The authors of the article have tasked themselves with demonstrating that ethnopolitical conflicts always have a significant emotional component, which lies in cultural stereotypes, unmet (imaginary and real) expectations, historical grievances, parties’ mythologized ideas about each other, etc. In turn, the rejection of any dissent by the conflict parties determines a dualistic view of the world, which demonstrates the division into absolute good and absolute evil, and leads to a tough confrontation between the carriers of the “highest truth” with those who prevent its implementation. The authors emphasize that it is due to this excessive emotional component actualized by the demands of ethnic identity that ethnopolitical conflicts are characterized by a high degree of irrationality, expressed in a huge potential for aggressiveness and hostility, far beyond the rational awareness of the interests of the conflict parties, and the choice of a strategy for interaction and search for a compromise. A particularly rapid escalation of conflict occurs when an ethnic group tends to perceive itself as a “victim” of value claims on the part of “alien” groups. However, the authors believe that it is impossible to reduce the ethnopolitical conflict solely to the affective behavior of its participants. Longterm use of violence is a social process; therefore, it cannot be based only on strong emotions, but, on the contrary, has to presuppose the development of certain norms, sanctions, roles, etc. That is, violence must be rationalized, explained and channeled. Therefore, the authors emphasize the crucial role of “ethnic entrepreneurs” in the escalation of ethnopolitical conflicts. Their activity can be viewed as a “production of ideological conflicts”, i.e., as a deliberate indoctrination of ordinary conflict participants in order to strengthen ethnic solidarity and/or armed struggle as a means of “national liberation” and achievement of other goals that are significant to ethnic entrepreneurs. Consequently, since emotions cannot be completely separated from rational thinking, the nature of most ethnopolitical conflicts depends both on subjective factors and on objective structural elements. Thus, all of them, combining rational and emotional activities, in one proportion or another, produce three types of conflicts: the struggle for resources, the clash of interests, the emotional upholding of ethnocultural identity.