Some is just strange--a lot of the areas are vaguely into folk remedies, not just those far from the Catholic (or even Orthodox) church centers. Sort of a throw-back among poorer strata or naive, trendy strata in society. Hard to separate them--you chuck the official culture and if you're nationalistic what's left is folk(ish).
One problem, pointed out in words that are sometimes hedges is that the area allies itself with Russia to a surprising extent--mostly because it's not going to align itself with a stronger Ukraine centered outside of the Donbas. In terms of power, being in bed with Russia means that the Western portions of Ukraine are weaker. Power's a zero sum game, and the USSR's attitude was "what we have you can't hurt us with." Of course, there was and still is a lot of "what we have we'd better hurt *you* with, because we don't trust you." Social distrust is a big deal and the USSR was good about fomenting it. It's also difficult to build once social boundaries are formed. The Donbas looked down at regions all around it. Must hurt to have been proud and know you suck now.
For example, the West of Ukraine was and most importantly still is called "fascist." And that's the roots of a lot of the reporting that you see in the media. They were not part of Stalin's dekulakization because they weren't in the USSR at the time. They were part of Poland, Czechoslovakia, or even Romania. Mostly Poland. Being "Western" made them suspicious at first glance. They were outsiders. They missed the Civil War. And they had no allegiance to Uncle Joe. Khrushchev was billed as "Ukrainian", although born in Russia he did work in the Ukraine--in the Donbas. (So again--the Donbas is Really Important. Once it controlled the Ukraine, by proxy; so it should always be on top. By proxy. And "on top" still usually means oppressing your enemies before they can do the same to you. Very Russian.)
Remembering the atrocities done by Russia/USSR when Poland rejected Russian domination after the Revolution, the new Soviet citizens annexed by the USSR as territorial spoils of war wanted nothing to do with Russia for the most part. Seeing what happened under Stalin, they wanted nothing to do with the USSR. And so when Hitler came in and "rescued" them from Stalin, they sided with Hitler. And have forever been seen as fascists for not going gung-ho for Stalin. They're still all dubbed fascist, politically backward, etc. It's a nice stereotype of L'viv and the surrounding areas, and it's deeply rooted in a lot of "good" Soviet-era literature and is still a commonplace in RT and Russian media sources. As the article you cite mentions, the Donbas is still into Russian media sources. It's nationalist to the core. Except that since it's not pro-EU/pro-Western nationalism, some consider it to be "good nationalism." Even if it does engage in bashing civilians and torture when necessary.
It's deeper that just that. It's not just power--it's self-interest and economic self-preservation. The heavy industry in the Donbas is Soviet-era or its replacement--and largely beholden to a Russian-trading bloc clientele. This is much like Slovakia in 1993-4. If Ukraine suddenly looks West, the Donbas industry will be largely obsolete for European Union regs and trade and be subject to increased difficulty in trading with a spiteful Russia. If the country is going to modernize its production infrastructure, it's very likely going to build where there are European connections, in areas closer to the EU to make shipping easier. That's not the Donbas.
If the social order is restructured, those most reliant on the old social order object. This will be more those in the Donbas than elsewhere. They relied on society being conservative; they're objecting to moving away from the conservative position, which was being pro-Soviet, pro-state-run everything.
= new reply since forum marked as read
