Ethnic tensions and separatism in Russia

The paper presents the results of two studies of intercultural relations in post-Soviet Georgia and Tajikistan. These countries have in common a sharp decline in cultural diversity as a result of wars and conflicts, and this model of intercultural relations on post-Soviet space was identified as a post-conflict model. The goal of this study was to evaluate three hypotheses of intercultural relations: multiculturalism, contact and integration (Berry, 2017) among majority members and the ethnic Russian minorities. We surveyed 312 Ethnic Russians and 298 Georgians in Georgia; 277 Ethnic Russians and 317 Tajiks in Tajikistan. The studies used scales from the MIRIPS questionnaire. To test the three hypotheses of intercultural relations we followed a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach. The multiculturalism hypothesis found partial support in all four groups in Georgia and Tajikistan. The contact hypothesis received partial support in Tajiks and in Ethnic Russians in Georgia and was not supported among Ethnic Russians in Tajikistan and Georgians. The integration hypothesis was fully supported in Tajiks and Ethnic Russians in Georgia, partially supported among Ethnic Russians in Tajikistan and was not supported among Georgians. The results obtained in these two countries are discussed taking into consideration the sociocultural contexts and recent history of wars and conflicts.

Introduction: the study of ethnic conflicts in Russia is one of the most popular research areas. Research reviews show that many authors seek to define the determinants of interethnic conflict in the subjects of the Russian Federation and to understand what causes the regional differentiation in interethnic tension. Objectives: to find an answer to the question of why the interethnic tension is high in some Russian regions and low in others. Methods: several theoretical and methodological approaches to the explanation of interethnic conflicts have been considered. Based on the theoretical approaches existing in sociology and political science, the author formulates working hypotheses and checks them empirically using the regression analysis method. The information base of the research was made up of data from Rosstat, the Rating of Regional Democracy by the Carnegie Moscow Center, the “Grapes of Wrath” Rating of Interethnic Tension in the Russian Regions. Results: a considerable ethnic patchiness leads to an increase in interethnic tension. It has been shown that a positive relationship exists between economic crisis and interethnic conflict. Statistical calculations have demonstrated that the growth in regional democracy is accompanied by the increase in interethnic tensions. Conclusions: the research results made it possible for the author to identify the regional interethnic tension determiners, resulting in around 30 % of all the cases. This brings about the necessity to further use the qualitative methods of data analysis and case-study research.

Scoping the impact of COVID-19 on the nexus of statelessness and health in Council of Europe member states

A distinguished specialist on the human geography of the former USSR examines the process whereby the Russian Federation increased its influence over most of the successor states during 1993 and early 1994. Particular attention is devoted to the interplay between (a) the status of Russian minorities, political instability, and ethnic conflict in the successor states and (b) military, economic, and political pressures exerted by the Russian Federation. In addition, the paper surveys the status of interethnic relations among Russians and eponymous populations in Russia's republics and other ethnic-territorial formations. 1 map, 44 references.

: In recent years, Russia has conducted several operations in former Soviet states, attempting to halt NATO expansion and protecting ethnic Russian minorities in those states. Western analyses have focused either on traditional military means in these operations or on novelties in the cyber domain, but rarely have they used these approaches with others. They focused especially on what lessons Russia learned from them to reform their armed services. This is a very narrow analysis, based on Western assumptions on the Russian way of war. Instead, Russia has created a new operational concept, which it refers to as the fifth period of operational art, especially designed for its near-abroad policy. This new operational concept uses traditional domains with military means, non-traditional domains such as the human, information, and cyber domain, and non-military means such as (cyber) proxy forces linked to the social conditions of Russians living as minorities outside Russia. This monograph reviews the changes, their background, and practical application, together with their links to the social conditions of ethnic Russian minorities in former Soviet states. First, it describes the history of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fate of the 25 million displaced ethnic Russians, their marginalization, regional tensions, and the strategy that Russia has developed to protect these ethnic Russians and its interests in the near abroad. Next, this monograph reviews the theory on the fifth period of operational art and creates an operational framework based on the theory and case studies of the 2007 Estonia crisis, 2008 Georgia war, and 2014 Ukraine conflict. Finally, it reveals how this framework uses non-military means linked to social conditions.

