Concepts and the Logic of Escalation of Separatism as a Sociopolitical Phenomenon

Abstract

The relevance of the study is caused by the fact that centrifugal movements in modern states increasingly appear not as a single “act of secession” but as a multi-stage process that reshapes the boundaries of political order, regimes of legitimacy, and security configurations. In this context, it is critically important to have a precise conceptual toolkit and a clear model of the radicalization of demands – from regionalism and the expansion of autonomy to scenarios of secession or irredentism – which, in the case of Ukraine, is directly linked to threats to sovereignty and territorial integrity. Purpose: to systematize key concepts and typologies of centrifugal demands (broad autonomy, secession, irredentism) and to outline the logic of their escalation as a sequence of political transitions fueled by societal and institutional crises. Methods: the study relies on conceptual and terminological analysis to distinguish related categories; a structural-functional approach to explain the transition from social grievances to mobilization; institutional analysis to assess the role of channels of representation and participation; and comparative-analytical procedures to generalize typical trajectories of radicalization. Results: it is shown that the escalation of demands is cumulative in nature and often takes shape at the intersection of regional crises (identity, legitimacy, distribution, participation) and elite splits, which provide organizational resources for the shift from moderate to more radical forms of political action. It is substantiated that the ideological dimension of the process can be described as a “thin-centred” ideology with an invariant core: the norm of self-determination, a narrative of historical trauma, and the image of a “hostile centre”–a frame that translates local contradictions into a mode of mass mobilization and the justification of “extraordinary” political decisions. The moderate and radical wings of a centrifugal movement are distinguished: the former tends toward a reformist discourse and constitutional mechanisms for expanding autonomy, while the latter let be violent methods and conflict-generating alliances with external actors; this distinction is fundamental for forecasting escalation trajectories. Conclusions. The proposed clarification of concepts and drivers of radicalization improves the analytical precision of research on centrifugal movements and provides grounds for early risk diagnosis – from local frustration and a crisis of trust to political projects of secession or changes in a territory’s state affiliation. The practical significance of the findings lies in the possibility of developing differentiated response policies sensitive to the type of demands, the degree of radicalization, and the configuration of crises that sustain them.