Hubbry Logo
NovorossiyaNovorossiyaMain
Open search
Novorossiya
Community hub
Novorossiya
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Novorossiya
Novorossiya
Novorossiya
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

  Novorossiya Governorate in 1800 within the Russian Empire. Its central city was Ekaterinoslav (modern Dnipro), which was briefly renamed "Novorossiysk" during the reign of Paul I

Novorossiya[nb 1] is a historical name, used during the era of the Russian Empire for an administrative area that would later become the southern mainland of Ukraine: the region immediately north of the Black Sea and Crimea. The name Novorossiya, which means "New Russia", entered official usage in 1764, after the Russian Empire conquered the Crimean Khanate, and annexed its territories,[1] when Novorossiya Governorate (or Province) was founded. Official usage of the name ceased after 1917, when the entire area (minus Crimea) was annexed by the Ukrainian People's Republic, precursor of the Ukrainian SSR.

Novorossiya Governorate was formed in 1764 from military frontier regions and parts of the southern Hetmanate, in anticipation of a war with the Ottoman Empire.[2] It was further expanded by the annexation of the Zaporozhian Sich in 1775. At various times, Novorossiya encompassed the modern Ukraine's regions of the Black Sea littoral (Prychornomoria), Zaporizhzhia, Tavria, the Azov Sea littoral (Pryazovia), the Tatar region of Crimea, the area around the Kuban River, and the Circassian lands.

History

[edit]

Before 18th century

[edit]
Further information: Wild Fields
Ukraine 1648 (south on top) with a broad belt of loca deserta (Latin for 'desolated areas')
Map of the Wild Fields in the 17th century

The modern history of the region follows the fall of the Golden Horde. The eastern portion was claimed by the Crimean Khanate (one of its multiple successors), while its western regions were divided between Moldavia and Lithuania. With the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, the whole Black Sea northern littoral region came under the control of the Crimean Khanate that in turn became a vassal of the Ottomans.[3] Sometime in the 16th century the Crimean Khanate allowed the Nogai Horde which were displaced from its native Volga region by Muscovites and Kalmyks to settle in the Black Sea steppes.[4]

Vast regions to the North of the Black Sea were sparsely populated and were known on medieval maps as Loca deserta (Latin for 'Desolated Places'), Wild Fields (as translated from Polish or Ukrainian), or Dykra (in Lithuanian). There were, however, many settlements along the Dnieper River. The Wild Fields had covered roughly the southern territories of modern Ukraine; some[who?] say they extended into the modern Southern Russia (Rostov Oblast).[citation needed]

Russian Empire (1764–1917)

[edit]
Further information: Novorossiya Governorate
Lands of Zaporizhian Host in 1760

The Russian Empire gradually gained control over the area, signing peace treaties with the Cossack Hetmanate and with the Ottoman Empire at the conclusion of the Russo-Turkish Wars of 1735–39, 1768–74, 1787–92 and 1806–12. In 1764 the Russian Empire established the Novorossiysk Governorate; it was originally to be named after the Empress Catherine, but she decreed that it should be called New Russia instead.[5] Imperial Russia's view of New Russia was described in 2006 by the historian Willard Sunderland:

The old steppe was Asian and stateless; the current one was state-determined and claimed for European-Russian civilization. The world of comparison was now even more obviously that of the Western empires. Consequently it was all the more clear that the Russian empire merited its own New Russia to go along with everyone else's New Spain, New France, and New England. The adoption of the name of New Russia was in fact the most powerful statement imaginable of Russia's national coming of age.[6]

The administrative center of the Novorossiysk Governorate was at the Fortress of St. Elizabeth (today in Kropyvnytskyi) in order to protect the southern borderlands from the Ottoman Empire, and in 1765 this passed to Kremenchuk.[5][7]

After the annexation of the Ottoman territories to Novorossiya in 1774, the Russian authorities commenced a broad program of colonization, encouraging large migrations from a broader spectrum of ethnic groups. Catherine the Great invited European settlers to these newly conquered lands: Romanians (from Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania), Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Albanians, Germans, Poles, Italians, and others.[citation needed] Catherine the Great granted Prince Grigori Potemkin (1739–1791) the powers of an absolute ruler over the area from 1774, after which he directed the Russian colonization of the land. The rulers of Novorossiya gave out land generously to the Russian nobility (dvoryanstvo) and the enserfed peasantry—mostly from Ukraine and fewer from Russia—to encourage immigration for the cultivation of the then sparsely populated steppe.[citation needed] According to the Historical Dictionary of Ukraine:

The population consisted of military colonists from hussar and lancer regiments, Ukrainian and Russian peasants, Cossacks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Hungarians, and other foreigners who received land subsidies for settling in the area.[8]

In 1775, the Russian Empress Catherine the Great forcefully liquidated the Zaporizhian Sich and annexed its territory to Novorossiya, thus eliminating the independent rule of the Ukrainian Cossacks.[citation needed] The governorate was dissolved in 1783.[citation needed] In 1792, the Russian government declared that the region between the Dniester and the Bug was to become a new principality named "New Moldavia", under Russian suzerainty.[9] According to the first Russian census of the Yedisan region conducted in 1793 (after the expulsion of the Nogai Tatars) 49 villages out of 67 between the Dniester and the Southern Bug were Romanian.[10] From 1796 to 1802 Novorossiya was the name of the reestablished Governorate with the capital Novorossiysk (previously and subsequently Ekaterinoslav, the present-day Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk not to be confused with present-day Novorossiysk, Russian Federation). In 1802 it was divided into three governorates, the Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and the Taurida.[citation needed]

A historical German map of Novorossiya 1855

From 1822 to 1873 the Novorossiysk-Bessarabia General Government was centred in Odesa. The region remained part of the Russian Empire until its collapse following the Russian February Revolution in early March 1917.

Soviet era (1918–1990)

[edit]

The territory became part of the short-lived Russian Republic for one year, then in 1918 it was largely included in the Ukrainian State and in the Ukrainian Soviet Republic at the same time. In 1918–1920 it was, to varying extents, under the control of the anti-Bolshevik White movement governments of South Russia, whose defeat signified the Soviet control over the territory, which became part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union in 1922.

Legacy

[edit]
Further information: Novorossiya (confederation)

Following the Soviet Union's collapse on 26 December 1991 and concurrent with the lead-up to Ukrainian independence on 24 August 1991, a nascent movement began in Odesa for the restoration of Novorossiya region; it however failed within days and never defined its borders.[11][12][13] The initial conception had not developed exact borders, but focus centred on the Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, and Crimean oblasts, with eventually other oblasts joining as well.[13][14]

The name received renewed emphasis when Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in an interview on 17 April 2014 that the territories of Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Odesa were part of what was called Novorossiya.[15][16][nb 2] In May 2014, the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic proclaimed the confederation of Novorossiya and its desire to extend its control towards all of southeastern Ukraine.[19][20][21] The confederation had little practical unity and within a year the project was abandoned: on 1 January 2015 the founding leadership announced the project had been put on hold, and on 20 May the constituent members announced the freezing of the political project.[22][23][24]

Anna Nemtsova forecast this disintegration in August 2014, and she predicted the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine then too.[25] Oksana Yanyshevskaya, a Ukrainian government official, in a July 2014 interview with her said that Novorossiya "is some sort of artificial idea that lives only in the minds of people in the Kremlin."[25]

In 2016 Marlène Laruelle wrote that Alexander Prokhanov formed the Izborsky Club around the Novorossiya meme.[26][27]

Gerard Toal opines that "In breaking apart a sovereign territorial state, it is helpful, if not always necessary, to have an alternative geopolitical imaginary at the ready and for this ersatz replacement to have some degree of local credibility and support." The Novorossiya idea is just this portmanteau.[28][29]

The idea of Novorossiya goes hand-in-hand with the erasure of Ukrainian statehood,[30] or as Vladislav Surkov said in his defenestration interview in February 2020, "There is Ukrainian-ness. That is, a specific disorder of the mind. An astonishing enthusiasm for ethnography, driven to the extreme." Surkov claims that Ukraine is "a muddle instead of a state. […] But there is no nation. There is only a brochure, 'The Self-Styled Ukraine', but there is no Ukraine."[31]

During the Wagner Group mutiny in June 2023, President Putin used the phrase in a speech responding to the mutiny, praising those "who fought and gave their lives to Novorossiya and for the unity of the Russky Mir".[32]

In an interview in August 2025, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov used the term to refer to an area separate from the Donbas and Crimea, alleging that, despite Russia's invasion, "Neither Crimea, nor Donbas, nor Novorossiya as territories have ever been our goal."[33]

Demographics

[edit]

Ethnicity

[edit]

