Presentation of Kalmius Group report «LEADERSHIP OF UKRAINE IN THE MINSK PROCESS: attitude of the citizens towards the first steps of reintegration of separate districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions»

1. 1
LEADERSHIP OF UKRAINE IN THE MINSK PROCESS:
attitude of the citizens towards the first steps
of reintegration of separate districts
of Donetsk and Luhansk regions
Analytical note on the results of the first wave of the nationwide survey
The materials prepared by the “Kalmius Group” members, consisting of
Oleksandr Dmitriev, Mariia Zolkina, Oleksandr Kliuzhev, Oleksiy Matsuka and Vitaliy Syzov
Kyiv
2018

2. 2

3. 3
The key issue in the peaceful settlement of the
Russian-Ukrainian conflict in Donbas region is the
observance of the Package of Measures for the Im-
plementation Minsk Agreements, signed in February
of 2015. Since then the parties have failed to move
towards effective implementation of the agree-
ments. The main reason is the failure to comply with
security clauses related to the implementation of the
ceasefire and heavy weapons disengagement.
At the same time, a certain progress was
achieved in the legislative sphere.
For example, in September 2014, the Verkhovna
Rada of Ukraine approved the Laws “On Special Or-
der of Local Self-Government in Separate Districts of
Donetsk and Luhansk Regions”1
and “On Prevention
of the Persecution and Punishment of Participants of
Events in Donetsk and Luhansk Regions”2
. Both doc-
uments are part of the plan for the implementation of
Minsk agreements with Ukraine.
The Law on Special Order of Local Self-Gov-
ernment in 2015 and 2017 was amended by adding
some explanations. Thus, Ukraine has also legally
prepared for the possibility of the implementation of
Agreements, upon happening of the appropriate con-
ditions, for that to happen in a lawful manner.
Due to the existence of the negotiating platform,
the Minsk managed to achieve some success in solv-
ing humanitarian and infrastructure issues, in par-
ticular, resuming of Ukrainian mobile communication
on the uncontrolled territory3
and the exchange of
prisoners.
However, we can talk about a long pause in the
peace plan of action implementation and the clinch
in the negotiations on the procedure for its imple-
mentation and the adoption of the relative judicial
decisions.
Against this background, at the international level,
the calls are increasingly being made for intensi-
fication of unilateral implementation of the agree-
ments4
. In the conditions of welfare being conduct-
ed, it is impossible to fulfil peaceful agreements by
only one party. But the Ukrainian authorities have a
room for manoeuvre, which, on the one hand, helps
to demonstrate not only the desire, but also the will
to resolve the conflict, and on the other – not to
make unjustified and one-sided compromises with
the enemy.
The Ukrainian authorities have a real opportu-
nity to move forward in two directions, concerning
both home and foreign policy. This concerns both the
resumption of pension payments to the residents of
uncontrolled territory and the progress towards in-
troducing international military peacekeeping forces
onto the uncontrolled territory and, accordingly, the
international administration as a pledge of initiating
a real settlement of the conflict.
In addition, such actions would be supported by
the majority of Ukrainian citizens. Thus, the results
of a sociological survey conducted by GfK Ukraine in
April and May of 2018, commissioned by the “Kalmi-
us Group”, showed that the ideas aimed at alleviating
a situation of the uncontrolled territories residents
are substantively supported by the society. The vast
majority of the Ukrainians supports the idea of re-
storing pension payments to the residents of uncon-
trolled territories. The idea of ​​introducing an the UN
Transitional Administration and UN peacekeepers on
the territory of uncontrolled regions of Donetsk and
Luhansk regions was also supported for the majority
of the Ukrainians.
At the moment, these steps can become strategic
goals of state policy, and public perception of these
ideas can accelerate the restoration of national sov-
ereignty.
Introduction
1 “On Special Order of Local Self-Government in Separate Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Regions” http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1680-VII
2 The Verkhovna Rada approved the Law “On Prevention of the Persecution and Punishment of Participants of Events in Donetsk and Luhansk Regions” http://www.rada.gov.ua/news/Novyny/
Povidomlennya/97812.html
3 In the occupied Donetsk, the “Vodafone” mobile connection has been restored – the residents https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/news/29196740.html
4 Macron demands from Poroshenko quick measures for peaceful solution in Donbas https://goo.gl/f7tVun

