Alberta and separatism: A comparative perspective and lessons for Canada

Albertans have voted in a referendum that brought the province’s future in Canada into the national spotlight. As a policy analyst, this debate has prompted a sense of déjà vu.

I witnessed a similar political dynamic unfold in eastern Ukraine in 2014, before the war began. This experience has led me to examine Alberta’s debate through economic, political and geopolitical lenses, making the Donbas case a relevant comparison. Donbas is not an analogue of Alberta but, despite their differences, the two cases demonstrate similar political mechanisms.

Both cases involve separatist demands arising within an existing sovereign state, rather than a sovereign state withdrawing from a supranational union, as in Brexit.

Both regions have also developed strong regional identities around concentrated resource-based economies. Alberta’s economy is closely tied to oil and gas, while Donbas is associated with metallurgy and heavy industry. This economic concentration helped underpin narratives portraying the region as a disproportionately large contributor to national prosperity, while the centre was portrayed as an exploiter.

Similar narratives can be seen in both cases. In Ukraine, regional grievances were expressed through claims that Kyiv ignored Donbas and that the region disproportionately supported the country economically. In Alberta, similar grievances remain visible in claims that Alberta contributes more than it receives and that its interests are ignored in Ottawa.

Further, in both regions, separatism represents a minority position and has been used by regional authorities as a negotiating tool with the central government.

The Ukrainian experience shows the danger — local political elites used regional discontent to pressure the central government, increasing political tensions to obtain concessions and change the rules. Over time, however, this strategy moved beyond their control under the influence of an external factor — Russia, closely connected to Ukraine economically and politically.

Finally, and most importantly, the external factor must be considered. Both countries are bordered by a more powerful neighbour with geopolitical ambitions. Russia used political pressure, economic leverage, information influence and ultimately military intervention against Ukraine to control its foreign economic and foreign policy.

Canada is in a different situation. However, these dynamics suggest that an external actor should not be excluded from an analysis of separatism in Alberta. Like Russia in relation to Ukraine, the United States has repeatedly used strong rhetoric, economic dependence and access to the American market to influence Canada’s economic course and foreign economic decisions.

However, these actions do not themselves create separatism in Alberta — just as Russian policy did not create Ukraine’s original regional divisions, it used and intensified existing political and social divisions. Given U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated public praise for and support of Putin, the possibility that he could draw on similar forms of political and economic pressure in dealing with a neighbouring country cannot be dismissed.

The Ukrainian experience is relevant to Canada because it shows that an internal regional conflict can reach a different level of risk when an external power begins to actively intervene.

Although Donbas and Alberta differ radically in geography, history, political institutions, culture, economic and state structure, the two cases demonstrate recurring political mechanisms — strong regional identity, concentrated economies, narratives of grievance, and tensions between regional and federal political elites.

The Ukrainian case showed what can result when political elites fail to reach agreement and use separatism as a political tool. In the end, everyone lost — elites lost power, businesses lost money and assets, and citizens lost security and their future.

The only party that gained was the external actor, acquiring territory and resources.

For Canada, this is not a prediction of Alberta’s future, but a warning about mechanisms that cannot be ignored regardless of any future referendum. But if an internal conflict becomes an object of interest for a neighbouring power, the rules of the game can be changed.

Alina Stailovska is a Calgary-based policy analyst specializing in Arctic policy, international relations and community development.