The ethnic composition of Novorossiya changed during the beginning of the 19th century due to the intensive movement of colonists who rapidly created towns, villages, and agricultural colonies. During the Russo-Turkish Wars, the major Turkish fortresses of Ozu-Cale, Akkerman, Khadzhibey, Kinburn and many others were conquered and destroyed. New cities and settlements were established in their places. Over time the ethnic composition varied.[clarification needed]

Multiple ethnicities[clarification needed] participated in the founding of the cities of Novorossiya (most of these cities were expansions of older settlements[34]). For example:

  • Zaporizhzhia as formerly the site of a Cossack fort
  • Odesa, founded in 1794 on the site of a Tatar village (the first recorded mention of a settlement located in current Odesa was in 1415[34]) by a Spanish general in Russian service, José de Ribas, had a French mayor, Richelieu (in office 1803–1814)
  • Donetsk, founded in 1869, was originally named Yuzovka (Yuzivka) in honor of John Hughes, the Welsh industrialist who developed the coal region of the Donbas

According to the report of governor Aleksandr Shmidt (ru), the ethnic composition of Kherson Governorate (which included the city of Odesa) in 1851 was as follows:[35]

Nationality Number %
Ukrainians (Malorussians) 703,699 69.14
Romanians (Moldavians and Vlachs) 75,000 7.37
Jews 55,000 5.40
Russian-Germans 40,000 3.93
Great Russians 30,000 2.95
Bulgarians 18,435 1.81
Belarusians 9,000 0.88
Greeks 3,500 0.34
Romani people 2,516 0.25
Poles 2,000 0.20
Armenians 1,990 0.20
Karaites 446 0.04
Serbs 436 0.04
Swedes 318 0.03
Tatars 76 0.01
Former Officials 48,378 4.75
Nobles 16,603 1.63
Foreigners 10,392 1.02
Total Population 1,017,789 100

Language

[edit]

With regard to language usage, Russian was commonly spoken in the cities and some outside areas, while Ukrainian generally predominated in rural areas, smaller towns, and villages.[clarification needed]

The 1897 All-Russian Empire Census statistics show that Ukrainian was the native language spoken by most of the population of Novorossiya, but with Russian and Yiddish languages dominating in most city areas.[36][37][38]

Soviet Russian poster from 1921 — "Donbas is the heart of Russia".
Language Kherson Guberniya Yekaterinoslav Guberniya Tavrida Guberniya
Ukrainian 53.4% 68.9% 42.2%
Russian 21.0% 17.3% 27.9%
Belarusian 0.8% 0.6% 6.7%
Polish 2.1% 0.6% 0.6%
Bulgarian 0.9% – 2.8%
Romanian 5.3% 0.4% 0.2%
German 4.5% 3.8% 5.4%
Jewish (sic) 11.8% 4.6% 3.8%
Greek 2.3% 2.3% 1.2%
Tatar 8.2% 8.2% 13.5%
Turkish 2.6% 2.6% 1.5%
Total Population 2,733,612 2,311,674 1,447,790

The 1897 All-Russian Empire Census statistics:[39]

Language Odesa Yekaterinoslav Mykolaiv Kherson Sevastopol Mariupol Donetsk district
Russian 198,233 47,140 61,023 27,902 34,014 19,670 273,302
Jewish (sic) 124,511 39,979 17,949 17,162 3,679 4,710 7
Ukrainian 37,925 17,787 7,780 11,591 7,322 3,125 177,376
Polish 17,395 3,418 2,612 1,021 2,753 218 82
German 10,248 1,438 813 426 907 248 2,336
Greek 5,086 161 214 51 1,553 1,590 88
Total Population 403,815 112,839 92,012 59,076 53,595 31,116 455,819

List of founded cities

[edit]

Many of the cities that were founded (most of these cities were expansions of older settlements[34]) during the imperial period are major cities today.

Imperial Russian regiments were used to build these cities, at the expense of hundreds of soldiers' lives.[34]

First wave

[edit]

Second wave

[edit]

Third wave

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Novorossiya

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Novorossiya, meaning "New Russia," refers to the historical territories colonized by the Russian Empire in the late 18th century along the northern shores of the Black Sea and Azov Sea, following victories over the Ottoman Empire and Crimean Khanate, encompassing steppe lands now in southern and eastern Ukraine from the Dnipro River eastward to the Don River. These areas, previously under nomadic Tatar control and sparsely inhabited, were settled by migrants including Russians, Ukrainians, Cossacks, Serbs, and Germans under policies promoted by Catherine the Great to secure and develop the frontier. The region became a key area for agricultural expansion, Black Sea trade, and military outposts, contributing to Russia's southward expansion and economic growth through ports like Odessa and agricultural exports. Administratively, Novorossiya was initially consolidated as a in 1764 to prepare for conflicts with the Ottomans, later reorganized into provinces such as and Ekaterinoslav, fostering multi-ethnic communities with a predominant Slavic and Orthodox character. In the , after incorporation into the , the term faded but retained cultural resonance among Russian-speaking populations. Revived in by pro-Russian activists and referenced by Russian President as a historical entity, Novorossiya symbolized aspirations for autonomy or integration with in southeastern Ukrainian oblasts like and , amid the conflict triggered by the Revolution and Crimea's accession to . The 2014 confederation project gained limited traction beyond due to lack of widespread separatist support and Ukrainian military responses, leading to its formal suspension, though the annexed regions in 2022—, , , and —align with its historical extent and were justified by on grounds of shared history and referendums. This revival highlights ongoing disputes over the region's identity, with empirical data showing significant Russian ethnic and linguistic presence pre-2014, contrasting narratives of indivisible Ukrainian sovereignty.

Definition and Geography

Historical Extent and Boundaries

The Novorossiya Governorate was established in 1764 by the to administer southern frontier territories acquired from the , Hetman state, and adjacent regions. Its initial extent included New Serbia, , the Ukrainian Line, Slobidskyi Regiment territories, and portions of the , , , and regiments of the Hetmanate. The administrative center was relocated to in 1765. The governorate was divided into the Elizabethan Province west of the , consisting of five regiments, and the Catherinian Province east of the , incorporating four regiments along with county. Following the , its boundaries expanded southward to incorporate lands between the and rivers as well as the littoral annexed from the . In 1775, the territory further integrated the dissolved Zaporozhian Sich's free lands. By 1776, administrative subdivisions included counties centered in , Yelysavethrad (three counties), (two counties), and Nikopol (three counties), and (three counties). The unit was reorganized as the Katerynoslav Vicegerency in 1783, briefly revived as New Russia Gubernia in 1797, and subdivided into separate governorates in 1802. Throughout the , the designation Novorossiya persisted to describe the broader colonized region of , generally bounded by the to the south, the River to the east, the to the west, and extending northward into the forest- transition zones, encompassing areas of intensive Russian settlement and agricultural development. This extent roughly aligned with the later Kherson, Yekaterinoslav, and Tavrida governorates, reflecting ongoing imperial consolidation along the northern coast.

Modern Territorial Claims

In May 2014, amid unrest following Ukraine's Revolution, leaders of the self-proclaimed (DPR) and (LPR) declared the formation of a Federal State of Novorossiya, aspiring to unite eight southeastern Ukrainian oblasts—Donetsk, , , Dnipropetrovsk, , , , and —into a aligned with . This initiative sought to revive the historical concept of Novorossiya as a distinct geopolitical entity, citing cultural and ethnic ties to , but gained effective control only in portions of Donetsk and oblasts due to limited local support elsewhere and Ukrainian military counteroffensives. The project was formally suspended in late 2015 after failed attempts to expand beyond the , with no referendums or governance structures established in the other targeted regions. The concept reemerged in Russian rhetoric during the escalation of conflict in 2022. On February 21, 2022, Russian President , in announcing recognition of DPR and LPR independence, invoked historical Novorossiya to argue that southeastern —including , , , and adjacent areas—had been artificially incorporated into by Soviet authorities, framing these territories as inherently Russian lands requiring "reunification." This narrative positioned the claims as corrective of Bolshevik-era borders rather than new conquests, emphasizing ethnic Russian populations and historical settlement patterns. Following Russia's full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, Moscow advanced territorial assertions by organizing referendums in occupied areas of , , , and oblasts from September 23–27, 2022, purporting overwhelming support for joining . On September 30, 2022, formally annexed these four oblasts in their entirety—totaling approximately 120,000 square kilometers and encompassing about 15% of Ukraine's pre-2014 territory—declaring them federal subjects and integral to a restored Novorossiya aligned with Russian security interests. Putin described the annexations as irreversible, tying them to protection of Russian speakers and reversal of post-Soviet fragmentation, though actual control remains partial in and , with ongoing fighting as of October 2025. These claims exclude the broader 2014 ambitions for , Dnipropetrovsk, , and , focusing instead on the four oblasts as the viable core of historical Novorossiya. Internationally, the annexations lack recognition beyond and its allies, viewed as violations of Ukraine's sovereignty under the 1994 and UN Charter.