4. 4
Review
Facilitating the procedure for obtaining pension
payments by the residents of uncontrolled territory
and moving towards the preparation for the intro-
duction of an international administration will allow
Ukraine to act as a driver and even to take the lead
in the Minsk process and reaffirm its commitment
to the international agreements.
To resume payments, the Ukrainian authorities
are recommended:
• to facilitate the procedures of verification of the
Ukrainian citizens living in the occupied territories
for receiving payments, eliminate discriminatory
barriers and maximize de bureaucratization of
the receiving payments process by the citizens
living in occupation;
• to consolidate the practice of legal enforcement
by the Pension Fund of Ukraine of the of Social
Security Right regulations for the retired internal-
ly displaced persons;
• to start an inclusive expert discussion on mo-
dalities and formats for the renewal of payments
for Ukrainian citizens residing in the temporarily
occupied territories;
• to form mechanisms of cross-sectoral interac-
tion and create an interdepartmental team whose
competence will be the practical development
of a delegated regulatory framework based on
expert recommendations on the formats for re-
sumption of payments for the citizens of Ukraine
in the occupation.
While reaching a compromise on the format
of international engagement in conflict reso-
lution, the Ukrainian authorities should take a
proactive stance and ensure the following re-
quirements:
• empowerment a peacekeeping mission or other
structure of an international peace operation with
regard to protecting civilians and preventing acts
of violence against them;
• to prevent the creation of conditions for the si-
multaneous peacekeeping mission operation and
illegal military formations existing in the territory
where actions of stabilization and rehabilitation
are taken;
• to provide effective measures to curb the fi-
nancing and resource support of illegal military
formations, which is a critical issue as for pre-
venting a repeated escalation of the situation;
to ensure that the international mission or the
relevant operation authorities act exclusively in
conformity with the legislation of Ukraine without
the creation of temporary provisions that are not
part of the Ukrainian governance system.

5. 5
Changes in attitude towards the Minsk: what is happening to public opinion
The Minsk agreements remain the key field,
within which both further negotiation to resolve the
conflict with the Russian Federation and almost all
the political and media discourse regarding the tem-
porarily occupied areas of Donbas are coordinated.
Public opinion is a factor that must be taken into
account for the successful resolution of the conflict,
despite the fact that the negotiations are taking place
at the international level.
There are several key positions and trends that
are present in the public’s attitude to the Minsk pack-
age of documents and models of conflict resolution
that are being discussed.
Focus on the search for peaceful conflict
solutions
A number of sociological and other studies con-
ducted in 2014-2017 show that, as a whole, the pop-
ulation prefers searching for compromises as the
main way to resolve the conflict. Besides, the num-
ber of those who focus on a compromise increases
from region to region as it gets closer to the front
line. This is confirmed by the estimates obtained un-
der the “Kalmius Group” research in April of 2018.
Thus, while the military operation of the Ukrain-
ian Army aiming at a decisive victory is considered
effective in resolving the conflict by 44% of the local
population in the Western and Central macro regions,
in the South their quantity reduces to 38% (and it is
only 4% more than those who believe that such an
operation, on the contrary, will make the situation
worse), in the East there are 30% of them, and 23%
are on controlled areas of Donbas. At the same time,
51% of the local residents are convinced that such a
campaign will only do harm to the conflict resolution.
The national average position as to the effective-
ness of such actions predominates to some extent
(39%), while 32% see it as a way to make the current
situation worse, and another 17% believe that this
will in no way affect anything.
When it comes to a new wave of a possible di-
rect military invasion of the Russian Federation, it is
estimated as a deterioration of the situation in every
region.
Getting lethal weapons from the United States or
other Western countries is also estimated depend-
ing on remoteness from the conflict zone: the further
away from the front line, the greater the support of
this idea (West and Centre). In the South and East,
there is almost parity between the opinions on the
effectiveness and the harmfulness of such steps,
while in Donbas region the most of residents (54%)
expect a deterioration of the situation with only a mi-
nority (29%) who consider such a step to be effective.
In all the macro regions, the citizens assume that
within this year (2018) the main efforts to resolve the
conflict will be focused on opening a dialogue and
negotiations (75% of those polled), while only 19%
expect the intensification of hostilities. The military
position is becoming more popular with the increas-
ing distance from the immediate conflict zone.
Priority of international instruments
While military actions do not become popular as
a method of conflict resolution, the support of other
tools that, in the citizens’ opinion, would be effec-
tive in solving the problem of war looks even more
significant. It is about the possibility of international
cooperation.
Almost half of the population (48%) is convinced
that this effective tool will be compulsion of Russia
for concessions through international sanctions and
pressure. At the same time, 31% believe that sanc-
tions and pressure in no way will affect Russia in
the context of stopping the conflict. There are some
regional differences in the estimation of such an in-
strument effectiveness: the opinion that the measure
is meaningful prevails in all macro regions, except
in the government-controlled part of Donbas, where
the attitudes are almost equally divided between
those who believe that pressure and sanctions will

