Heiko Pleines (Research Centre for East European Studies at the University of Bremen)
The Euromaidan / Revolution of Dignity in Public Opinion Surveys: Changes in the Assessment of Aims and Impact from 2013/14 to 2025, Ukrainian Analytical Digest, no. 017, February 2026, DOI: 10.3929/ethz-c-000795781.
There is a broad consensus that the mass protests of 2013/14, originally called the Euromaidan and later the Revolution of Dignity, have changed the trajectory of Ukraine in many important respects. This contribution offers a first sketch of how the protests are assessed by the Ukrainian population today and how perceptions have shifted since 2013/14. At the level captured by public opinion surveys, the perception of the protests has shifted from the elementary level of opposing views of the country’s future to different degrees of frustration with the ability to realize the “Revolution of Dignity”-version of the country’s future. At the same time, a relevant minority—accounting for roughly 10% to 20% of the population—is still sceptical of these protests, seeing them as unauthentic and associating them with negative legacies.
Claudiu Crăciun (National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania)
Populism without history: Central and Eastern Europe and the case for a historical turn in populism research, Frontiers in Political Science, vol. 8 - 2026, DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2026.1829464.
This article examines the dominant modes of conceptualising populism and critically engages with the ahistorical tendencies that have come to characterise much of the recent research in this field. Despite the robust historical reasoning and conceptual tools developed within comparative politics, populism research has largely avoided engaging with them. The article proposes an alternative analytical framework. In order to situate conditions, institutions, actors, and events within a single framework and across time, it advances the concept of populist configurations. These encompass populist actors, strategies, discourses, and styles, but also incorporate structural factors and transformations, such as degrees of sovereignty and socio-economic orders, as well as elite cohesion and responses, and critical junctures: significant events that alter power relations and shape the trajectories of (populist) politics. The article explores Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), a region with contested geographical and historical boundaries that nonetheless shares a distinctive set of structural features. Its belated development and chronic exposure to external aggression and domination, a consequence of the relatively small size of its historical polities, set the conditions for the region’s uneven and conflictual transition to modern politics. The region also endured two world wars and a turbulent succession of competing political regimes, such as constitutional monarchies, military and royal dictatorships, socialist and communist republics, and parliamentary democracies, a trajectory that sets it apart in global historical comparisons and poses significant challenges to any account of its long-term political dynamics. In this long-term dynamic, it can be argued that populisms are rooted in early-modern contention and not electoral politics, and this contention was defined by the sovereignty—social reform uneasy ambivalence. Drawing on the Romanian case, the article develops a typology, a timeline, and an illustrative case of populist configuration—antisemitism, both to demonstrate the advantages of this research strategy and to call for a systematic historical turn in the study of populism.