Historical Development

Pre-Russian Settlement

![Beauplan's 17th-century map of the region][float-right] The Novorossiya region, corresponding to the northern , exhibits archaeological evidence of human activity from the period, with the representing early pastoralist societies around 3300–2600 BCE, characterized by burials and mobile herding economies. These groups, often linked to proto-Indo-European expansions, maintained low population densities suited to the grassland environment. From the BCE, nomadic Indo-Iranian tribes such as the inhabited the steppe, followed by the who dominated from the 7th to 3rd centuries BCE, engaging in horse-based warfare and trade with neighboring settled societies. succeeded the , continuing until the early centuries CE, while Greek colonists established emporia like (near modern ) along the coast starting in the 6th century BCE for grain and slave trade. Subsequent migrations included Germanic in the CE and Hunnic incursions in the 4th–5th centuries, fragmenting prior polities and reinforcing the steppe's nomadic character. Early Slavic settlements appeared northward from the 5th century CE, but the southern expanses remained under Turkic nomads like and by the 10th–12th centuries, with limited sedentary agriculture due to insecurity. The Mongol Golden Horde conquest in the 13th century integrated the region into vast nomadic domains, succeeded by the Crimean Khanate after 1441, where Nogai and Crimean Tatar groups conducted seasonal grazing and raids, rendering permanent settlements rare. Known as the Wild Fields in 16th–18th-century European accounts, the area featured sparse Cossack outposts by Zaporozhian hosts from the mid-16th century, primarily for defense against Tatar incursions rather than dense colonization. This pattern of nomadic dominance and minimal fixed habitation persisted until Russian imperial campaigns in the late 18th century.

Imperial Colonization and Administration (1764–1917)

The Novorossiya Governorate was established in 1764 under Catherine II to administer the southern steppe territories, including military frontier zones and parts of the southern Hetmanate, as a strategic measure ahead of conflicts with the Ottoman Empire. This administrative unit initially covered lands between the Dnieper and Southern Bug rivers, facilitating Russian control over sparsely populated Cossack-held areas. In 1775, the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich further integrated these territories, eliminating autonomous Cossack governance and enabling systematic state-directed settlement. Grigory Potemkin, appointed governor-general of New Russia in 1774 following the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774), directed extensive colonization efforts to populate and develop the region. He oversaw the founding of key ports and cities, such as Kherson in 1778, and promoted settlement by offering land grants, tax exemptions for up to 30 years, and religious freedoms to attract diverse groups including Russian state peasants, Ukrainian migrants, Germans, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, and Bulgarians fleeing Ottoman rule. Catherine's 1763 manifesto specifically invited foreign colonists to cultivate the "wild fields," resulting in organized migrations, such as German farming communities in the Black Sea region. These policies aimed to secure borders, boost agriculture, and establish naval bases, with Potemkin coordinating infrastructure like fortresses and roads. The governorate was restructured multiple times: abolished in 1783 amid administrative reforms, briefly revived in 1796–1802 under Paul I with Yekaterinoslav as its center, and then divided into separate entities including the Yekaterinoslav, , and Tavrida governorates in 1802. By the , "Novorossiya" functioned as a historical-geographic designation for these southern provinces rather than a formal unit, governed by appointed Russian officials from St. Petersburg emphasizing centralized control and . intensified after the 1783 annexation of , incorporating diverse settlers and fostering trade-oriented ports like (founded 1794), while agricultural estates dominated, supported by serf labor until emancipation in 1861. Administrative focus shifted toward from the 1860s, promoting in schools and bureaucracy amid growing industrialization in areas like the Donets Basin.

Soviet Reorganization and Russification (1918–1991)

Following the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War, the territories historically associated with Novorossiya—encompassing modern-day eastern and southern oblasts of Ukraine such as Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Odesa—were incorporated into the newly formed Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Ukrainian SSR) by 1922, as part of the broader Soviet reorganization to consolidate control over former imperial lands. Initial administrative divisions placed these regions under guberniyas (provinces) that were gradually restructured into raions and later oblasts, with Donetsk Governorate established in 1920 to oversee the industrial Donbas area before further subdivisions in the 1930s. However, border adjustments occurred early on; in 1924, the Russian SFSR annexed the Taganrog district and eastern portions of the Donbas from the Ukrainian SSR, reducing Ukrainian territorial claims in that coal-rich zone by approximately 5,000 square kilometers. These changes reflected Moscow's prioritization of resource control over ethnic delineations, stabilizing the Ukrainian SSR's southern and eastern boundaries by the late 1920s with minimal further alterations until 1954's Crimean transfer, which lay outside core Novorossiya but reinforced centralized Soviet oversight. The 1920s saw a temporary policy of korenizatsiya (), promoting and cadre recruitment in administration and within the Ukrainian SSR, including Novorossiya's urban centers, as a tactical concession to stabilize Bolshevik rule amid peasant unrest. This shifted dramatically in under , with purges targeting Ukrainian cultural elites and a pivot to , evidenced by the suppression of Ukrainian orthography reforms and the elevation of Russian as the of Soviet administration and industry, particularly in eastern oblasts where industrial output demanded unified command structures. The of 1932–1933, which killed an estimated 3.9 million in including significant numbers in southern grain-producing regions like and , facilitated demographic reconfiguration by depopulating rural Ukrainian areas and enabling influxes of Russian-speaking settlers. Language policies explicitly restructured Ukrainian vocabulary to align with Russian norms, removing "archaic" terms and mandating Russian in technical , which entrenched linguistic hierarchies favoring Russian in Novorossiya's ports and factories. Soviet industrialization via the Five-Year Plans accelerated through targeted migration to Novorossiya's resource hubs. In the , coal production surged from 20 million tons in 1928 to 110 million by 1940, drawing over 1 million workers, predominantly from Russian SFSR regions, altering the ethnic composition; by the 1939 census, comprised 25% of Donetsk Oblast's population, concentrated in urban mining centers where they dominated leadership roles. Similar patterns emerged in and , where and collectivization imported Russian overseers, fostering bilingualism skewed toward Russian as the prestige of mobility and Party affiliation. Post-World War II reconstruction intensified this, with the 1944–1950s seeing mass resettlement of ethnic into war-devastated , reaching 30% of the urban population in and by 1959, as Soviet planners viewed these zones as extensions of Russian industrial heartlands. By the Brezhnev era (1964–1982), Russification solidified through institutional inertia: Russian held de facto official status in education and media across southern and eastern oblasts, with Ukrainian confined to rural spheres, contributing to a 1989 survey showing 40–60% native Russian speakers in Donetsk and Luhansk despite nominal Ukrainian majorities. Odesa, as a Black Sea hub, mirrored this with Russian dominance in its multiethnic port economy, where Soviet policies prioritized Cyrillic uniformity under Russian linguistic norms. These measures, rooted in centralist ideology rather than organic assimilation, created enduring Russian-speaking enclaves, as corroborated by declassified Soviet demographic records indicating engineered ethnic balances to preempt nationalist deviations. The 1989 Language Law belatedly affirmed Ukrainian as state language, but enforcement lagged in Russified industrial belts until the USSR's dissolution.

Post-Soviet Fragmentation (1991–2013)

Following the in December 1991, the territories comprising historical Novorossiya—primarily the modern Ukrainian oblasts of , , , , (formerly Dnipropetrovsk), , , , and —were incorporated into the newly independent without territorial partition. 's December 1, 1991, garnered 92.3% approval nationwide, including majorities in eastern and southern regions despite their substantial ethnic Russian populations (e.g., 43.6% in and 44.8% in as of early censuses) and predominant use of Russian as the primary language. These areas retained strong economic ties to , particularly in and , with and production historically oriented toward Soviet-era markets that persisted post-independence. Regional tensions surfaced through demands for greater rather than outright . In , where ethnic formed a plurality, the local parliament declared sovereignty in January 1992 and pursued independence gestures, but by June 1992, Ukraine's formalized 's status as an with expanded self-governance powers under the national constitution, averting deeper fragmentation. In , miners' strikes from 1993 onward protested — exceeding 10,000% in 1993 and industrial output halving by 1999—but centered on wage arrears, welfare reforms, and Ukraine's economic sovereignty from lingering Soviet structures, not separation. Proposals for federalization, including for and , emerged sporadically (e.g., minor "Donetsk Republic" initiatives in the early ), yet lacked broad support and were rebuffed in Kyiv's unitary framework. Electoral divides underscored pro-Russian leanings: eastern and southern oblasts delivered strong backing for candidates like (e.g., 90%+ in during his 2010 presidential win), reflecting preferences for closer ties amid cultural-linguistic affinities and gas dependency disputes, such as the 2006 and 2009 supply crises. Despite these fissures—exacerbated by Ukraine's post-Soviet economic turmoil, with GDP contracting 60% from 1991 to 1999—no viable separatist entities formed outside Crimean autonomy arrangements. Pro-Russian political forces, including the dominant in the east, channeled sentiments into national politics rather than , maintaining until external shocks in 2014. This stability persisted amid low-intensity Russian influence operations, including support for local extremists since the , but without triggering systemic breakup.