6. 6
not affect the outcome of the conflict (40%), and
those who consider them to be effective (37%).
The idea of immediate strengthening the sanc-
tions against Russia by the EU and the US also has
critical public support: 55% are “for” the effectiveness
of this policy, 29% do not believe that it will make any
difference, 13% expect that such actions will make
the situation worse. In Donbas, the opinion is differ-
ent from other regions: the relative majority (43%)
does not believe that this will somehow affect the
situation, 34% are convinced that it will be effective.
The idea of more expanded format of interna-
tional negotiations, with the possible joining of the
EU and the US as well as other international organi-
zations, but without involving representatives of the
self-proclaimed “DPR” and “LPR” has even greater
public support – 59% believe that this will be effec-
tive in the context of resolving the conflict in the East.
This position prevails in all macro regions of Ukraine,
from 68% in the West – up to 47% in Donbas.
The idea of the UN Transitional Administration in
the context of the introduction of the peacekeeping
forces has the highest support as a method that is
considered effective in resolving the conflict – this
is the opinion of 60% of the population in all the re-
gions, including Donbas.
Citizens of Ukraine are more inclined to believe in
the effectiveness of international methods of conflict
resolution approaching, which are not always direct-
ly related to the Minsk agreements. In particular,
the idea of using peacekeepers and the Transitional
Administration goes beyond this format, although it
may be its follow-up.
Internal political “proposals” within the
Minsk route and unity in the society
One of the most sensitive topics is elections on
the uncontrolled territory. The possibility of elections
without regaining control over Ukraine-Russia bor-
der by Ukraine (it is to be recalled that the process
of regaining control have to begin just after holding
the elections, according to the Package of Measures
dated February 15, 2015), is perceived as unlikely by
the Ukrainian public.
59% of the population consider this compromise
unacceptable: for 39% it is unacceptable in any case,
for another 20% it is more unacceptable than accept-
able. Meanwhile, for 37%, such a concession is pos-
sible. In the West, Centre and South the prevailing
opinion is of the impossibility of such a compromise
(66%, 64% and 54% respectively), but in the East and
Donbas the public opinion has almost equally divided
between those who agree to the elections before re-
gaining control of the border, and those who oppose
such an idea. Thus, in the East, 48% consider such a
compromise to be unacceptable and 46% think it is
acceptable. In Donbas, it is 47% and 46%, respec-
tively. Similar trends are observed in regard to the
introduction of the federal form of government: 53%
do not agree to this concession, 29% believe it is ac-
ceptable and 18% have not chosen sides, although in
the East and Donbas there is a tendency to the divi-
sion of public opinion.
Consent to the particular political relations with
Russia of the currently occupied territories is also
generally an unacceptable option of compromise:
67% do not perceive this, 25% agree, and 8% have no
opinion. Consent to the particular economic relations
with Russia of these territories also causes a general
reaction of rejection: 64% would disagree, 29% could
agree to such a compromise, 7% have no opinion.
The unacceptability of certain compromises di-
rectly depends on the modalities of their implemen-
tation. If the elections before regaining of control
over the border are not usually perceived as an ac-
ceptable compromise, granting to the occupied terri-
tories a certain particular status of autonomy within
Ukraine, but after the legal elections thereon under
Ukrainian laws and the formation of legitimate lo-
cal self-government bodies, is estimated somewhat
differently. Public opinion is equally divided between
those who are ready for such steps, and those who
are not ready. Such a compromise looks unaccept-
able for 48% and acceptable for 48%.
If the population is asked to estimate the pos-
sibility of granting a certain particular status of au-

