There is a one peculiarity of representation of Ukrainian conflict in an official discource of government. Legislative, judiciary and executive branch of powers use different notions and terms when talking about conflict. This is obviously could be explained because the official had to balance between two agendas: Ukraine integrity defence and a need to maintain a receiving international financial aid. President could not proclaim status of war to keep the national economy stable. Consequently, double narration appeared: legal which is set by parliamentary adopted laws and decrees of President and head of Council of national security and second one - narrative that can be derived from officials' discouce they transmit via public speeches in international scene and domestically.

There is a significant polarization in communities within Ukraine if we are talking about perception of the conflict. After 4 years of the conflict on the East of Ukraine going on the society does not have unified understanding of it as an event and possibly will never develop one. Different agents, such as governmental bodies, Ministry of defence of Ukraine, soldiers, NGOs, media, representatives of various social groups use divergent language to define the conflict and to describe their position toward the question of reconciliation. Language that is being used to describe this conflict reflects agents' standpoint to it. We can observe that it is being called a war, an armed conflict, anti terrorist operation, occupation, Russia aggression, civil war etc. In many ways language constructs people's perception of the events.

Conflict on Donbass in Ukraine is one of the most significant socio-political events for the period of independence of Ukraine. Politically, historically and socially important events have a specific structure of emergence, development and representation in public and private sphere. In a work "What is an event" professor of New School for Social Research Dr. Robin Wagner-Pacifici analyzes how events emerge, take off from the ground of everyday life, and how they develop across time and space. There are few stages of an event that could be perceived on the individual and collective levels. That could be applied as a frame of analysis of Donbass conflict to check on what stage of development this event is now.

A state when everything is stable and predictable. E.g. ukrainian society saw itself a peaceful people, there was no wars in Ukraine for more than 60 years since WWII ended, Russia was considered as a partners, russians were called brothers, and majority of people didn't expect a military actions would have been starting

A critical moment when social fabric is tearing apart and significant change is erupting. Event always 'comes out of the blue' as conflict on the East of Ukraine happens. In few days peaceful existence of ukrainians were over and military actions started.

When event is erupting there are no words that could describe it, no terms developed to talk about it. "Rupture disarticulate", Wagner-Pacifici agues that society has to live through the moment of uncertainty and undefined reality right after the begining of the event. Let's imagine how do people talk about II World War before first news named it a war and governments gave the official definition? Event gains its form through its articulation in society by individuals and institutions. The conflict in Ukraine was defined only after few weeks after it was started. The rumours and kitchen talks pioneered the way on defining this event. Than media started to give shape to it calling it a "capture of the power", "war", "civil war'', political or social crisis, military aggression etc. Than the official narrative and legislation was produced by government. After 4 years we can assume that the formation of the conflict as a socio-political event is not finished yet. Official and local discourses are full of different names and definition of the conflict. This shapes social reality and influence self identification of Ukrainians in many ways.

The event sediments after the society develops a clear vision of what is has happened. When reflection on the event took place within society the event could drift away as it ends.

Donbass conflict as an event is still on the stage of getting form.
There is no unified or dominant narration about the it, but multiple narratives are evolving in the society. There are narratives of government, international NGOs, media, civil society, academics, different social groups talks about conflict in different terms. We would try to identify and analyze what narratives exist in a public sphere in terms of Jürgen Habermas. Agents who produce narratives in public sphere could be represented by government and media, as they could cover the major audience and have power or influential potential.

Let's have a precise look on political and media narratives. The peculiarity of representation of Ukrainian conflict official dimension is that legislative, judiciary and executive branch of powers use different notions and terms when discuss it.

President's narrative
In public speeches President Poroshenko tends to use terms "Russia's military aggression against Ukraine", "war" and other strong terms. For sure on the international scene Mr. Poroshenko aims to get a support from the international agent, but we should not underestimate impact of his war-supportive narrative to Ukrainian society.

In another speech on General assembly UN on September 18, 2017 Poroshenko used emotional and very stronger words to talk about Donbass.

In public speeches President Poroshenko tends to use terms "Russia's military aggression against Ukraine", "war" and other strong terms. For sure on the international scene Mr. Poroshenko aims to get a support from the international agent, but we should not underestimate impact of his war-supportive narrative to Ukrainian society.

This divergence of terms and messages could be explained different focus of the president and parliament. Parliament had to provide long term framework for possible peace building and reconciliation process. Poroshenko have to pay attention to Ukraine integrity defense as well as guarantee continue receiving international financial aid. President could not proclaim statute of war to keep the national economy stable.

Consequently, double narration appeared: legal which is set by parliamentary adopted laws and decrees of President and head of Council of national security and one that can be derived from officials' discourse they transmit in public speeches.

The official legislation is quite careful and prudent in definitions in the legislative acts. On the timeline, we represent the evolution of the legal terms and formulation in the naming of the events on East Ukraine.

We also can derive from laws and main decrees on policy of conflict regulation that the peaceful narrative towards people on the uncontrolled territories emerged.

The language and terms The President use in official speeches represent the conflict as a war on the contrary. It is obvious that as a head of military forces of the state and an actor in international affairs he should present Ukraine as an object of aggression to receive support from allies countries. But his discourse of war also affects Ukrainian society.

Facilitators of dialogue process in Ukraine assume that narratives about conflict affects conflict resolution in societies. War narratives could be a significant obstacle on the track to reconciliation.

Multi narrative discourse about Donbass conflict in Ukrainian indicates that society is still lives in uncertainty.

Discourse about Donbass conflict translated by officials and media (on so called track 1 and 2) contains few narratives. In case peace agreements would be signed and big scale peace building activities would start in the future main processes of reconciliation would happened in local communities (on the track 3). For now it's important to understand what narratives created by national politics and media influence people in local communities and what does it mean for a possible reconciliation process.