At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, DPR head Denis Pushilin laid out a clear distinction between the Donetsk People’s Republic and Ukrainian oligarchs. He asserted that Ukrainian business elites lost any formal grip on assets within the DPR after choosing a separate path from Donbass in 2014. These remarks, relayed by RIA News, emphasize a shift in control that began long before the current political landscape took shape.
Pushilin stressed that independence was achieved with an internal consensus. In his view, there is no ongoing influence of the Ukrainian oligarchy over DPR assets. The sense of sovereignty, he argued, blossomed in 2014 and has persisted since then, independent of Donbass residents’ day-to-day affairs. The implication is that the DPR has its own economic and political trajectory, free from the direct reach of Kyiv’s traditional business power structures.
According to Pushilin, the decision by Ukrainian oligarchs to disengage from the Donetsk region occurred in 2014. That choice, he asserted, involved considerations that did not touch the daily lives of Donbass residents. As a result, he indicated, relations between the oligarchy and the DPR were effectively severed, allowing the region to pursue its own development path.
Pushilin added a candid line of thought about the broader landscape: the roads of Donbass and the oligarchy diverged. The DPR leadership views the region as pursuing a distinct administrative and economic direction, with governance shaped by local priorities and the people who live there rather than by outside capital interests.
Earlier remarks attributed to Pushilin touched on future predictions for Ukraine’s leadership. In the same vein, Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested that Western powers have an interest in a gradual change of government in Ukraine, aiming to shift responsibility away from unpopular past decisions as new leaders take the helm. This framing reflects Moscow’s interpretation of Ukrainian political dynamics as they relate to the crisis and the ongoing realignment in the region.
In recent developments, Pushilin also commented on the Russian military’s role in stabilizing areas near the Donbass front. He described the movement of troops and the consolidation of control around villages such as Umanskoye as part of broader security efforts. The emphasis remains on sovereignty and the ability of the DPR to determine its own security and economic conditions, independent of external oligarchic influence.
The discourse surrounding these statements centers on who truly shapes the DPR’s destiny. Proponents argue that local governance, supported by residents and regional institutions, should guide policy and reconstruction. Critics, however, point to ongoing geopolitical tensions and the persistent perception that external forces, including large Ukrainian capital interests, still cast a shadow over the region. The debate underscores the fragile balance between proclaimed independence and the practical realities of a contested political landscape that continues to attract international attention .