The 2014 Separatist Initiative

Origins in Euromaidan Protests

The protests, initially triggered on November 21, 2013, by President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to sign an association agreement with the , evolved into widespread demonstrations against government corruption and authoritarianism, culminating in violent clashes and Yanukovych's flight from on February 22, 2014. This power shift, which installed a pro-Western interim government, was perceived in Russian-speaking eastern regions like as an illegitimate coup influenced by external actors, sparking immediate counter-mobilization rooted in opposition to perceived threats to bilingualism, regional , and economic ties with . Pro-Russian rallies in drew thousands on March 1, 2014, voicing demands for federalization, rejection of the new authorities, and alignment with the Eurasian Customs Union over EU integration. These demonstrations rapidly escalated amid building occupations and armed standoffs. On March 7, 2014, local pro-Russian figure declared himself "people's governor" of during a , calling for separation from and closer Russian ties, before his detention by Ukrainian security forces later that month. By early April, protesters seized the Donetsk Regional State Administration building on April 6, leading to the formal proclamation of the (DPR) the following day, April 7, 2014, with initial claims to self-governance and referendums on status. Parallel unrest in resulted in the (LPR) declaration on April 27, 2014, framing both as defenses against cultural and political marginalization post-Euromaidan. The Novorossiya concept emerged explicitly as a unifying framework for these separatist entities. On May 24, 2014, leaders of the DPR and LPR signed a treaty establishing the "Federal State of Novorossiya," a proposed confederation intended to encompass Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, Odesa, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Mykolaiv, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts, invoking historical Russian imperial precedents to justify territorial ambitions and resistance to central Kyiv control. This initiative, promoted by figures like Gubarev through the newly formed New Russia Party, positioned Novorossiya as a bulwark against the post-Maidan government's Western orientation, though it quickly faced military pushback and failed to consolidate beyond Donbas core areas. Local support stemmed from economic dependencies on Russia and grievances over language policies, but the movement's momentum relied on armed groups and external backing, as evidenced by subsequent international sanctions targeting organizers.

Declaration and Initial Territorial Control

On 22 May 2014, leaders of the self-proclaimed (DPR) and (LPR) announced the creation of Novorossiya as a confederal entity incorporating the two republics. This followed the DPR's on 11 May 2014 after a disputed , and a similar LPR referendum on the same date. The announcement was made by , who had earlier positioned himself as "people's governor" of in March 2014. Two days later, on 24 May 2014, representatives of the DPR and LPR signed a formalizing their unification under the name Federal State of Novorossiya, with the stated intent to include additional southeastern Ukrainian territories such as , Dnipropetrovsk (now ), Zaporizhzhia, , , and oblasts. The entity's leadership, including figures like as self-appointed head of its parliament, envisioned it as a seeking ties with , including potential accession to the Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan . At the time of declaration, Novorossiya's effective territorial control was confined to separatist-held areas within and oblasts, estimated at roughly 20-30% of each oblast's territory. Separatist forces, numbering several thousand armed militants, had seized key administrative buildings and cities including (occupied in early April), (mid-April), Horlivka, Sloviansk (captured 12 April 2014), and Kramatorsk. These gains stemmed from coordinated takeovers amid the aftermath, with limited Ukrainian military response until the Anti-Terrorist Operation intensified in mid-April. Outside , initial attempts to extend control—such as brief occupations in (early April) and clashes in (2 May)—failed to establish lasting footholds, limiting Novorossiya's authority to the two eastern republics' contested zones.

Collapse Outside Donbas

In spring 2014, following the declaration of the self-proclaimed and People's Republics, pro-Russian separatists and coordinators like Oleg Tsarev envisioned Novorossiya as a encompassing eight southeastern Ukrainian oblasts: , , , Dnipropetrovsk, , , , and . However, outside and oblasts—where industrial ties to and higher concentrations of Russian speakers enabled partial territorial seizures—separatist initiatives faltered within weeks due to insufficient local mobilization, rapid Ukrainian security responses, and weaker underlying grievances compared to the . In , the most populous of the targeted regions, pro-Russian activists seized the regional state administration building on April 7, 2014, raising a and declaring a " " in coordination with similar actions in and . Ukrainian interior ministry forces, supported by local police, retook the building the same day without significant casualties, detaining dozens of participants. By April 9, the government-launched Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) had detained over 70 suspected separatists in , restoring order amid protests that drew only limited crowds of several thousand, far short of the sustained insurgencies in . Subsequent rallies in dwindled as pro-Ukrainian counter-demonstrations grew, reflecting broader regional ambivalence toward despite Russian-speaking majorities. Odesa Oblast saw the most violent but ultimately decisive failure on May 2, 2014, when street clashes between pro-Ukrainian "football fans" and pro-Russian "" activists escalated after the latter retreated to the Trade Unions House, which burned in a fire amid gunfire from both sides, killing 48 people—predominantly pro-Russian protesters—and injuring over 200. The incident, investigated by Ukrainian authorities as with elements, shattered separatist momentum in , a historically diverse port with strong Ukrainian national sentiment post-Euromaidan; mass pro-Ukrainian rallies followed, and no further building seizures occurred. Russian state media framed the event as a "" to rally support, but it instead consolidated local opposition to , marking a symbolic endpoint for broader Novorossiya ambitions beyond . In , , , and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts, unrest manifested as sporadic protests and brief occupations—such as a May 2014 administration building takeover in quickly reversed by Ukrainian forces—but lacked the armed groups or popular backing to persist, with crowds rarely exceeding hundreds. The ATO, initiated April 14, 2014, prioritized these areas with SBU () raids and military deployments, recapturing sites without major battles by mid-May and preventing escalation through intelligence on Russian-backed agitators. Analysts note that these regions' relative economic integration with , lower ethnic Russian populations (under 30% in most), and absence of Donbas-style coal-and-steel dependencies to undermined separatist viability, even as provided rhetorical and limited covert aid insufficient for multi-front insurgencies. By late June 2014, Ukrainian forces had confined active conflict to and , rendering Novorossiya's extraterritorial claims defunct in practice.

Integration into Russian Special Military Operation (2022–Present)

Revival of Novorossiya Rhetoric

Following Russia's full-scale invasion of on February 24, 2022, official rhetoric referencing Novorossiya reemerged prominently to justify expanded territorial claims, particularly over regions historically associated with the 18th-century imperial designation, including parts of , , , , , and oblasts. This revival contrasted with the term's diminished use after the separatist project's collapse outside , reframing the military operation as a restoration of historical Russian administrative unity rather than mere defense of ethnic kin. In a September 21, 2022, address announcing partial mobilization, President explicitly invoked Novorossiya, stating that its residents "do not want to live under the yoke of the neo-Nazi regime" in and had endured eight years of conflict since 2014. Nine days later, during ceremonies for the annexation of , , , and oblasts—territories overlapping core Novorossiya areas— signed treaties integrating them into , portraying the move as fulfilling the "will of the people" in these historically Russian-settled lands. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson echoed this in subsequent briefings, describing the annexed regions as part of Novorossiya rejecting "Russophobic" policies. The rhetoric persisted into 2023–2025, with Putin declaring in a 2023 speech that Novorossiya fighters had reclaimed "Russian land," and by April 2025 asserting that "Novorossiya is an integral part of Russia." Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defined Novorossiya broadly as encompassing areas from Kharkiv to Odesa, signaling unyielding claims on unoccupied Ukrainian territories despite stalled advances. Official statements on the third anniversary of annexations in September 2025 reiterated referendums in "Donbass and Novorossiya" as expressions of self-determination, tying the narrative to long-term integration efforts amid ongoing hostilities. This usage, drawn from imperial history, served to legitimize administrative consolidation and reject negotiations short of full concession, as evidenced by Putin's consistent demands for Ukrainian cession of these areas.