7. 7
tonomy within Ukraine, but without holding elections
according to Ukrainian legislation, then such an idea
is perceived negatively: 72% call it unacceptable and
25% would agree to such a scenario to different ex-
tents.
Both the idea of granting these territories some
autonomy and the idea of limiting the powers of au-
thorities in these territories in comparison with other
regions have a fairly high level of support.
73% of citizens support the idea of limiting the
powers of authorities in the temporary uncontrolled
territories as administrative units of Ukraine in
comparison with other regions of the country for
some time – until the situation is stabilized. This
option is considered unacceptable by 24% of the
citizens. This idea has the considerable support in
all regions and also on the government controlled
territories of Donbas.
The study of the “Kalmius Group” showed that
public opinion is flexible. The public has no defin-
itive vision of what the process of reintegration
of temporarily occupied territories should look
like. That is why, on the one hand, almost half of
the population is ready for an option of granting the
autonomous status for these territories (under the
certain conditions, to start with: control over the bor-
der, legal elections and the formation of legitimate
local authorities), but at the same time, more than
half of society is ready to another option: limiting the
powers of authorities in these territories during the
transition period.
How to speed up the negotiation process?
The resumption of pension payments
Political decisions within the Minsk process
framework are perceived by Ukrainian society quite
controversially. Even social issues that are more
likely not the commitments of the Minsk agree-
ments, but the implementation of the Ukrainian leg-
islation (as confirmed, in particular, by the Supreme
Court of Ukraine5
), are also the subject of discussion.
Social ties and the fulfilment by the Ukrainian
authorities of their obligations to their citizens can
become the very factor that today will contribute to
maintaining ties with the citizens who live in uncon-
trolled territory, and in the future will facilitate the
process of reintegration in the humanitarian dimen-
sion. The payment of pensions to residents of the
separate districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions
is in compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine. At
the same time, at a diplomatic level, a review of the
system of accrual and payment of pensions to the
residents of the occupied territories will demonstrate
Ukraine’s commitment to the implementation of in-
ternational agreements.
In a situation where negotiations on their imple-
mentation have reached a deadlock, it is advisable
to focus on the implementation of the Minsk agree-
ments in the directions that will not lead to social
tension. In particular, paragraph 8 of the Package
of measures for the implementation of Agreements
provides for the resumption of payments for the res-
idents of uncontrolled territories6
.
For the record, in November 2014, the Cabinet
of Ministers of Ukraine blocked the payment of pen-
sions for the people who stayed in the territories con-
trolled by the militants of the self-declared republics
and the Russian Federation. The government’s argu-
ments were as follows: the physical inability to deliv-
er cash to the territories controlled by the militants,
as well as a marked reduction in budget revenues
from those territories.
Blocking payments has caused a mixed public
reaction. Critics of these actions believed that the
consequences would be the loss of ties arising from
5 https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pro_sud/zrazkova-sprava/zs_9901_20_18
6 Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements. FULL TEXT https://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2015/02/12/7058327/

8. 8
the institution of citizenship, observing the violation
of citizens’ right to a pension, which is enshrined in
the Constitution of Ukraine and a number of legisla-
tive acts.
At the same time, government decisions also
provided for the on-going pensions accounting to the
residents of occupied territories in full and special
arrangements for the payments, provided that the
people are registered as internally displaced persons
in the government-controlled territory. This mecha-
nism was also criticized by human rights organiza-
tions as too bureaucratic, discriminatory and aimed
at restricting the rights of the citizens. The situation
with massive fictitious registration of the occupied
territory residents as IDPs in the populated places
near the demarcation line proves the inefficiency of
the current system of pensions accounting and ver-
ification.
The results of the “Kalmius Group” poll show a
favourable attitude of Ukrainian citizens towards the
idea of resumption of pensions payments to the res-
idents of the uncontrolled territories. In general, 62%
of the respondents commend about the possibility of
paying pensions to people living in the uncontrolled
territories of Donbas. 32%, who consider this dynam-
ic to be “unacceptable”, are against the payments:
That said, the payment of pensions to the Ukrainian citizens in occupation is considered “rather accept-
able” and “unacceptable in any way” by most respondents in all four macro regions of Ukraine:
West Centre South East Donbas Total*
Unacceptable in any way 14% 15% 15% 9% 8% 13%
Rather unacceptable 25% 20% 10% 17% 12% 19%
Rather acceptable 23% 26% 25% 23% 28% 25%
Quite acceptable 33% 32% 45% 47% 48% 38%
Undecided 5% 7% 5% 4% 4% 5%
39%
vs.
56%
35%
vs.
58%
25%
vs.
70%
26%
vs.
70%
20%
vs.
76%
32%
vs.
62%
West Centre South East
Rather unacceptable 25% 20% 10% 17%
8%
Donbas
28%
4%
12%
13%
25%
Total*
19%
5%
Quite acceptable 33% 32% 45% 47% 48% 38%
39%
vs.
56%
35%
vs.
58%
25%
vs.
70%
26%
vs.
70%
20%
vs.
76%
32%
vs.
62%
*From rounding to whole, the amount may vary by ± 1%
The requirements of the Minsk process imple-
mentation and the demonstration of Ukraine’s re-
sponsible position to international partners reinforce
the need to reconsider the previous government de-
cisions to block pension payments.
To date, the main obstacles to the reconsidera-
tion of such decisions are the insecurity and the lack
of effective control of Ukraine over separate districts
of Donbas, which significantly narrows, although not
closes, the window of opportunities for power insti-
tutions. The gradual movement toward the resump-
tion of payments is effectively built into of the rein-
tegration process logic and demonstrates adherence
to international agreements on the part of Ukraine.
Three and a half years have passed since the ter-
mination of payments and the context has changed:
the relatively quick return of these territories under
the control of Ukraine did not take place, as one could
still hope in 2014. These territories are recognized as
occupied and, in this situation, a change in the ap-
proach to building a social policy for the residents
of the occupied territory cannot but be reconsidered.
Under current circumstances, when a substan-
tial part of the ties has been torn apart, actual par-
allel political and informational realities have been
formed – in the occupied territories and in other
regions of Ukraine – the social policy with regard
to the ordinary residents of uncontrolled districts
should pursue not the goal of pressure, restric-
tions, “shut down the channels” (which could have
been effective in putting pressure on Russia and
self-proclaimed “L/DPR” during the intensive phase
of the conflict only at the beginning of self-pro-

