THE POST-SOVIET SPACE: PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT AND A NEW CONFIGURATION
Keywords:
Central Asia, the Southern Caucasus, the Black Sea region, the Caspian region, post-Soviet space, CIS, Eastern Partnership, Black Sea Synergy, EAEU, Eurasian integration.Abstract
In December 1991, the political map of the world acquired newly independent states. The former Soviet republics became free to follow foreign policies based on their interests and conditioned, to a great extent, by their geographic location and integration in the production and economic context of the previous, Soviet period. The fact that the Soviet Union was replaced by newly independent states did not remove the cooperation issue from their common agenda. Indeed, the post-Soviet states could not cope, on their own, with social and economic problems piling up during the first years of their independence. Cooperation was an obvious must, yet the post-Soviet republics remained undecided. The new elites that nurtured political ambitions of their own were not ready to abandon them and had no experience of bilateral and multilateral cooperation to rely on. The fast transit from socialist ideology to market economy, the changed status of the republics—from parts of a single state to independent countries—made it harder, if at all possible, to correctly assess the situation unfolding across the post-Soviet space. Certain political factors or, rather, the power struggle inside each of the post-Soviet states and their ardent desire to get rid of the Soviet heritage strongly affected the discussion and realization of integration initiatives. This explains why integration projects seemed like a heavy burden rather than an instrument very much needed to cope with fundamental problems and why post-Soviet states failed to establish efficient multilateral cooperation.
The external factor, likewise, interfered to a great extent with post-Soviet integration: as independent states, the former Soviet republics became a zone of geopolitical and economic interests of the world’s leading states that spared no effort to get access to their resources and to shape their domestic and foreign policies. The West wanted a greater role in the political sphere and stronger contacts with the new political elites. Economic interaction was widening; the post-Soviet states opened their markets to big Western businesses which did nothing good to national economy. The former Soviet republics were thus adjusted to the economic system of the West, which needed new markets and more resources; their elites had no choice but take commands from the new masters, which made integration a haphazard process in many respects.
The post-Soviet period is dotted with random and mainly failed attempts to realize some of the integration projects, yet foreign policy aspirations and ambitions of the ruling elites widened the gap between the former Soviet republics.
On the whole, the newly independent states were fairly ambiguous in their policies and aspirations: on the one hand, in expectation of a wider cooperation with the West, the dominant foreign policy trend, the majority looked at Russia as one of the partners. On the other, integration projects remained on the agenda because of economic problems, because the former Soviet republics needed more time to finally define their national identities and because Moscow was needed as a counterbalance to the West.
Today, post-Soviet countries are united by nothing more than the geographical boundaries of the defunct state, while the political and economic processes unfolding in certain post-Soviet states do not allow us to look at the sub-regions of Central Asia, the Southern Caucasus, etc. as geopolitical units. The balance of power that has been taking shape in the last few years is strongly affected by the changed relationship between Russia and Ukraine and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) project that triggered a reformatting of the post-Soviet space.
Downloads
References
See: Zh. Toshchenko, Postsovetskoe prostranstvo: suverenizatsia i integratsia, Nauka, Moscow, 1997, p. 65.
See: D.V. Trenin, “Rossia i strany SNG: ‘vzroslenie’ otnosheniy,” in: Vneshniaia politika Rossii: 2000-2020, Russian Council for International Affairs, Vol. 1, ed. by I.S. Ivanov, Aspekt Press, Moscow, 2012, p. 210.
See: O.V. Prikhodko, “Amerikanskaia politika v otnoshenii Ukrainy,” Obozrevatel, No. 10, 2016, pp. 43-61.
See: V. Shorokhov, Neft i politika Azerbaidzhana. Issledovanie TsMI-MGIMO, Moscow, 1997, p. 31.
See: Yo. Tianle, “Rol Tsentralnoy Azii v energeticheskoy strategii Kitaia,” in: Tsentralnaia Azia: problemy i perspe-ktivy (vzgliad iz Rossii i Kitaia), Collection of articles, ed. by K.A. Kokorev, D.A. Alexandrov, I.Iu. Frolova, Russian Institute of Strategic Studies; Chinese Academy of Contemporary International Relations, RISI, Moscow, 2013, p. 145.
I. S. Zonn, Kaspiy: illiuzii i realnost, Edel-M, Moscow, 1999, 467 pp.
See: Evrazia v poiskakh identichnosti, ed. by S.P. Glinkin, L.Z. Zevin, Nestor-Istoria, Moscow, St. Petersburg, 2011,pp. 67-93.
See: G. Melikian, Armenia i Evraziyskiy soiuz: ot sotrudnichestva do integratsii, Erevan, 2015, p. 4.
See: A.A. Kazantsev, “Politika SShA v postsovetskoy Tsentralnoy Azii: kharakter i perpektivy,” Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta, No. 4, 2012, pp. 155-164.
