (199). Evaluating `Diaspora’: Beyond Ethnicity? Sociology 32 (3): 557– 80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038598032003009. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307 Balibar, E. (2002). Politics and the Other Scene. Verso. Barth, F. (1969) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Baser, B. (2013) Diasporas and imported-conflicts: the case of Turkish and Kurdish second generation in Sweden. Journal of Conflict Transformation and Security. 3(2) pp. 105-125 http://hdl.handle.net/1814/30817 ———. (2015) Diasporas and “homeland” Conflicts: A Comparative Perspective. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Bernal, V. (2006) Diaspora, Cyberspace and Political Imagination: The Eritrean Di- aspora Online Global Networks 6 (2): 161–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471- 0374.2006.00139.x. Bolagsverket (2012) Lagar för ideell förening. [online] Available at: http://bolagsverket.se/fo/foreningsformer/ideell/lagarideell-1.8132. [Accessed 28 Aug. 2018]. Borgatti, S., Everett, M. & Johnson, J. (2013) Analyzing Social Networks. Sage Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2). pp. 77-101. Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2009) Digital Diasporas: Identity and Transnational Engagement. New York: Cambridge University Press.

33 ———. (2011) Diasporas and Conflict Societies: Conflict Entrepreneurs, Competing Interests or Contributors to Stability and Development? Conflict, Security & De- velopment 11 (02): 115–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2011.572453. Brown, M. E. (2010) Causes and Implications of Ethnic Conflict in ed. Guibernau and Rex The Ethnicity Reader: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Migration. Cam- bridge. 92-109 Brubaker, R. (2002) Ethnicity without Groups. European Journal of Sociology / Ar- chives Européennes de Sociologie 43 (2): 163–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975602001066. ———. (2005) The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141987042000289997. ———. (2014) Beyond Ethnicity. Ethnic and Racial Studies 37 (5): 804–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.871311. Calhoun, C. (1993) Nationalism and Ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology 19: 211– 39. Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., & Wasserman S. (2005) Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Chavez, C. (2008) Conceptualizing from the Inside: Advantages, Complications, and Demands on Insider Positionality. The Qualitative Report, 13(3), 474-494. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss3/9 Chow, R. (2010) From Writing Diaspora: Introduction: Leading Questions. 2010. In The Rey Chow Reader. New York: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/bowm14994-005. Clifford, J. (1994) Diasporas. Cultural Anthropology 9 (3): 302–38. Cohen, P. (1999) Rethinking the Diasporama. Patterns of Prejudice 33 (1): 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/003132299128810461. Cottle, S. (2006) Mediatized Conflict: Developments in Media and Conflict Studies. Open University Press. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Demmers, J. (2002) Diaspora and Conflict: Locality, Long-Distance Nationalism, and Delocalisation of Conflict Dynamics. Javnost - The Public 9 (1): 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2002.11008795. ———. (2007) New wars and diasporas: Suggestions for research and policy. Journal of Peace, Conflict and Development (11), pp. 1–26 . http://dspace.li- brary.uu.nl/handle/1874/314010. Eller, J. D. (1999) From Culture to Ethnicity to Conflict: An Anthropological Per- spective on International Ethnic Conflict. University of Michigan Press. Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Kingdom of Sweden. [online] Available at: https://sweden.mid.ru/web/sweden-en. [Accessed 20 Sep. 2019]. Embassy of Ukraine in the Kingdom of Sweden. [online] Available at: https://sweden.mfa.gov.ua/en. [Accessed 20 Sep. 201]. Féron, É. (2017) Transporting and Re-Inventing Conflicts: Conflict-Generated Dias- poras and Conflict Autonomisation. Cooperation and Conflict 52 (3): 360–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716671759. Féron, É. & Lefort, B. (2019) Diasporas and Conflicts – Understanding the Nexus. Diaspora Studies 12 (1): 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09739572.2018.1538687.