The development of the Russian federal system has been marked by conflict, co-optation, and consensus. Emerging from the generally unitary Russian republic within a formally federal but largely unitary Soviet Union, post-Soviet Russia began its development as a federal system with little experience and few institutional structures salvageable from the earlier system. The patchwork Soviet-era constitution adapted to the newly independent political system was insufficiently clear to structure adequately political interactions across levels of society. The construction of a functioning federal system also began with the regime already at a disadvantage: In struggling for power with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Russian president Boris Yeltsin advised all of Russia's regions to take as much sovereignty as they could swallow. Ultimately, although this recommendation helped Yeltsin win Russia's independence, it hampered the future development of federalism, for the regions had become mindful of their autonomy and willing to ignore central laws and edicts. The most independent category of regions in Russia under the Soviets and after are the republics, which have historical basis in Lenin's nationalities policy that was instrumental in the formation of the Soviet Union. Built on a legacy of advantage that was perhaps more de jure than de facto, the republics have been more independence minded. During his tenure as post-Soviet Russia's leader, Yeltsin worked to re-establish central authority, however. This process followed four basic stages. First, the 1992 Federation Treaty between Russia's regions and the central government stopped centrifugal forces that threatened the disintegration of the state and established Russia's republics as virtual state entities. Second, the 1993 Russian constitution began the process of re-integrating an inchoate political system following the president's victory over the Soviet-era legislature, the Supreme Soviet. The constitution eliminated almost all privileges allocated to the republics, with the exception of rights to write a constitution and maintain a local state language in addition to Russian. Third, the Yeltsin government returned some of the de jure powers it had taken away in the constitution. In some ways, Yeltsin recognized that new constitutional strictures could not be enforced, and instead threatened a resumption of centrifugal forces. Through a series of bilateral agreements signed with more than half of the Russian regions from 1994 to 1998, de facto powers held by a number of regions were selectively enshrined in law beyond constitutional guidelines. This third period was typical of Russia's tentative movement (two steps forward, one step backward) toward a more centralized, albeit still federal, political system. The bargaining process between the center and the regions favored certain republics early. Following the economic crash of 1998, still a de jure federation with strong central powers, Russia had de facto moved dramatically in the direction of a confederation, with a number of strong regions and a weak center. Fourth, in spring 2000, newly elected president Vladimir Putin began a push for political centralization. Putin formed seven federal districts guided by presidential representatives, reconfigured the selection processes for deputies to the upper house of parliament (the Federation Council), and strove to enhance the institution of local self-government nationwide. Putin's administration also has worked to bring regional laws and constitutions in accord with the Russian constitution and federal laws. (1) This last initiative has been bolstered by fiscal reform designed to raise the center's control of regionally collected revenue. To varying degrees, all of these reforms were designed to reduce the strength of regional executives. These acts and reforms guide my analysis in this article. More specifically, I examine how new political institutions and a more aggressive federal government have influenced Russia's twenty-one ethnic republics, (2) which have frequently possessed certain advantages leading to asymmetry in Russian federalism. …

География населения России по Петр Эбэрхардт (review)

In the former Soviet republics of central Asia, ethnic Russians have exhibited higher adult mortality than native ethnic groups (e.g., Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek) in spite of the higher socioeconomic status of ethnic Russians. The mortality disadvantage of ethnic Russians at adult ages appears to have even increased since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The most common explanation for this "Russian mortality paradox," is that deaths are better reported among ethnic Russians. In this study, we use detailed mortality data from Kyrgyzstan between 1959 and 1999 to evaluate various explanations for the Russian mortality paradox: data artifacts, migration effects, and cultural effects. We find that the most plausible explanation is the cultural hypothesis because the personal behaviors that appear to generate a large part of the observed mortality differences (alcohol consumption, in particular) seem to be closely tied to cultural practices. We examine the implications of this finding for understanding the health crisis in post-Soviet states.

