Still think the theory about this being a favour to an agent for future transfers is the most plausible. 'We'll take him, pay him a limited amount of wages and get him out of the Ukraine for a year while you find him a permanent club to join this summer. He'll not get injured as we won't play him, just keep him ticking over until he can resume his career in a few months whilst the political unrest simmers down.'
Not a chance the loan would not have been cancelled had he not been contributing. No point keeping/paying a player who's giving you nothing in return, we've seen it with Santon - "you're not needed, no point in paying you for nothing, get the fuck out."