34 Gamlen, A. (2014) Diaspora Institutions and Diaspora Governance. International Mi- gration Review 48 (s1): S180–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12136. Gayer, L. (2007) The Volatility of the ‘Other’: Identity Formation and Social Interac- tion in Diasporic Environments. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal [Online], 1. https://doi.org/10.4000/samaj.36 Glaser, B. G. (2002) Conceptualization: On Theory and Theorizing Using Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1 (2): 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100203. Glick Schiller, N. (2005) Long-Distance Nationalism. In: Ember M., Ember C.R., Skoggard I. (eds) Encyclopedia of Diasporas. Springer, Boston, MA ———. (2018) Theorising about and beyond Transnational Processes. In: Fossum J., Kastoryano R., Siim B. (eds) Diversity and Contestations over Nationalism in Europe and Canada. Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, London Golovchenko, Y., Hartmann, M., Adler-Nissen, R. (2018) State, media and civil society in the information warfare over Ukraine: citizen curators of digital disinfor- mation. International Affairs, 94(5), 975–994. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy148 Greene, M. J. (2014) On the Inside Looking In: Methodological Insights and Chal- lenges in Conducting Qualitative Insider Research. The Qualitative Report, 19(29), 1-13. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss29/3 Horowitz, D. L. (2001) Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Updated Edition With a New Pref- ace. University of California Press. Hua, A. (2005). Diaspora and Cultural Memory. In Agnew V. (Ed.), Diaspora, Memory, and Identity: A Search for Home (pp. 191-208). Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. Hutchings, S. & Szostek, J. (2015) Dominant Narratives in Russian Political and Me- dia Discourse during the Ukraine Crisis. In A. Pikulicka-Wilcewska, & R. Sakwa (Eds.), Ukraine and Russia: People, Politics, Propaganda and Perspectives. Bris- tol: E-International Relations Publishing. Hylland Eriksen, T. (2002) Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives. Pluto Press. Jenkins, R. (1994) Rethinking ethnicity: Identity, categorization and power. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 17:2, 197-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1994.9993821. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004) Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7) 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014. Kaldor, M. (2012) New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Polity Press. ——— (2013) In Defence of New Wars. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 2(1), p.Art. 4. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/sta.at Koinova, M. (2014) Why Do Conflict-Generated Diasporas Pursue Sovereignty- Based Claims through State-Based or Transnational Channels? Armenian, Alba- nian and Palestinian Diasporas in the UK Compared. European Journal of Inter- national Relations, 20(4) 1043–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113509115. ———. (2016) Sustained vs Episodic Mobilization among Conflict-Generated Dias- poras. International Political Science Review 37 (4): 500–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115591641.

35 ———. (2018) Diaspora Mobilisation for Conflict and Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Contextual and Comparative Dimensions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Stud- ies 44 (8): 1251–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1354152. Koinova, M., and Tsourapas G. (2018) How Do Countries of Origin Engage Migrants and Diasporas? Multiple Actors and Comparative Perspectives. International Po- litical Science Review 39 (3): 311–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118755843. LIVEUAMAP (2018) Ukraine Interactive Map [online]. Available at: https://liveuamap.com/ [Accessed 12 Dec. 2018] Lundgren Jörum, E. (2015) Repression across Borders: “homeland” Response to Anti- Regime Mobilization among Syrians in Sweden. Diaspora Studies 8 (2): 104–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09739572.2015.1029711. Lusher, D., Koskinen, J., & Robins, G. (2013) Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Cambridge University Press. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (2017) Statement by the Delegation of Ukraine on Russia’s on-going Aggression against Ukraine and Illegal Occupation of Cri- mea. [online]. Available at: http://mfa.gov.ua/en/press-center/news/60844-statement-by-the-delegation-of-ukraine-on-russias-on-going-aggression-against- ukraine-and-illegal-occupation-of-crimea. [Accessed 15 Mar. 2020] Mohammad-Arif, A. (2000) A Masala Identity: Young South Asian Muslims in the US. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 20(1-2), pp. 67-87. Moliner, C. (2007) Frères Ennemis? Relations between Panjabi Sikhs and Muslims in the Diaspora. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, no. 1 (October). https://doi.org/10.4000/samaj.135. Morris, M., Handcock, M. S., & Hunter, D. R. (2008) Specification of Exponential- Family Random Graph Models: Terms and Computational Aspects. Journal of Statistical Software 24 (4): 1548–7660. Newman, E. (2004) The ‘New Wars’ Debate: A Historical Perspective Is Needed. Security Dialogue 35 (2): 173–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010604044975. Oakley, A. (1981) Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms? In: Roberts H (ed.) Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 30-61 Oberschall, A. (2000) The Manipulation of Ethnicity: From Ethnic Cooperation to Violence and War in Yugoslavia. Ethnic and Racial Studies 23 (6): 982–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/014198700750018388. Office of the President of the Russian Federation (2014) Address by President of the Russian Federation. [online]. Available at: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603. [Accessed 14 Mar. 2020] OHCHR (2014-2020) Ukraine reports. [online] Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/enacaregion/pages/uareports.aspx [Accessed 29 Mar. 2020]. Orjuela, C. (2018) Mobilising Diasporas for Justice. Opportunity Structures and the Presencing of a Violent Past. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44 (8): 1357–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1354163. OSCE (2018) Statement by the Delegation of the Russian Federation on the Situation in Ukraine and the Need to Implement the Minsk Agreements [online]. Available at: https://www.osce.org/permanent-council/373091. [Accessed 15 Mar. 2020]