REVIEWS I89 have a proper appreciation of the significance of bilateraltreaties in Russia's federal practice because they treat Russia as a territorial rather than multinational federation. In his concluding chapter, Stoliarov considers Russia's republics in greater detail, particularly the debates regarding the place and statusof ethno-territorialunits in the federalsystem. Mikhail Stoliarov's book provides a coherent, well-documented view of federative relations in Russia, written from a point of view which is sympatheticto the plight of its ethnic republics.It providesa good overviewof Russian-language scholarshipand commentary and of the debates in Russia on the pros and cons of differentapproachesto federalism.Given the author's position, it would have been interesting to get more of a behind-the-scenes look at how the Tatarstan-Russiarelationship has evolved during the I99os. Considering the preponderance of analyses of the Tatarstan model of federative relations and the importance of the republic in recent scholarship, an insider's perspective is sorely needed. Moreover, the author provides comparisonswith otherfederalsystems,such as Germany,the US or Belgium, which could have been developed more fully. As they stand, they are somewhat superficialand peripheralto his analysis. The Russian original of this book was published in 2001. Although the empiricalmaterialislimitedto thefirstyearsof Putin'spresidency,the analysis has held up well. The analyticalframeworkMikhail Stoliarov establishesis a usefulguide to understandingcurrenttrendsin Russia'sfederaldevelopment. Department ofGovernment DAVID CASHABACK London School ofEconomics andPoliticalScience Kolst0, Pal and Blakkisrud,Helge (eds).Nation-Building andCommon Values in Russia.Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD and Boulder, CO, 2004. viii + 382 pp. Figures. Tables. Notes. Appendix. Bibliography. Index. [57.00. THIs book is the third volume in a series on nation building and ethnic integration in post-Soviet societies. The two preceding volumes were, NationBuilding andEthnicIntegration in Post-Soviet Societies: An Investigation ofLatviaand Kazakstan (Oxford, I999) and NationalIntegration andViolent Conflict inPost-Soviet Societies:TheCasesof EstoniaandMoldova(Lanham, MD, 2002). The present volume reflects research financed by the Norwegian Research Council and the Norwegian University Council and has a healthy mixture of Russian and non-Russian writers.This is one of its many strengths,thus providing an indepth analysisof post-Soviet societywithin a general theoreticalframework. The book is divided into eleven chapters and an epilogue, with the first chapterproviding an overallintroductionto the volume. The projecttakesits cue from Vladimir Putin'smillennium articlepublished on the internet prior to becoming President.Within the document Putinclaimed that there existed a set of traditional Russian values its status as a great power, its statecentredness and social solidarity which bind the people together. The authors set out to establish whether this is indeed the case, or whether a plethora of values now exist within Russia to such a degree that we can no longer assumethat such common values exist. I90 SEER, 84, I, 2006 To this end, a survey was carried out in six regions/cities of Russia (Moscow, St Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Komi, Bahkortostan and Dagestan) using much of the same vocabulary that was employed by Putin in the aforementioned article. The results were then compared with the I995-98 World Values survey conducted by Ronald Inglehart in an attempt to distinguishbetween universaland traditionalRussianvalues. The succeeding seven chapters reflect the research conducted on this basis focusing on each individualsix regions/cities and, in addition, on Russia as a whole. However, it should be pointed out that the chapters do not focus solely on such quantitative data, but also provide invaluable backgroundmaterial on these regions/cities and combine the quantitativedata with qualitativeanalysis.In doing so, the book provides an invaluableinsight into contemporaryRussian society. In addition to the individual case-studies, there is a chapter on the changing nature of federalism within post-Soviet Russia since I99I. In the vast majorityof countries such a shortperiod would be of little interestto the reader, but this is certainlynot so in the Russian case which has experienced dramatic changes in the nature of its federal structurereflecting more often than not the changing power relations between the centre and the regions. The chapterprovides an interestinginsight into these changing relationsand how they affectedthe federal compromise at various stages. The penultimate chapter examines the role of educational textbooks in the process of nation building, highlighting the difficulties of developing a nation-building programme in...

Wage, price, and monetary policies during the Gorbachev years have been most responsible for the food crisis in the republics of the former USSR, not problems in agricultural production. These non-agricultural policies distorted demand, weakened the distribution system, and created inflationary macroeconomic imbalance. In 1991, though, these conditions finally began to affect the supply side of the economy, causing output, not onlY In agricu ture but across sectors, to fall. The main short-run objective of the ambitious reform program begun by the Russian Republic in January 1992 is to restore macroeconomic balance and thereby eliminate the inflationary preshe

Russian nationalism after Crimea is commonly depicted as aggressive and expansionist – but few Russian ethno-nationalists would accept this description. Quite the contrary: they would argue that ethnic Russians as the majority population find themselves under “under siege” from ethnic minorities. A case in point, they hold, is Stavropol Krai in the North Caucasus. In local ethno-nationalist circles this region is depicted as “Russia’s Kosovo,” a glaring example of the Kremlin’s betrayal of ethnic Russian interests. This article presents a case study of the under-researched regional dimension of Russian nationalism. The purpose is twofold: to map regional ethno-nationalist discourse and, drawing on survey data, to explore to what extent this discourse is reflected in general attitudes toward the influx of migrants and plans for own migration. We find that local ethno-nationalists have succeeded in mobilizing support at the national level, but that, despite increased ethnic tensions in Stavropol Krai, few Russians contemplate leaving.

