Irina Kuznetsova

The article demonstrates how, under authoritarian practices and post‐colonialism, a state employs deceptive citizenship as an instrument of a ‘new war.’ The deceptive citizenship operates within informational autocracy for a selected category of migrantised people, which make them unaware about the legal, political and mobility consequences of this status. By obscuring the legal, political, and mobility consequences of this status, it enables authorities to symbolically project power beyond territorial boundaries and consolidate their geopolitical post‐colonial standing among citizens. Using Russia's citizenship policies towards displaced Ukrainians between 2014 and 2022 as a case study, this article traces the complex genealogy of these policies and shows how, prior to the full‐scale invasion, they served geopolitical ambitions and postcolonial hegemony. At the same time, it demonstrates that displaced Ukrainians' citizenship practices were driven primarily by the need to cope with uncertainty and insecurity.

This chapter starts with revealing the situation about population displacement in Ukraine before and after 2022 and argues that it is critical to provide visibility and understanding of the experiences of people who stayed in the occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts and those who fled since 2014. It introduces the conceptual lenses of ‘inconvenient people’ that help to recognise and give voice to those people who stayed in the occupied territories and fled or lived in-between and so contribute towards better epistemic justice. This includes individuals who are excluded from political decisions made regarding their neighbourhood or communities or who voluntarily choose to be invisible whether because of perceived prejudices and stigma, the willingness not to stress others or exhaustion. Inconvenient is not a strict definition, but more a lens which helps us to focus our thoughts. The chapter then critically engages with literature on migration, bordering studies, intersectionality, feminist geographies, and everyday life. Then, it turns to the methodology underpinning the studies in this book, also offering personal reflections on the authors’ positionality and explaining the terminology used in naming the territories. Finally, it guides the reader through the overall structure of the book.

This chapter overviews the book's key theoretical contributions, main findings, and the policy implications. It also revisits the term ‘inconvenient people’ and addresses the feminist geopolitical call for the inclusion of the embodied experiences of civilians in war-related studies. Furthermore, it amplifies the critical border and feminist geography perspective which considers borders as constantly under construction both as physical and discursive spaces, including everyday life across both sides of the checkpoints, and in occupied territories and government-controlled areas. Combined, this enables a new perspective in the reflexive turn of ‘de-migratisation’ research, adding the perspectives of internal displacement and immobility. It also fills a critical gap in the understandings of experiences of older internally displaced and ‘immobile’ people as they are constantly overlooked in studies not only in Ukraine but worldwide. The policy implications of the study include the amplification of the voices of internally displaced people and supporting their agency; providing durable solutions for people with disabilities and older adults in the context of war and displacement; supporting the safe mobility of people from occupied areas; and providing reflection about vulnerabilities related to the secondary displacement.

This book analyses how war and bordering impact daily life and mobility and immobility tactics. It brings to light the memories of people who were displaced from Ukraine’s eastern regions because of Russian aggression against Ukraine started in 2014. Based on extensive in-depth research including interviews with individuals who were direct witnesses, participants, and victims of the events in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, the study presents a novel perspective. It explores everyday experiences of war, bordering, and (im)mobilities through the lens of ‘inconvenient people’ including their hard journeys and resistance in occupied territories, the loss of home and struggles to find housing, volunteering, and the traumatic responses. The book amplifies the voices and agency of civilians who experienced the war and displacement, including older adults and people with disabilities, and provides theoretical and practical implications beyond Ukraine in a context of global uncertainties and growing mass population displacement. The book urges politicians and experts to look at the experiences of both displaced and immobile people who lived through the war in Ukraine before the full invasion. It will be of great interest to scholars of Race and Ethnic Studies, Asian Studies, European Politics, Security Studies, Migration Studies, Human Geography, and War and Conflict Studies. The Open Access version of this book, available at https://www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

The new bordering regime was simultaneously reconstructing and dismantling various collective memories within Donetsk's urban space. By instrumentalising memoryscapes associated with the Soviet era in Ukraine and symbolically incorporating them into Russia's semantic space, the regime manifested new borders and authority within the city. This included renaming streets, placing new flags, and launching new memorials and urban features. Anything that evoked the Ukrainian state was removed from the urban landscape, including feminist art, as demonstrated by the removal of Maria Kulikovska's Homo Bulla sculptures from IZOLYATSIA. As a result, Donetsk came to embody a complex and segmented memory space, where different memory models – national Ukrainian, local, and Soviet – often coexisted in parallel without points of intersection. Nevertheless, the city's semiosphere remained heterogeneous due to the agency of its residents, who preserved memories of the pre-2014 city and sought to reclaim space through small acts or artistic resistance.