36 Portnov, A. (2013) Memory Wars in Post-Soviet Ukraine (1991–2010). In: Blacker U., Etkind A., Fedor J. (eds) Memory and Theory in Eastern Europe. Palgrave Studies in Cultural and Intellectual History. Palgrave Macmillan, New York Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine (2019) Statement on the Revolution of Dignity. [online]. Available at: https://rrg.gp.gov.ua/. [Accessed 14 Feb. 2020] Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, Y., & Lusher, D. (2007) An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29, 173-191. Safran, W. (1991) Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of “homeland” and Return. Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 1 (1): 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1353/dsp.1991.0004. Shapiro, M. J. (2011) The Presence of War: ‘Here and Elsewhere.’ International Po- litical Sociology 5 (2): 109–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749- 5687.2011.00124.x. Sheffer, G. (2002) A Nation and Its Diaspora: A Re-Examination of Israeli—Jewish Diaspora Relations. Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 11 (3): 331– 58. https://doi.org/10.1353/dsp.2011.0013. Skrbiš, Z. (1999) Long-Distance Nationalism: Diasporas, “homeland’s” and Identi- ties. Ashgate. Small, M. L. (2011) How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly Growing Literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 37. 57-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102657 Smith, H., Stares, P. (2007) Diasporas in conflict: peace-makers or peace-wreckers? Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Spaaij, R., Broerse, J. (2019) Diaspora as Aesthetic Formation: Community Sports Events and the Making of a Somali Diaspora. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 45 (5): 752–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1427052. Statistikmyndigheten (SCB) (2017) Det civila samhället [online]. Available at: https://www.scb.se/publikation/36669. [Accessed 17 Dec. 2018] ———. 2018. Befolkningsstatistik. [online]. Available at: https://www.scb.se/hitta- statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkning/befolkningens-sammansattning/befolkningsstatistik/#_Fordjupadinformation [Accessed 17 Dec. 2018] Sökefeld, M. (2006) Mobilizing in Transnational Space: A Social Movement Ap- proach to the Formation of Diaspora. Global Networks 6 (3): 265–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006.00144.x. The Dutch Safety Board (2015) Report: Crash MH17, 17 July 2014. [online] Availa- ble at: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/page/3546/crash-mh17-17-july-2014. [Accessed 20 Jan. 2018]. The World Bank (2017) Conflict in Ukraine : Socio-Economic Impacts of Internal Displacement and Veteran Return – Summary Report. [online] Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/571011497962214803/Conflict-in- Ukraine-socio-economic-impacts-of-internal-displacement-and-veteran-return- summary-report-May-2017. [Accessed 20 Jan. 2018]. UN Security Council Report (2018) UN Documents on Ukraine [online] Available at: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/?c=ukraine. [Accessed 14 Dec. 2018]. UNOCHA (2015) Year in Review. [online] Available at: http://interactive.unocha.org/publication/2015_year_in_review/ [Accessed 29 Mar. 2019].

37 Vertovec, S. (1997) Three Meanings of ‘Diaspora,’ Exemplified among South Asian Religions. Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 6 (3): 277–99. https://doi.org/10.1353/dsp.1997.0010. Walker, D., Myrick, F. (2006) Grounded Theory: An Exploration of Process and Pro- cedure. Qualitative Health Research 16 (4): 547–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305285972. Wimmer, A. (2008) Elementary Strategies of Ethnic Boundary Making. Ethnic and Racial Studies 31 (6): 1025–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870801905612. ———. 2009. Herder’s Heritage and the Boundary-Making Approach: Studying Eth- nicity in Immigrant Societies*. Sociological Theory 27 (3): 244–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01347.x. Wimmer, A., and Glick Schiller, N. (2002) Methodological Nationalism and beyond: Nation–State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences. Global Networks 2 (4): 301–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0374.00043.