Annexations of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia

Following Russian military advances in the special military operation launched on February 24, , authorities in the occupied portions of Ukraine's , , , and oblasts organized referendums on joining , announced by President on September 21, , with voting scheduled from September 23 to 27. The process occurred under the supervision of Russian-installed local administrations and military presence, amid reports of and restrictions on independent monitoring from Ukrainian and Western observers. Russian state media reported voter turnout exceeding 75% across the regions, with approval rates for accession ranging from 87% in to over 98% in and , which Russian officials presented as evidence of local support for integration. On September 30, 2022, Putin signed treaties in the formalizing Russia's of the four oblasts in their entirety, despite controlling only partial territories at the time—approximately 60-80% of and , and less in and . The accords defined the annexed areas as , with Putin framing the move as correcting historical injustices and protecting Russian-speaking populations from alleged Ukrainian persecution, invoking principles under as interpreted by . Russia incorporated the regions into its legal framework, issuing passports, aligning currencies to the , and initiating administrative reforms, though implementation varied due to incomplete control. The annexations drew unanimous condemnation from , the , , and , which deemed the referendums illegitimate due to their conduct under duress and without adherence to Ukraine's or free expression standards, viewing them as a violation of the 1994 and post-Cold War territorial norms. No major international body or state outside Russia's allies recognized the claims, leading to expanded sanctions on Russian entities and officials involved. Post-annexation, Ukrainian counteroffensives altered control dynamics: in November 2022, forces recaptured the of the River in , including the city of , reducing Russian-held territory there to roughly one-third. Similar advances in liberated areas west of the front line, leaving with partial occupation, including the . As of October 2025, maintains effective control over nearly all of and oblasts, including recent gains around Pokrovsk and Kurakhove in , but holds only about two-thirds of and combined, with ongoing preventing full consolidation. These annexations effectively revived the Novorossiya framework by subsuming historical southeastern territories under Russian sovereignty, though persistent Ukrainian resistance and Western have sustained incomplete control.

Ongoing Military and Administrative Consolidation (2022–2025)

Following Russia's formal annexation of , , , and oblasts on September 30, 2022, military operations focused on consolidating control amid ongoing Ukrainian resistance. Russian forces achieved near-complete territorial dominance in by mid-2022 and maintained it through incremental advances, capturing the remainder of key settlements despite Ukrainian counteroffensives. In , advances were slower but persistent, with Russian troops gaining approximately 146 square miles between early September and late October 2025, primarily around frontline areas like Pokrovsk, at the cost of high casualties and equipment losses. By October 2025, Russian control extended to roughly 77% of , though Ukraine retained pockets near the administrative center. In the southern oblasts, consolidation faced greater setbacks. Ukrainian forces liberated Kherson city and the right bank of the Dnipro River in November , reducing Russian holdings to about 73% of , confined largely to the left bank by 2025. Zaporizhzhia Oblast saw similarly limited progress, with Russian positions stabilizing around occupied cities like and but failing to advance significantly beyond initial gains, holding approximately 73% of the territory amid stalled offensives and Ukrainian incursions. Overall, Russian territorial gains across these regions totaled around 123 square miles from mid-September to mid-October 2025, reflecting a tactical emphasis on attrition rather than rapid breakthroughs. Administratively, integrated the regions through legal, economic, and institutional reforms aligned with federal structures. Accession treaties signed in September 2022 enabled the issuance of Russian passports to over 1 million residents by 2023, alongside the adoption of the as currency and alignment of legal codes, education curricula, and taxation systems with Russian norms. Governance bodies, such as the administration under , coordinated socioeconomic development, including infrastructure repairs and pension payments from , as discussed in meetings through 2025. Efforts included relocating administrative functions to secure areas and suppressing dissent via security measures, though implementation varied by local control, with southern regions experiencing disruptions from contested frontlines. rejected territorial concessions in talks, framing consolidation as irreversible reunification.

Demographics and Identity

Ethnic Composition and Historical Migrations

The historical region of Novorossiya, encompassing parts of modern-day , , , and oblasts, was initially sparsely populated steppe lands inhabited by nomadic groups and prior to the late Russian imperial expansion. Following the Russian Empire's of the area from the in 1783, Empress Catherine II initiated organized colonization efforts, encouraging migrations from , Ukrainian Cossack territories, and foreign ethnic groups including Serbs, , , , and to fortify borders and develop agriculture. These settlements established a mixed Slavic core, with and forming the predominant groups through state-sponsored land grants and military colonies. Industrialization in the , particularly in the coal and steel sectors, accelerated Russian inward migration as workers were drawn to emerging factories and mines from across the , altering local demographics toward greater ethnic Russian presence in urban centers. Soviet policies from the 1920s onward intensified this trend through forced industrialization, systems favoring Russian labor transfers, and campaigns that promoted and culture, leading to a dilution of Ukrainian ethnic identification in eastern areas despite nominal majorities. Post-World War II resettlements, including deportations of and influxes of Russian settlers to repopulate devastated zones, further entrenched bilingual Slavic demographics with minorities like and persisting in pockets. According to Ukraine's 2001 census, the last comprehensive pre-war enumeration, ethnic Ukrainians constituted majorities across Novorossiya's core oblasts, though with substantial Russian minorities, reflecting self-identified affiliations amid historical intermixing:
OblastUkrainians (%)Russians (%)Other (%)
Donetsk56.938.24.9
Luhansk58.038.93.1
Kherson82.014.13.9
Zaporizhzhia70.824.74.5
These figures, derived from self-reporting under Ukrainian administration, likely understate cultural , as native Russian speakers exceeded ethnic Russian percentages in (over 70% in some surveys). Since the 2014 conflict, demographic shifts have been profound, with an estimated 1.5-2 million residents displaced from to or Ukraine-controlled territories, alongside wartime casualties and infrastructure collapse reducing local populations by up to 50% in contested areas by 2022. Russian authorities in occupied zones have reported accelerated Russian passportization and settlement incentives, potentially increasing ethnic Russian proportions, though independent verification remains limited amid ongoing hostilities.

Linguistic Patterns and Bilingualism

In the territories associated with Novorossiya—primarily , , , and oblasts—linguistic patterns reflect a historical predominance of Russian as the of urban and industrial life, stemming from 19th- and 20th-century migrations of Russian-speaking workers during imperial and Soviet industrialization, alongside policies of that prioritized Russian in , administration, and media. According to Ukraine's 2001 census, native Russian speakers comprised 74.9% in , 68.8% in , 24.2% in , and 32.7% in , while native Ukrainian speakers were 24.1%, 30.0%, 70.5%, and 62.6%, respectively; these figures highlight a divergence between ethnic self-identification (where ethnic often predominated) and declared mother tongue, with many ethnic adopting Russian as their primary due to environmental factors rather than alone. Bilingualism between Russian and Ukrainian has been widespread, particularly in eastern and southern oblasts, where approximately 80% of adults reported fluency in at least one language beyond their mother tongue as of the early 2000s, facilitating communication across mixed communities but reinforcing Russian as the de facto lingua franca in daily interactions, commerce, and public spheres pre-2014. Surveys from 2023-2024 indicate that in eastern regions, 54% of respondents used both languages interchangeably in daily life, with 24% speaking only Ukrainian and 22% only Russian, while southern areas showed 51% bilingual usage, 32% only Ukrainian, and 16% only Russian; these patterns persisted despite Ukrainian's status as the state language, as Russian dominated private and informal domains due to generational habits and media exposure. Post-2014 conflict and the 2022 escalation accelerated a shift toward Ukrainian usage even among bilingual populations in government-controlled areas, driven by national mobilization and laws promoting Ukrainian in and media; nationwide surveys show primary home use of Ukrainian rising from around 45% pre-2022 to 57% by late 2022, with Russian dropping to 15%, though eastern bilinguals retained higher Russian proficiency for practical reasons. In Russian-administered parts of these oblasts since 2022, policies have reinstated Russian as the sole of instruction and administration, suppressing Ukrainian in schools and potentially eroding bilingual capabilities among younger cohorts, though pre-war suggest resilience in private bilingual practices.