This chapter explores the experiences of pensioners and persons with disabilities in both occupied and government-controlled territories in Ukraine. Prior to 2022, pensioners comprised over half of all registered internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the country. The chapter demonstrates how these individuals often felt trapped by both physical and symbolic borders, facing significant challenges in accessing pensions, benefits, and suitable accommodation. It also highlights the struggles of persons with disabilities – particularly during evacuation and in securing benefits and housing. The chapter argues that state policies towards forcibly displaced persons lacked recognition of the intersectionality of IDPs, and discusses the phenomenon of ‘forced return’, whereby individuals were compelled to return to occupied areas despite the high risk of renewed hostilities. The chapter calls for a comprehensive approach to studying the intersectional experiences of internal displacement alongside immobility.

The loss of home emerged as one of the most pressing challenges for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine, deeply tied to feelings of belonging and comfort. The forced internal displacement since 2014 exposed critical shortcomings in Ukraine's housing infrastructure, including a lack of social housing, a strained rental market, and heightened social tensions and stereotypes towards residents from occupied territories. This chapter argues that the loss of home represents an emotional epicentre shaped by displacement, longing, and uncertainty. We also examine IDPs’ experiences in securing housing and advocating for their rights, with a critical focus on how neoliberal housing policies have shaped their everyday lives. Despite systemic barriers, displaced individuals demonstrated agency through voluntary initiatives and local support. Ultimately, housing remained a decisive factor in shaping IDPs’ decisions about resettlement in government-controlled areas of Ukraine.

There are various forms of mobility and immobility caused by Russian aggression and the new border regime in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. This chapter offers a classification of several groups of people who remained in these areas, including ‘supporters’, ‘collaborators’, and ‘former collaborators’ of the occupation regime, as well as Russian passport holders who are unable to travel to the government-controlled part of Ukraine. There are also hostages of the occupation regime; ‘stayers’ who simply wish to remain; ‘carers’ or those unable to leave due to poor health or lack of financial resources; and internally displaced people (IDPs) within the occupied territories. Individuals who chose to flee to other parts of Ukraine mostly identified themselves as ‘refugees’ or simply as ‘Ukrainian citizens’ highlighting their agency. Displacement has been one of the first manifestations of bordering before the checkpoints were established. In turn, the social production of the category ‘internally displaced person’ involved both physical and narrative bordering and categorisation from the state, which in turn ‘produced’ a group often portrayed negatively, reflecting the government's distrust towards IDPs. In terms of temporality and space, the socio-political construction of IDPs by the authorities was static and rooted in control.

This chapter first explores the traumatic responses to life under war, occupation, and displacement from spatial and atmospheric perspectives. It demonstrates the intersectional experiences of fear caused by shelling, street violence, and the necessity of making decisions to flee. It reveals how, even in a place of safety, internally displaced people's (IDPs) well-being was affected by various tensions and stressors, including navigating bureaucratic challenges, building new networks of contacts, and ensuring basic survival in a context of limited resources – often accompanied by the stigmatisation of people from Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. A nationwide survey conducted in Ukraine demonstrated higher levels of anxiety and depression among IDPs compared to those not affected by displacement, as well as a low uptake of mental health services. Addressing the structural and institutional stress factors affecting IDPs, the chapter then turns to the experiences of volunteers and mental health professionals by examining war and displacement through the lens of personal and professional challenges, and the coping mechanisms employed in situations of uncertainty and scarcity.

This chapter explores volunteering as a hybrid phenomenon within the context of internal displacement in Ukraine. It argues that traditional notions of ‘pure’ volunteering are inadequate in situations marked by legal ambiguity and urgent humanitarian needs. Spontaneous volunteering emerged as a vital force in 2014, not only in providing immediate aid but also in shaping relationships among displaced persons, authorities, NGOs, and businesses. Volunteers often acted as intermediaries, bridging gaps in welfare provision and influencing policy. The chapter highlights how volunteering evolved from informal responses into structured, impactful activities, contributing to social transformation and integration. It also examines the challenges posed by fragmented legal frameworks and the pressures on activists navigating complex environments. By focusing on the process of volunteering, the study reveals its dynamic, situational nature, and its potential to drive systemic change and capacity to support the post-war reconstruction in Ukraine.