English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

During the past few years, research on conflict in cities has built valuable intellectual bridges across boundaries into numerous surrounding fields. One such area – the study of the spatiality of (dis/mis-)information – is an indispensable ingredient in the concept of the geopolitical fault-line city, the empirical solidity of which this article sets out to investigate using the case of two strategically crucial cities in Ukraine: Kharkiv and Dnipro. Two main questions are addressed: (1) Who places the blame for the Russo-Ukrainian war primarily on Russia? (2) Who would be ready to oppose a hypothetical Russian invasion of the city using non-violent methods? Because Russia  is  the party primarily responsible for the unfolding of armed conflict in Ukraine, the first question implicitly explores who it is that is least influenced by pro-Russian disinformation narratives, whereas the second question explores the central security implication of this particular situation. The article uses data from two sample surveys conducted in the case study cities in 2018 (n = ca. 1250 for each city), and reports its findings in amultivariate setting, aiming to contribute to the general literature on divided and contested cities, as well as to the more specific literature on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. The results show that the categories of “Ukrainian” and “Russian” are of relatively little salience in the case study cities, contrary to the (now slowly fading) narrative of ethnic polarization that has been haunting many academic and especially media portrayals of Ukraine. What matters, instead, is self-identification as “European” or “Soviet”, imaginary supranational communities that are geopolitical at heart.

Diabolical Suggestions: Disinformation and the Curious Scale of Nationalism in Ukrainian Geopolitical Fault-line Cities