See: S.A. Mikhaylov, “Otnoshenia Gruzii i SShA,” in: Gruzia: problemy i perspektivy razvitia, in 2 vols., Vol. 1,Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, Moscow, 2001, p. 202.
See: K.S. Gadzhiev, Bolshaia igra na Kavkaze. Vchera. Segodnia, Zavtra, Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenia, Moscow,2012, p. 169.
See: V.D. Trenin, op. cit., p. 216.
See: M.T. Laumulin, “Perspektivy amerikanskogo prisutstviya v Tsenralnoy Azii,” Kazakhstan-Spektr, No. 3, 2012,pp.16-32.
See: A.V. Shurubovich, “Evraziyskaia integratsia v vospriiatii belorussov,” Rossia i novye gosudarstva Evrazii, No. 1,2014, pp. 9-25.
See: E.M. Kuzmina, “Evraziyskiy ekonomicheskiy soiuz: ispytanie krizisom,” Problemy postsovetskogo prostrans-tva, No. 1, 2015, p. 12.
See: A.A. Bashmakov, Ot prigranichnogo sotrudnichestva k evraziyskoy ekonomicheskoy integratsii, Collection of scholarly works, KISI under the President of the RK, Almaty, 2013, pp. 182-189.
See: M.A. Neymark, “Russky mir i geopolitika,” Problemy postsovetskogo prostranstva, No. 2 (4), 2015, pp. 78-100.
See: I. Lis, “Maksimalny effekt ot integratsii,” Delovoy Kazakhstan, 27 March, 2015, p. 1.
See: A.V. Shurubovich, “Innovatsionnoe sotrudnichestvo kak faktor modernizatsii natsionalnykh economik stran Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soiuza,” Problemy postsovetskogo prostranstva, No. 1, 2015, pp. 17-35.
See: Li Xing, Wang Chenxing, “Kitayskaia politologia o smysle i perspektivakh evraziyskogo soiuza,” Mezhdun-arodnye protsessy, No. 38, 2014, p. 72.
See: K.L. Syroezhkin, “Uglublenie vsestoronnego strategicheskogo sotrudnichestva Respubliki Kazakhstan s Kitay-skoy narodnoy respublikoy,” in: Kontseptsia vneshney politiki Respubliki Kazakhstan na 2014-220 gody i zadachi po ee real-izatsii: materialy kruglogo stola, ed. by B.K. Sultanov, KISI under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, 2014,pp. 54-60.
See: Wang Shuchun, Wen Qingsung, “Perspektivy evraziyskogo integratsionnogo proekta i ego posledstviia dlia Kitaia,” Obozrevatel, No. 4, 2013, pp. 41-56.
See: N.A. Mendkovich, Na puti k evraziyskomu ekonomicheskomu chudu. Rossia i integratsia na postsovetskom prostranstve, Algoritm, Moscow, 2015, p. 207.
See: Wang Shuchun, Wen Qingsung, op. cit., p. 48.
“Clinton Calls Eurasian Integration an Effort To ‘Re-Sovietize’,” available at [https://www.rferl.org/a/clinton-calls-eurasian-integration-effort-to-resovietize/24791921.html], 29 July, 2016.
See: K.L. Syroezhkin, “Evraziyskoe prostranstvo i kitayskiy factor,” in: Integratsionnye protsessy v evraziyskom prostranstve i sovremenny mir: Materialy mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii (Almaty, 14 noiabria, 2012 g.), KISI under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2013, p. 156.
See: G.G. Tishchenko, V.E. Novikov, S.M. Ermakov, I.A. Nikolaychuk, V.V. Koriakin, Iu.A. Kriachkina, Ia.V. Se-lianin, “Voennaia politika SShA i ugrozy Rossii,” Problemy natsionalnoy strategii, No. 6, 2014, p. 18.
See: D.S. Popov, Tsentralnaia Azia vo vnesheny politike SShA 1991-2016, RISI, Moscow, 2016, p. 57.
D. Grushevenko, S. Melnikova, “Political Geology Hastens to Redraw the Global Energy Map in Favor of the U.S.,”Russia in Global Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2014.
See: O. Nikiforov, “Sostoitsia li proekt ‘Severnogo potoka-2’,” Nezavisimaia gazeta, 11 June, 2017.
See: T.S. Guzenkova, O.V. Petrovskaya, V.B. Kashirina, O.B. Nemensky, V.A. Ivanova, K.I. Tasits, D.A. Alexan-drov, I.A. Ippolitov, S.Iu. Kukola, R.V. Darvay, S.V. Tikhonova, “Politika Evrosiuza v otnoshenii stran postsovetskogo pros-transtva v kontekste evrasiyskoy integratsii,” Problemy natsionalnoy strategii, No. 2, 2015, pp. 9-51.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 AUTHOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