9. 9
claimed republics development), but on the contra-
ry, “permissible” openness.
This means that to the extent that it does not pose
a risk to the Ukrainian side in the negotiation process
and in the security sector, Ukraine can be as open as
possible to save and maintain ties with its citizens
from the temporarily occupied territory.
One of the most logical steps in the current sit-
uation may be to start reconsidering of the system
of accrual and payment of pensions. Given the issue
that the right to receive a pension depends on the
IDP status, it would be wise to consider abandoning
such a dependence. This, on the one hand, would
greatly facilitate the lives of internally displaced
persons as a whole, since it would allow to recon-
sider and simplify the current system of the IDP
verification, and on the other hand, would make it
possible to really change the approach to one of the
most sensitive issues for residents of the uncon-
trolled territories.
Supporting the UN Transitional
Administration and Understanding its Risks
As it was noted, 60% of Ukrainian respondents
partially or completely agree that the introduction
of the UN Transitional Administration in support of
peacekeeping forces to the now occupied territories
could be an effective way of resolving the conflict.
13% of the respondents said that this arrange-
ment could lead to a deterioration of the situation in
the conflict zone, 20% of respondents believe that
the activities of the UN Transitional Administration
with the support of peacekeeping forces will not
affect the development of the situation. 7% of the
respondents were unable to estimate the impact of
peacekeeping efforts of this kind on the develop-
ment of the situation.
Expectations of the impact of Transitional admin-
istrations and peacekeeping forces on the situation
in separate districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions
differ in macro regions. Thus, in Donbas, 47% of re-
spondents supported the idea that the Transitional
administrations and peacekeepers would be effec-
tive in resolving the conflict.
Compared to other macro regions, Donbas is
less optimistic about such a way of resolving the
conflict. The possible effectiveness of the Transi-
tional administration and peacekeepers in resolving
the interstate conflict was highly appreciated in the
centre of the country. Like Donbas, the South is also
less optimistic about the possibility of resolving the
conflict with the help of international instruments for
preserving and building peace than other macro re-
gions of Ukraine (51%).
Such differences in indicators may be related
to the proximity of individual macro regions to the
territory of the conflict. We can assume, that better
awareness of the specifics of the current confronta-
tion motivates the citizens to rely more upon them-
selves or on the political will of the Ukrainian and
Russian leadership to end the conflict than on an ex-
ternal factor.
West Centre South East Donbas
Will make the situation worse 8% 8% 18% 20% 25%
Will have no effect 21% 17% 24% 22% 22%
Willbeeffectivein resolvingthe conflict 64% 67% 51% 51% 47%
Undecided 7% 7% 6% 7% 6%