Economic and Infrastructural Legacy

Imperial and Soviet Industrialization

The industrialization of Novorossiya's eastern regions, particularly the (encompassing parts of modern and oblasts), began in earnest during the late , driven by abundant coal deposits and foreign investment. , founded in 1795, emerged as a hub for early industrial activities, including gas transport and precursors. By the late 19th century, the became a key center of , with expanding rapidly; in 1897, the region's industry accounted for over 30% of its gross regional product, and labor productivity in industry surpassed 600 rubles per worker annually. The arrival of foreign entrepreneurs, primarily from , catalyzed growth, establishing around 300 enterprises by 1900, many focused on and . Railway infrastructure further propelled development; the completion of lines linking Donbas coal fields to iron ore sources by the 1880s enabled large-scale steel production, as exemplified by the Hughesovka (modern ) metallurgical works, which ranked first in the empire for iron casting by 1874. Foreign capital dominated, comprising 70% of industrial investments by 1913, transforming the area into one of the empire's primary producers, though exact shares varied amid uneven extraction challenges. This era laid the foundation for Novorossiya's economic orientation toward extractive industries, attracting migrant labor and fostering urban centers despite logistical and technological hurdles faced by early pioneers. Under Soviet rule, Donbas industrialization intensified through centralized planning, with the First Five-Year Plan (1928–1932) prioritizing to build socialist economic capacity. The region supplied critical and , contributing significantly to the USSR's rapid output growth; Soviet policies intertwined industrialization with , producing a modern working-class base in . Donbas mines and metallurgical plants expanded output, supported by projects like the (DniproHES) in nearby , operational from 1932, which powered regional factories. Post-World War II reconstruction rebuilt and modernized facilities, solidifying the area's role as a cornerstone of Soviet until stagnation set in by the 1970s, when growth rates declined amid inefficiencies. This Soviet legacy entrenched resource-dependent economics, with and dominating local production metrics through the late .

Post-2014 Disruptions and Russian Reconstruction Efforts

The outbreak of conflict in in 2014 triggered immediate and profound economic disruptions, particularly in the and sectors that had historically defined the region's industrial output. Industrial production in plummeted by 60% and in by 85% as of August 2014, driven by power outages, destruction of , and severed links. These losses contributed to roughly two-thirds of Ukraine's overall GDP contraction of 7-8% in 2014, with the economy—previously accounting for a significant share of national industrial activity—facing halted exports of and amid blockades and combat damage. Further compounding the decline, regional credit availability dropped from 34.6% of GDP in 2014 to 10% by 2018, reflecting disorganization, displacement of workers, and destruction of factories and mines. Ongoing hostilities through 2022 exacerbated these issues, with the Basin's heavy reliance on cross-border collapsing under sanctions and actions, leading to mine closures and reduced output across the affected oblasts. The war's "three Ds"—destruction, displacement, and disorganization—crippled core industries, as evidenced by the shift away from for Ukraine's production, forcing imports by 2025. Economic activity in separatist-held areas stagnated, with limited access to international markets and internal breakdowns, though pre-war structural decline in dependency had already set the stage for vulnerability. Following the 2022 annexations of , , , and oblasts, Russian authorities launched reconstruction initiatives aimed at integrating these territories into the economy, including monetary union via the and restoration of . In 2023, disbursed approximately 675 billion (about $7.6 billion) in subsidies to occupied administrations for socioeconomic support, with allocations rising to 939.8 billion ($9.68 billion) planned for restoration in the annexed regions under the 2025 draft . Efforts focused on repairing , roads, and utilities, with 20 billion allocated in 2025 specifically for regional and local road improvements, alongside new facilities like medical centers. Administrative consolidation included trade agreements signed on September 22, 2025, between the and People's Republics and the and regions to foster economic cooperation within Russia's framework. Russian programs emphasized reviving coal mining as a symbol of industrial recovery, though challenges persist from ongoing combat, Western sanctions limiting imports, and prioritization of military infrastructure over civilian projects in some assessments. By mid-2025, official reports highlighted progress in socioeconomic development meetings, yet verifiable independent data on net economic gains remains scarce amid the conflict.

Ideological and Cultural Dimensions

Russian Nationalist Interpretations

Russian nationalists interpret as the southeastern territories of present-day that were incorporated into the during the late 18th century through conquests from the and , particularly following the Russo-Turkish Wars of 1768–1774 and 1787–1792 under . They emphasize that these lands, previously sparsely populated steppes dominated by nomadic , were transformed into productive Russian domains via settlement by , Orthodox Serbs, and Russian colonists, fostering a distinct Russian cultural and linguistic identity. This historical frames not as an artificial construct but as an organic extension of Russian civilization, with articulating in 2021 that the region's development, including cities like and , resulted directly from Russian initiative after expelling Ottoman and forces. Ideologically, Russian nationalists construct Novorossiya through a tripartite mythmaking framework encompassing imperial (white), Soviet (red), and post-Soviet nationalist (brown) strands, each reinforcing its status as inherently Russian. The imperial strand evokes Orthodox and Tsarist expansion, portraying Novorossiya as a cradle of Russian Orthodoxy and conservative values; the Soviet element highlights proletarian industrialization and anti-oligarchic ethos in the ; while the nationalist variant promotes anti-Western and adventurist reclamation of "Russian springs." Figures like Alexander Dugin position Novorossiya within Eurasianist , advocating its autonomy as a "special zone of Russian-Cossack freemen" to resist Atlanticist influence, rather than mere absorption into the Russian Federation, and declaring conflict with inevitable to reunite eastern . This revival, prominently invoked in 2014 amid the insurgency, serves as a launching pad for reasserting Russian great-power status, blending territorial ambition with a metaphorical rebirth of national mission.

Ukrainian Counter-Narratives and Resistance

Ukrainian authorities and scholars have consistently rejected the concept of Novorossiya as a fabricated historical narrative designed to legitimize territorial claims, arguing that it overlooks the longstanding Ukrainian presence and in the southeastern regions predating Russian imperial expansion. The term, revived by pro-Russian separatists in , was intended to encompass eight oblasts but failed to gain traction beyond and due to limited local support, with surveys from March–April indicating that 58% of residents favored autonomy within rather than or . Ukrainian counter-narratives emphasize the region's integration into Cossack polities like the Hetmanate and , which maintained distinct Ukrainian cultural and political identities until suppressed by Russian imperial policies in the 18th and 19th centuries. In response to the 2014 separatist uprisings invoking Novorossiya, Ukraine launched the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO), later restructured as the Joint Forces Operation (JFO), mobilizing regular army units, volunteer battalions such as Azov and Donbas, and local militias to reclaim territory from Russian-backed forces. By mid-2015, following intense fighting including the battles of Ilovaisk (August 2014, with over 1,000 Ukrainian casualties) and Debaltseve (January–February 2015), Ukrainian forces had stabilized a frontline separating government-controlled areas from separatist-held zones, covering approximately 7% of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. These efforts, supported by international aid and Minsk agreements in 2014–2015, prevented the broader Novorossiya project's expansion, with Russian propaganda's failure to foster widespread "Novorossiya" identity evident in the collapse of parallel administrative structures elsewhere in the southeast. Following Russia's 2022 annexations of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia—regions partially claimed under the Novorossiya banner—Ukrainian resistance shifted to include partisan networks operating in occupied territories, conducting intelligence gathering, sabotage, and disruptions to Russian logistics. Groups such as the Center of National Resistance, established in 2022, coordinated over 1,000 reported actions by mid-2025, including arson on military sites and distribution of underground publications like the "Voice of the Partisan" newspaper, which printed 1,200 copies in its debut edition to counter Russification efforts. Non-violent initiatives, exemplified by the women's partisan group Zla Mavka in Melitopol, focused on cultural defiance through leafleting and symbolic acts against forced passportization and language imposition, with operations persisting despite Russian reprisals that killed at least 50 suspected partisans by late 2024. These activities, often invisible to occupiers, complemented conventional counteroffensives that recaptured Kherson city in November 2022 and significant Kharkiv oblast territories in September 2022, underscoring sustained Ukrainian agency against irredentist narratives.

Controversies and Competing Claims

Debates on Historical Legitimacy

The historical legitimacy of Novorossiya as a coherent Russian territorial entity is contested between narratives emphasizing imperial Russian colonization and those highlighting indigenous Slavic populations and subsequent evolutions. Proponents of its Russian character, including Russian state figures, assert that the region—spanning the northern coast and lands—was sparsely inhabited prior to 18th-century Russian conquests from the and , enabling systematic settlement by Russian subjects and establishing it as "New Russia" by 1764 under . This view posits Novorossiya's administrative divisions, such as the Novorossiya Governorate (1764–1802), as evidence of organic integration into the , with multi-ethnic —including , (termed Little Russians), , Serbs, and others—fostering a predominantly Russophone cultural sphere by the . Critics, including Ukrainian historians, counter that the pre-conquest (known as the Wild Fields) hosted Zaporozhian Cossack communities with deep ties to Left-Bank Ukrainian Hetmanate structures, rendering Russian claims an overlay of imperial expansion rather than primordial legitimacy; they argue the region's ethnic fluidity resulted from forced policies rather than voluntary affinity. Central to the debate is the role of 20th-century border delineations, particularly under Soviet rule, which Russian narratives deem arbitrary and anti-Russian. has claimed that Bolshevik leaders, motivated by ideological experiments, transferred industrializing eastern regions like the —historically part of Novorossiya—to the in 1922, severing "ethnically and religiously diverse" lands from their Russian core despite local populations' preferences. Empirical data from imperial censuses show a mixed populace in southern provinces by the early , with including Ukrainian, Russian, and Polish elements, but rapid in the Basin during Soviet industrialization (post-1920s) shifted demographics toward Russian speakers through targeted migration, complicating claims of unchanging Russian majorities. Opposing perspectives maintain that these Soviet borders, formalized by (including Crimea's transfer to ), reflected administrative realities and economic interdependence, not capricious division; Ukrainian continuity is evidenced by Cossack-era mappings and the absence of sustained separatist movements until post-2014 geopolitical shifts. Further contention arises over demographic causation: Russian sources emphasize voluntary settlement and as causal drivers of legitimacy, citing 19th-century influxes that populated depopulated frontiers. Skeptics highlight coercive elements, such as the 1783 liquidation of the —a semi-autonomous Cossack —and subsequent migrations from , arguing these fostered hybrid identities rather than pure Russian dominion; by the late empire, southern Ukraine's nobility retained significant Ukrainian ethnic components amid . While Russian interpretations often invoke irredentist revival to justify contemporary claims, empirical border stability from 1922–2014—absent widespread autonomy demands—undermines assertions of inherent illegitimacy, though post-Soviet referenda in and (2014) showed pro-Russian leanings influenced by conflict dynamics. This debate underscores broader tensions between conquest-based historical rights and modern principles, with source credibility varying: official Russian statements prioritize unity narratives potentially shaped by state interests, while Western analyses frequently frame them as revisionist, reflecting institutional skepticism toward expansionist historiography.