393 Ab Imperio, 4/2007 Marina PEUNOVA Kathryn Stoner-Weiss, Resisting the State: Reform and Retrenchment in Post-Soviet Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 182 pp. Bibliography, Index. ISBN: 0-521-82463-7 (hardcover edition). The scholarly analysis of postcommunist Russia during the 1990s особенно важно, так как прак- тически все статьи Виноградова по “русской проблеме” носили публицистический характер, были написаны, что называется, “на злобу дня” и не могут рассматри- ваться отвлеченно, а тем более из них не создашь коллаж с помощью “ножниц и клея”. has been characterized by intellectual battles between “particularists” and “universalists” that produced clashing avalanches of literature ranging from multidisciplinary area studies-style accounts of post-Soviet transformation to theory-based “transitological” works that viewed Russia from a comparative perspective as a case study of the transition to democracy and capitalism.1 A decade later, these deliberations largely resulted in the triumph of the comparative approach. In bitter criticism of area studies and the miscalculations of Sovietology, the majority of prominent scholars, most notably, political scientists, moved away from historical, cultural, and social explanations and into the world of abstract theories.2 Kathryn Stoner-Weiss is a wellrecognized figure of the “transition to democracy” – comparative and universalistic – paradigmatic landscape . Currently at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University, 1 For a debate on transitology, see: Philippe Schmitter, Terry Karl. The Conceptual Travels of Transitologists and Consolidologists: How Far to the East Should They Attempt to Go? // Slavic Review. 1994. Vol. 53. Pp. 173-185; Valery Bunce. Should Transitologists be Grounded? // Slavic Review. 1995. Vol. 54. Pp. 109-127; Philippe Schmitter, Terry Karl. From an Iron Curtain to a Paper Curtain: Grounding Transitologists or Students of Postcommunism? // Ibid. Pp. 965-978; Valery Bunce. Paper Curtains and Paper Tigers // Ibid. Pp. 979-987. 2 This is not to say that “transitology” does not inspire a bitter criticism of its own, especially among Russian scholars. See Boris Kapustin. Modernity’s Failure/Postmodernity ’s Predicament: The Case of Russia // Critical Horizons. 2003. Vol. 4. Pp. 99-145; Andrei Mellville. Russia in the 1990s: Democratization, Postcommunism, or Something Else? // Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization. 1999. Vol. 7. Pp. 165-187. 394 Рецензии/Reviews points out the necessity to evaluate “not just the kind of government in any particular state (democratic or authoritarian)… but the degree of government and the state’s actual capacity to govern” (P. 12).5 The Soviet state was hyper-centralized and governed effectively, contends the author. In contrast, the author notes that post-1991 Russia has endured “rapid decentralization” (Pp. 45, 96), and suffers from a “weak state syndrome” that exemplifies a broader pattern of ineffective governance in young and still-imperfect democracies (P. 12). With skepticism consistent with the discipline of political science, Stoner-Weiss disregards ethnicity, culture, and nationalism as plausible causes of the center-periphery conflict that plagues post-Soviet Russia.6 She focuses instead on politico-economic factors, more specifically, on the “business-government nexus” (Pp. 98, 155), and argues that regional Stoner-Weiss previously taught at Princeton, Columbia and McGill Universities, and held fellowships at Harvard University (where she received her Ph.D. in Government) and the Kennan Institute. Among her numerous publications is an important volume After the Collapse of Communism (2004),3 which Stoner-Weiss co-edited with the maharishi of democratization discourse, Michael McFaul. Resisting the State: Reform and Retrenchment in Post-Soviet Russia, Stoner-Weiss’ second single -authored volume, is a “transitological ” work that addresses Russian regionalism.4 The Russian case, argues the author, provides a wealth of lessons learned that reiterate how imperative politicoeconomic institution-building is for good governance (P. 155). Since state power is contingent upon the state’s ability to govern successfully across its territory, Stoner-Weiss 3 Michael McFaul, Kathryn Stoner-Weiss. After the Collapse of Communism: Comparative Lessons of Transition. Cambridge, 2004. 4 For a bibliography of works dealing with Russian regionalism in the 1990s, see: John Löwenhardt, Stephen White. Beyond the Garden Ring: A Bibliography. Glasgow, 1999. For Russian sources, see: Vladimir Gel’man, Sergei Ryzhenkov. Politicheskaia regionalistika Rossii: istoriia i sovremennnoe razvitie // Iu. Pivovarov (Ed.). Politicheskaia nauka sovremennoi Rossii: tendentsii razvitiia. Moscow, 1999. Pp. 173-255; A. Makarychev. Vliianie zarubezhnykh kontseptsii na razvitie rossiiskogo regionalizma: vozmozhnosti i predely zaimstvovaniia // A. Makarychev (Ed.). Sravnitel’nyi regionalism: Rossiia – SNG – Zapad. Nizhnii Novgorod, 1997. Pp. 9-129. 5 See Michael Mann. The Autonomous Power of...

