Internationalist Separatism and the Political Use of “Historical Statehood” in the Unrecognized Republics of Transnistria and Donbass
The article offers an analysis of historical politics and political use of the “historical statehood” concept in the unrecognized republics of Transnistria and Donbass. It traces the use of the“historical statehood” by the Transnistrian and Donbass separatist leaders for legitimizing their cause, in their political struggle and expansionist pursuits, and in the appeals to the population of territories under the control of the central governments. A specific strategy of self-legitimization and self-representation, emphasizing multiethnicity and declarative rejection of ethnic nationalism, influences the way these separatist regimes employ historical politics and instrumentalize their “historical statehood.” I suggest naming this approach “internationalist separatism.”
History of classical philology and the reception of Greek and Roman antiquity in Moldova (Moldavia, Bessarabia).
The paper deals with the activity of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization which is used as the means of struggle for special rights of groups and territories in different regions of the world, including Africa.
This article explores the role played by the Eternitate memorial complex, the central site for World War II commemoration in Chişinău, as a tool and site of history politics in the Republic of Moldova. It analyzes different facets of the history of the memorial complex, focusing in particular on the years after its renovation in 2006. The article traces the evolution of the site from a Soviet military glory complex to a more multi-layered and diverse commemorative space, which even includes monuments not related to World War II. It demonstrates how commemorations at the complex interact with the complexities of history politics in independent Moldova, as well as with the culturally diverse history of Chişinău and the site itself.
In connection with a number of significant events that took place in May 2018, the HSE research group offers readers a special edition of the Eurasian Panorama devoted to the analysis of the four directions of Eurasian integration.
On May 14, 2018, at the summit of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, Moldova became the first country to be granted the status of an observer state with the EAEU. What gives such a status, in what conditions was it granted and what can be done to fill it with content?
On May 17, 2018, at the Astana Economic Forum, two strategic agreements were signed: one on the establishment of a temporary free trade area with Iran, and one on trade and economic cooperation with China. What is the essence of and are the differences between these agreements, and what will they give to the Eurasian business community?
From May 23 to May 26, 2018, the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum was held. This year the main topic of the business forum was the digital economy, including, in Eurasian integration. How to correctly implement the digitalization of the Eurasian Union?
In addition, the Eurasian Economic Commission made public the results of the first two years of participation of Armenia and Kyrgyzstan in the Eurasian Economic Union, and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Vienna (Austria) presented research papers on the harmonization of technical regulation systems, increasing foreign direct investment and developing transport communications between the EU and the EAEU.
These topics are covered in detail in this special issue.
This month is also exactly four years from May 29, 2014 - the date of signing the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union. We have the honor to congratulate you on this anniversary!
The article constitutes a part of author’s studies on regions and mental geography of the Russian empire. The military actions within own territory normally produce a dramatic and long impact on the spatial imaginations. The Crimean war with its center in newly incorporated New Russia has helped to include this region to the mental maps as the Russian space. The article shows the new symbolic geography formation. It also analyses the efforts of propaganda aimed at maintaining the imperial durability. A special attention is paid to the state militia. The citizen soldiers – nobles and law classes representatives – had the unique opportunity to visit a number of regions. For the inhabitants of Central Russia the border with Little Russia was essential. The perception of Jews has demonstrated xenophobia long before pogroms. Although the authorities had enough reasons to be afraid of separatism, the final conclusion was that the imperial construction is rather healthy. As a result of such a conclusion an elaboration of this construction hasn’t become a part of common program of reforms in Russia. The author used unpublished documents, in particular those preserved in Kiev. The article is a part of the most significant recent international project on the Crimean war. The English translation of the article is published in USA.
The recent crisis in Ukraine cast a spotlight on those countries located between Russia and the EU, a region that had long existed beneath the radar of international politics. Indeed, even its name remains indeterminate: the term 'post-Soviet' is too encompassing (it could also designate Estonia or Tajikistan) while the notion of 'Eastern Europe' has long lost any geographical anchor. Instead, this space is often named after regional powers’ attempts to shape it: as the EU’s 'Eastern Neighbourhood' or as Russia’s 'Near Abroad'. The new region-building endeavour pursued by Russia through Eurasian integration frameworks is a crucial development in this regard.
On the 29 of May 2014, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed the Treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), which extends the provisions of the existing Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) and comes into being in 2015. This integration regime has been lauded by Russian President Vladimir Putin as a new, better version of the European Union, and castigated by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton as a new form of the Soviet Union. This report shows that it is neither. The EEU is a modern and far-reaching attempt at economic integration, but one that is weakened by internal and conceptual contradictions. What was designed as a geo-economic framework is increasingly becoming a geopolitical issue. In attempting to counter the influence of the EU’s alternative integration regime (the Eastern Partnership), Russia has shifted its diplomacy from persuasion to coercion, and Moscow is increasingly resorting to using the EEU as a foreign policy tool. The countries of the entredeux – literally, something placed between two things – are being forced to face to a geopolitical choice they had been trying to avoid, or at least to defuse. Divisive domestic politics, separatism, structural dependencies and the economic and political calculations of internal actors are key factors mediating and complicating their choice. This report focuses on these issues that are too often overlooked in the debate on Russia-EU regional competition.
This captivating volume brings together case studies drawn from four post-Soviet states—Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova. The collected papers illustrate how the events that started in 1985 and brought down the USSR six years later led to the rise of fifteen successor states, with their own historicized collective memories. The volume’s analyses juxtapose history textbooks for secondary schools and universities and explore how they aim to create understandings as well as identities that are politically usable within their different contexts. From this emerges a picture of multiple perestroika(s) and diverging development paths. Only in Ukraine—a country that recently experienced two popular uprisings, the Orange Revolution and the Revolution of Dignity—the people themselves are ascribed agency and the power to change their country. In the other three states, elites are, instead, presented as prime movers of society, as is historical determinism. The volume’s contributors are Diana Bencheci, Andrei Dudchik, Liliya Erushkina, Marharyta Fabrykant, Alexandr Gorylev, Andrey Kashin, Alla Marchenko, Valerii Mosneaga, Alexey Rusakov, Natalia Tregubova, and Yuliya Yurchuk.