Self-Determination vs. Imperial Aggression Perspectives

Russian officials and supporters of the Donetsk and Luhansk separatist movements have framed the establishment of the self-proclaimed (DPR) and (LPR) as an exercise in ethnic , arguing that Russian-speaking majorities in these regions faced existential threats following the Revolution and ouster of President on , . Referendums held on , , in both oblasts reportedly yielded 89.07% support for DPR independence on a claimed 75% turnout and 96.2% for LPR sovereignty, which proponents cited as evidence of popular will to secede from amid alleged and by Kyiv's post-revolutionary authorities. Russian President formalized recognition of DPR and LPR independence on February 21, 2022, invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter for collective self-defense and claiming the move protected residents from "genocide" by Ukrainian forces, as per appeals from separatist leaders. This narrative aligns with Russia's advocacy of "remedial secession," a positing that severe abuses justify external self-determination for sub-state groups, applied previously in in 2008. Critics of this claim, including Ukrainian officials and international observers, contend that empirical evidence undermines its validity, pointing to orchestrated interference rather than organic popular demand. Pre-2014 polls in showed majorities favoring or federalization within over or union with , with a February 2022 survey in government-controlled areas indicating 70% opposition to joining and preference for special status under Kyiv's sovereignty. The 2014 referendums lacked credible verification, occurring under armed separatist control without OSCE monitoring, amid reports of ballot stuffing and , rendering results unrepresentative of broader sentiment where pro-Ukrainian views persisted even in the east. UN Secretary-General condemned similar 2022 sham votes in occupied territories as violations of 's , emphasizing that does not authorize unilateral or . The counter-perspective portrays Russian involvement in Novorossiya as imperial aggression aimed at dismembering to restore historical dominion over territories acquired in the 18th century under , rather than genuine minority protection. rhetoric, including Putin's July 2021 essay asserting and as "one people" and denying 's independent statehood, frames the conflict as correcting Soviet-era "artificial" borders, echoing irredentist claims to "historical Russian lands" beyond just to include and . Evidence of direct Russian orchestration—such as special forces aiding the seizure of government buildings in April 2014 and supply of tanks to separatists by August 2014—suggests to destabilize post-Maidan, not responsive . Medvedev's March 2024 statements equating with "" and rejecting its borders further reveal expansionist intent, prioritizing imperial restoration over localized grievances. This view holds that Moscow's actions contravene the 1994 , where pledged respect for 's sovereignty in exchange for , prioritizing geopolitical buffer zones over international norms.

Humanitarian and Geopolitical Criticisms

The revival of the Novorossiya concept in by Russian authorities and nationalists provided ideological justification for separatist movements in eastern and , contributing to the outbreak of armed conflict in the region that resulted in significant civilian harm. According to Office of the High Commissioner for (OHCHR) monitoring from mid-2014 to early 2022, the conflict led to at least 3,106 verified civilian deaths and 6,848 injuries in government- and separatist-controlled areas of and oblasts, with patterns of indiscriminate shelling, mines, and crossfire affecting populated areas. Humanitarian organizations, including the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, documented over 1.5 million internal displacements by 2016, with ongoing restrictions on movement, access to healthcare, and basic services exacerbating vulnerabilities, particularly for elderly residents and those near the contact line. Critics, including reports from international NGOs, attribute much of the suffering to Russian-backed forces' use of unguided in residential zones and failure to adhere to agreements, though Ukrainian forces were also implicated in violations; empirical data from OSCE daily reports highlight a disproportionate impact on civilians in separatist-held territories due to sustained fighting. Geopolitically, the Novorossiya project has been condemned as a form of that eroded 's and escalated tensions toward Russia's full-scale on February 24, 2022, by framing large swaths of as historically Russian lands requiring "reunification." Analysts from the argue that this narrative, rooted in imperial nostalgia rather than contemporary demographics—where ethnic Russians comprised less than 20% of the purported Novorossiya region's population per data—served as a pretext for , including arms supplies to proxies and campaigns that undermined . The initiative strained European security architecture, prompting NATO's enhanced forward presence in and accelerating 's alignment with Western institutions, while contributing to global energy disruptions via attacks on infrastructure in the Black Sea region post-2022. Western governments and think tanks, such as the , view it as an aggressive bid to dismantle as a , ignoring local polling data from 2014-2021 showing limited separatist support outside enclaves, thus prioritizing Russian strategic depth over principles. This approach, per causal analysis of escalation patterns, directly fueled sanctions regimes and military aid flows exceeding $100 billion to by mid-2025, reshaping alliances in .

