Separatism as an element of russia’s foreign policy strategy in the war against Ukraine

Abstract

The study is driven by the need for scholarly understanding of state-sponsored separatism as an instrument of the Russian Federation's hybrid aggression against Ukraine, which directly affects the stability of public administration, national security policy, and international legal personality. In wartime conditions, separatism assumes the form of coordinated external influence combining informational, diplomatic, and pseudo-legal tools to delegitimize Ukrainian sovereignty. Purpose. The article aims to investigate separatism as part of Russia's foreign policy strategy in the war against Ukraine, to identify mechanisms of its implementation, and to define strategies for countering these threats on both national and international levels. Methods. The research is based on a structural-functional approach, systems analysis, case study method (focused on the so-called "DPR" and "LPR"), and elements of critical discourse analysis. These methods enabled the identification of the logic behind the formation of quasi-state entities, their legitimization practices, and the consequences of their functioning in the context of international law. Results. The study reveals that the pseudo-republics operate as tools for undermining territorial integrity, masking military presence, and generating external propaganda. Russia manipulates the concept of self-determination to violate sovereignty principles under the guise of pseudo-democratic practices. Scientific novelty lies in the integrated analysis of separatism not as a domestic conflict, but as a systemic component of hybrid strategy involving institutionalized forms of external influence. Conclusions. The research establishes that managed separatism constitutes a key element of Russia’s external aggression, aimed at destabilizing Ukraine’s sovereignty. The mechanisms of influence include the creation of quasi-state structures, simulation of legal procedures, and instrumentalization of international self-determination discourse to justify annexation. The study substantiates the need to enhance national legislation, strengthen information security, expand international sanctions, and maintain the non-recognition of such entities. Prospects for further research include a more in-depth analysis of humanitarian tools of hybrid aggression, particularly in the areas of cultural, educational, and religious expansion, as well as the development of reintegration strategies for temporarily occupied territories after de-occupation.