10. 10
Despite the prevalence of opinion on the Transi-
tional administrations and peacekeeping forces ef-
fectiveness in the conflict resolving process, a signif-
icant number of respondents have an indeterminate
or negative attitude towards the prospects for their
implementation. 13% of the respondents have nega-
tive expectations, 20% of them do not believe in the
possibility to change the situation by introducing a
Transitional administration and using the peace-
keeping forces to support its activities.
The most serious claims to the UN peacekeep-
ing missions by outside observers are based on the
examples where missions were not able to stop the
escalation of armed confrontation and to prevent the
massive violence against civilians.
In particular, the report of the Panel on United
Nations Peace Operations (“Brahimi Report”) became
the resonant, critical and at the same time complex7
.
Subsequent reports from this group and other UN
studies show the urgent need for a careful elabo-
ration of international peace missions format. The
ill-considered operations of such kind may not lead
to an improvement of the situation, but rather to ex-
acerbate the conflict nature.
Public authorities should make adequate efforts
not only to find the best formats to involve the inter-
national community, but also to inform the society in
a comprehensive way about the various aspects of
the proposed settlement models.
The most optimistic scenario for involving the in-
ternational community in resolving the conflict on the
territory of separate districts of Donetsk and Luhansk
regions provides for the introduction of peace-sup-
port operations with a UN mandate.
Other forms of international engagement are un-
likely to be realistic, given the need for a compro-
mise between Ukraine, its western partners and the
Russian Federation. In particular, the participation of
other international organizations in such operations
may be inappropriate for the Russian Federation,
since it will de facto degrade the veto power of this
country for the adoption of the UN Security Council
decisions. It is about the fact that the deployment of
such an operation as part of the UN activity will allow
Russia to retain the right to vote at all stages of the
process, which could become an acceptable com-
promise in case of the United States and EU member
states effective involvement in the process.
The mandate of the future peacekeeping mission
should be much broader than the functions of pro-
tecting the observers of the existing OSCE mission.
The inadequate format of the peacekeeping mis-
sion will entail its actual dependence on the militant
groups that illegally control parts of the Donetsk and
Luhansk regions.
For the effectiveness of the peacekeeping mis-
sion, it is necessary to empower it not only to coun-
teract violence and armed destabilization, but also
to prevent the resource support of militant groups
aimed at disrupting the peaceful process.
In the case of a possible peacekeeping mission
on the territory of the now occupied Donbas, the
problem of ensuring its political balance comes to
the fore. It is important to observe the principle of
preventing the domination of political allies of the
Russian Federation in the operation.
For Ukraine, the current practice of a “transition-
al” legal system in the conflict zone may be unaccept-
able, given the stable functioning of legal institutions
in the country. This problem should be discussed in
advance in order to avoid future conflicts between
partners who have reached an agreement on the in-
troduction of this or that format by the Transitional
Administration.
The authorities of Ukraine should pay special
attention to informing the public about the progress
and intermediate results of negotiations on the intro-
duction of peacekeeping missions or other interna-
tional operations. Proper awareness of the citizens
about the strategy and tactical decisions of the state
will avoid excessive politicization of the issue.
7 Identical letters dated 21 August 2000 from the Secretary-General to the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.
asp?symbol=A/55/305

11. 11
This study was presented by the “Kalmius Group” initiative under
“Ukraine Confidence Building Initiative” (UCBI ІІ) project, funded by
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The study was made possible thanks to the generous support of
the American people through USAID. The product content is the
sole responsibility of the “Kalmius Group” and does not necessarily
reflect the views of USAID or the US Government.
“Kalmius Group” is an informal association of Ukrainian analysts
whose goal is to promote the restoration of the country’s
sovereignty in the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and
Luhansk regions. Motivation of our Group’s activities is clear and
transparent – to contribute effectively and professionally to the
restoration of the territorial integrity of the country. The name of
the coalition comes from the Kalmius River, which unites the free
and temporarily occupied districts of the region and symbolizes the
hope of citizens on both sides of the demarcation line to peace-
making by stopping the interstate conflict and restoring the unity of
Ukraine, the rule of law and order in the territories affected by the
armed confrontation.
Reference
All the study results are in the appendix to the note
The survey was conducted by GfK Ukraine. Survey method is telephone interviews with calls to phones.
Survey period: from April 14 to May 2, 2018.
1975 respondents, 536 of them from Donetsk and Luhansk regions (territories controlled by the Ukrainian
government). The survey was conducted in all regions of Ukraine, except for the uncontrolled part of Donetsk
and Luhansk oblasts and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The sampling error for the whole of Ukraine
does not exceed 2.5%, for Donetsk and Luhansk regions — does not exceed 4.9%.

12. 12