References

  1. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/novorossiya.htm
  2. https://brill.com/view/journals/joah/4/1-2/article-p58_6.xml
  3. https://academic.oup.com/book/40852/chapter/348888797
  4. https://brill.com/view/journals/rupo/8/2/article-p147_3.xml
  5. https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CE%5CNewRussiagubernia.htm
  6. https://www.academia.edu/144252410/The_Establishment_of_the_New_Russia_Governorate_Ambitions_Conflicts_and_Compromises_1764_1765_
  7. https://jamestown.org/program/russian-referendums-in-ukrainian-territories-boosting-putins-novorossiya-project/
  8. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828
  9. https://ppr.lse.ac.uk/articles/10.31389/lseppr.86
  10. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/78112
  11. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-russia
  12. https://europe.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-854.html
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420313210
  14. https://www.rbth.com/history/334398-who-lived-in-russia-before-slavs
  15. https://www.cole.de/the-true-history-of-ukraine/
  16. https://openpress.digital.conncoll.edu/beingukraine/chapter/chapter-2-colonization-and-occupation-of-ukraine/
  17. https://jordanrussiacenter.org/blog/the-history-of-southern-ukraine-and-crimea-ukrainian-vs-russian-perspectives
  18. https://euromaidanpress.com/2014/10/17/5-facts-about-novorossiya-you-wont-learn-in-a-russian-history-class/
  19. https://www.unofficialroyalty.com/prince-grigory-alexandrovich-potemkin-lover-of-catherine-ii-the-great-of-russia/
  20. https://www.rbth.com/history/328811-history-foreigners-in-russia
  21. https://www.norkarussia.info/catherines-manifesto-1763.html
  22. http://easteurotopo.org/maps/regional-russo-turkish-wars/
  23. https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Russification-policies
  24. https://origins.osu.edu/read/soviet-ukraine-nutshell
  25. https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/ukraine/interwar
  26. https://mythdetector.com/en/which-territories-did-ukraine-own-in-1922-when-entering-the-soviet-union/
  27. https://big-europe.eu/publications/2025-01-09-ukraine-the-spoils-of-war-for-the-great-powers-since-1921
  28. https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Ukraine-in-the-interwar-period
  29. https://www.husj.harvard.edu/articles/fighting-soviet-myths-the-ukrainian-experience
  30. https://openpress.digital.conncoll.edu/beingukraine/chapter/chapter-7/
  31. https://greekreporter.com/2022/09/30/history-donbas-donetsk-luhansk/
  32. https://www.ukrainer.net/en/russia-russified/
  33. http://www.iwm.at/publication/iwmpost-article/the-russian-minority-in-donbas-and-the-history-of-the-majority
  34. https://distantreader.org/stacks/journals/tsm/tsm-9406.pdf
  35. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/the-end-of-the-soviet-union/the-end-of-the-soviet-union-texts/ukrainian-independence-declaration/
  36. https://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/94-96/lupiy/01-02.htm
  37. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/6835
  38. https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2014/03/understanding-the-constitutional-situation-in-crimea/
  39. https://www.ponarseurasia.org/the-origins-of-separatism-popular-grievances-in-donetsk-and-luhansk/
  40. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/11/ukraine-russia-relations
  41. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/06/26/russia-west-ukraine-triangle-of-competition-1991-2013/
  42. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/dangers-of-extremism-in-southeastern-ukraine-far-right-eurasianism-slavic-unity/
  43. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-ukraines-euromaidan-protests
  44. https://svidomi.in.ua/en/page/maidan-in-the-east-the-history-of-resistance-to-occupation-in-donetsk-and-luhansk-regions
  45. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jl9729
  46. https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240408-ukraine-donbas-ten-years-of-war-russification-russia-donetsk-luhansk
  47. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/dnr.htm
  48. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/753/annexes/adopted?view=plain
  49. https://docs.rferl.org/uk-UA/2015/09/14/b2ef10eb-d3a2-4ba6-8f56-a9f6bcbec0c9.pdf
  50. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014R0810
  51. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/408/annex/division/2/adopted/data.xht
  52. https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/through-ashes-minsk-agreements
  53. https://www.fpri.org/article/2014/05/putins-greater-novorossiya-the-dismemberment-of-ukraine/
  54. https://www.ponarseurasia.org/wp-content/uploads/attachments/Pepm351_Kudelia_Sept2014.pdf
  55. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/ukraine-crimea-crisis-2014
  56. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/ukraine-accuses-russia-of-orchestrating-separatist-moves-idUSBREA370DP/
  57. https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/09/world/europe/ukraine-crisis
  58. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2018/09/how-eastern-ukraine-is-adapting-and-surviving-the-case-of-kharkiv?lang=en
  59. https://meduza.io/en/feature/2024/05/08/the-making-of-a-myth
  60. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/33158
  61. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ukraine-crisis
  62. https://academic.oup.com/book/59245/chapter/499290670
  63. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/archive/death-of-novorossia-why-kremlin-abandoned-ukraine-separatist-project
  64. https://www.understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-15-2025/
  65. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-8-2025
  66. https://mid.ru/en/press_service/spokesman/briefings/2051163/
  67. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/novorossiya
  68. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2022/09/ukraine-vote-on-draft-resolution-on-referendums-in-ukraine.php
  69. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-marches-farther-into-liberated-lands-separatist-calls-urgent-referendum-2022-09-19/
  70. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1125322026/russia-ukraine-referendums
  71. https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2024C38/
  72. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9631/
  73. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-solidarity-ukraine/timeline-russia-military-aggression-against-ukraine/
  74. https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15405.doc.htm
  75. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0l0k4389g2o
  76. https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/14/world/mapping-key-regions-ukraine-intl-vis
  77. https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-19-2025/
  78. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting-how-much-territory-does-russia-control-in-ukraine
  79. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine
  80. https://www.russiamatters.org/news/russia-ukraine-war-report-card/russia-ukraine-war-report-card-oct-1-2025
  81. https://re-russia.net/en/analytics/0335/
  82. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/a-timeline-of-territorial-shifts-during-russias-war-on-ukraine
  83. https://www.russiamatters.org/news/russia-ukraine-war-report-card/russia-ukraine-war-report-card-oct-15-2025
  84. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/77329
  85. https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/b0003dvb
  86. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/02/27/kremlin-rules-out-returning-annexed-ukrainian-regions-in-future-peace-talks-a88193
  87. http://eehb.dspu.edu.ua/article/view/246923
  88. https://ukraineworld.org/en/articles/basics/demographic-engineering-russia
  89. http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/Donetsk/
  90. http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/Luhansk/
  91. http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/Kherson/
  92. http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/Zaporizhzhia/
  93. https://www.e-ir.info/2015/03/10/ethnic-and-social-composition-of-ukraines-regions-and-voting-patterns/
  94. https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar978eff35
  95. http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/language/
  96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322239616_Language_Differentiation_of_Ukraine%27s_Population
  97. https://english.nv.ua/nation/majority-of-ukrainians-use-only-ukrainian-in-daily-life-survey-shows-50466300.html
  98. https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1513
  99. https://theconversation.com/many-russian-speakers-in-ukraine-have-switched-language-but-changing-perceptions-may-be-much-harder-257765
  100. https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/04/29/language-as-smokescreen-84-of-ukrainians-reject-russias-oppression-myth/
  101. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/context/gc_etds/article/6238/viewcontent/auto_convert.pdf
  102. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1060586X.2025.2560275
  103. https://histecon.fas.harvard.edu/1800_histories/sites/luhansk.html
  104. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~egcenter/Markevich_Yale_conference.pdf
  105. https://www.academia.edu/8992815/Foreign_Entrepreneurs_and_Industrialization_in_South_Russia_in_the_Late_19th_and_early_20th_century
  106. https://republicofmining.com/2014/03/25/history-of-ukrainian-mining-city-of-donetsk-coal-rich-donetsdonbas-basin/
  107. https://ukraineworld.org/en/articles/ukraine-explained/europes-donbas-how-western-capital-industrialized-eastern-ukraine
  108. https://openpress.digital.conncoll.edu/beingukraine/chapter/chapter-1/
  109. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/224913/1/The-Economic-Costs-of-Hybrid-Wars.pdf
  110. https://www.piie.com/commentary/op-eds/it-possible-salvage-economy-donbas
  111. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/285721624599936729/pdf/Overview.pdf
  112. https://sites.duke.edu/econhonors/files/2022/06/Kanj2022.pdf
  113. https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-steel-sector-looks-abroad-185908839.html
  114. https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/ukraine/261-peace-ukraine-iii-costs-war-donbas
  115. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/01/23/7438533/
  116. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/10/09/russias-tax-revenue-from-occupied-ukrainian-regions-tops-2023-levels-a86620
  117. http://government.ru/en/news/56247/
  118. https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/07/28/sanctions-fail-to-hit-200-companies-feeding-kremlins-fake-reconstruction-system-in-occupied-territories-of-ukraine/
  119. http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
  120. https://www.ponarseurasia.org/novorossiya-a-launching-pad-for-russian-nationalists/
  121. https://radicalisationresearch.org/research/laruelle-2015-three/
  122. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28229785
  123. https://natoassociation.ca/the-myths-of-novorossiya-kremlin-reinvents-ukrainian-history-to-justify-invasion/
  124. https://uacrisis.org/en/virus-novorosiyi
  125. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336996451_Russian_stereotypes_and_myths_of_Ukraine_and_Ukrainians_and_why_Novorossiya_failed
  126. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14650045.2024.2401413
  127. https://www.iir.cz/the-sudden-voice-ukrainian-narratives-countering-the-russian-rhetoric
  128. https://www.crisisgroup.org/visual-explainers/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer
  129. https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/donbaspropaganda
  130. https://icds.ee/en/nothing-is-forever-lost-ukraines-multi-domain-resistance-and-the-future-of-peace/
  131. https://www.ponarseurasia.org/the-ukrainian-resistance-movement-in-the-occupiedterritories/
  132. https://mod.gov.ua/en/news/the-national-resistance-the-role-of-resistance-movement-participants-in-restoring-ukraine-s-sovereignty
  133. https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Ukraine/From-Leaflets-to-Sabotage-how-Ukrainians-are-resisting-Russification-239843
  134. https://theins.ru/en/society/277185
  135. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-ukraines-shadow-army-fights-back-against-the-russian-occupation/
  136. https://www.prlib.ru/en/article-vladimir-putin-historical-unity-russians-and-ukrainians
  137. https://ethnomuseum.ru/en/resources/multinational-novorossiya-ethnographic-images/
  138. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338184073_Southern_Ukraine_nobility%27s_ethnic_structure_late_18th_-_early_19th_centuries
  139. https://brill.com/view/journals/joah/4/1-2/article-p58_6.xml?language=en
  140. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine-fact-checking-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/
  141. https://strategyinternational.org/2022/09/07/anatomy-of-novorossiya/
  142. https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Ukraine-under-direct-imperial-Russian-rule
  143. https://minnjil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/24MinnJIntlL351.pdf
  144. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/vladimir-putins-history-obsession-is-a-threat-to-world-peace/
  145. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1262&context=ils
  146. https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/self-determination-of-ukrainian-people-and-russian-aggression/
  147. https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc15039.doc.htm
  148. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10758216.2023.2254915
  149. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-is-russia-medvedev-reveals-imperial-ambitions-fueling-invasion/
  150. https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/reports
  151. https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.