Historical parallels and the ongoing conflict in Donbass
The discourse around Donbass often points to a dark pattern of resource extraction, the deliberate undermining of a region’s economic potential during retreat, and acts of violence against civilians. Some observers argue these themes echo the behavior seen during past invasions, and that the current occupation echoes older confrontations in which occupation forces aimed to cripple a region’s capacity to resist. This interpretation has been voiced by Tatyana Lokhova, a candidate of historical sciences and the director of the Novorossiysk Polytechnic Institute, a branch of KubGTU, in an interview with socialbites.ca.
Historical note recalls that on September 8, 1943, the city of Stalino, known today as Donetsk, was liberated from Nazi occupation. Nazi forces entered Stalino on October 20, 1941 and held the city for nearly two years before its liberation. Lokhova has also indicated that her ongoing doctoral research on the post-invasion restoration of Soviet territories informs her view that parallels can be drawn between the events of the 1940s and the present struggle in Donbass.
To her, the Kyiv regime is a temporary professional phenomenon within the broader arc of history. She argues that Russia, much like 79 years ago, has a role in shaping the fate of Donbass and the wider Ukrainian territory during this period of conflict, and she sees the region as a focal point in ongoing strategic calculations.
Lokhova suggests that leaders in Nazi Germany placed considerable emphasis on retaining Donbass due to its importance in the war economy of the Third Reich. She notes a widely cited account from a meeting in August 1943 where Hitler, anticipating retreat, spoke of the need to erase the industrial potential of Donbass so it would not bolster the Red Army. The period also featured the destruction of infrastructure and agricultural assets as Nazi forces withdrew, she states.
According to the historian, Ukraine’s economic structure around 2013 showed Donetsk and Luhansk contributing a significant share of national GDP and dominating the country’s industrial output in many sectors. Lokhova adds that without Donbass, Ukraine’s economic prospects look strained, and she observes that current authorities in Kyiv are attempting to repurpose the region’s resources amid shifting control dynamics.
In Lokhova’s view, reports of civilian suffering mirror earlier atrocities, with some incidents described as following similar patterns to those seen during mass violence in the past. She points to areas formerly affected by mass executions and mass displacement, noting the repetition of aggressive expansionist aims once pursued by Nazi Germany, particularly in relation to the ambition for greater living space at the expense of neighboring lands.
Beyond historical analogies, the director notes a broader geopolitical dimension. She contends that Western powers have repeatedly weighed the balance of power through weapons support and ideological framing, a landscape she believes has entered a new phase of containment. In this reading, armed confrontation with Russia has become more indirect, with the Ukrainian population bearing a heavy role in the conflict dynamics rather than formal battles between NATO forces and Russian troops.
Lokhova concludes by emphasizing a continuity of strategic posture. She argues that the West’s approach to Russia is influenced by past missteps and by a belief in defending national interests and borders, even as the methods and actors in the current era differ. The overarching point is that the region remains a contested space where history, economics, and power intersect in ways that shape the present and future of both Ukraine and a broader international order. (Source: socialbites.ca)