In bringing together this wealth of information on Russia's republics and regions, Orttung and his associates at the EastWest Institute have done the field a tremendous service. Spanning almost 700 pages, this weighty tome includes all of the basic information on each of Russia's subjects of the federation in one easily accessible volume. The fact that this is the only place much of this information can be accessed in English also makes it extremely useful as a teaching resource, given the limited number of students with adequate Russian-language skills.

The article analyzes the outcomes of a mass opinion poll held among the population of Novosibirsk and covering the urgent issues of interethnic relations. In our analysis, we generalize the current mass beliefs concerning these relations, their status, problem areas and dynamics, as well as motivations in interpersonal communications and the opinion city residents have of migrants. On the level of interpersonal contact, residents show a highly friendly attitude to other ethnic groups. Most of the respondents emphasize that ethnicity, unlike business qualities, is of little importance for them. At the same time, there are some alarming trends in the dynamics of interethnic relations as they are imagined in the present-day mass consciousness. Although the complementariness level in the links between people of various ethnicities is quite high within the city, interethnic relations are generally considered tolerable rather than good. We can expect a further increase in this tension as migration soars. Almost half of the respondents believe ethnic conflicts are possible. The main zones of potential interethnic tension are street markets and adjacent areas, where a higher concentration of ethnic minorities is conspicuous. The urban community of Novosibirsk has developed negative stereotyping of migrants. We prove that this stereotype is impossible to overcome unless the welfare of host community is improved. On many issues, the opinion of ethnically Russian population is more judgmental than those of other ethnic groups. This is largely due to the feeling of decreased social well-being which ethnic Russians experience. Whether this feeling is caused by higher level of status claims or real dysfunction, it has a strong influence on ethnic Russians’ critical assessment on the current situation. Russians are the ethnic community to experience the highest degree of subjective discomfort and to be most worried about the state of interethnic relations. In conclusion, we call for a set of measures to help both migrants and local residents adapt to this ethnosocial situation neither of them have previously experienced.

The purpose of this paper was to study psychological adaptation of ethnic Russians in various contexts of post-Soviet countries. To achieve this goal, a survey was conducted in the following seven post-Soviet republics: Estonia (N=314), Kazakhstan (N=179), Kyrgyzstan (N=300), Armenia (N=109), Tajikistan (N=284), Latvia (N=334), Georgia (N=312). The total sample size equaled to 1832 people. The study showed that in different contexts of post-Soviet republics, psychological adaptation of Russians differs. The authors have identified two contextual conditions that are important for successful adaptation in post-Soviet countries: the policy towards ethnic Russians, which can be either inclusive or restrictive, as well as subjective cultural distance. Accordingly, four contexts of the adaptation of Russians have been identified. With a combination of inclusive policies and a short subjective cultural distance (Kazakhstan), the conditions for psychological adaptation are favourable, ethnic boundaries are permeable, bridging (interethnic) social capital is formed. However, there is a downside to such a favourable context – there are assimilation tendencies out there. With a combination of inclusive policies and a long subjective cultural distance (Kyrgyzstan, Armenia), Russians have the opportunity to fully preserve their ethnic identity and integrate into the host society. Such a context shows the highest scores of self-esteem as one of the indicators of psychological adaptation. In the case of a combination of restrictive policies and a short subjective cultural distance (Estonia, Latvia), Russians make kind of a “request” for integration, that is, the preservation of their own culture along with inclusion in the culture of host societies. A context combining restrictive policies and a large subjective cultural distance (Georgia, Tajikistan) is the most unfavourable for the psychological adaptation of Russians. It is characteristic that in this context, Russians are forced to reduce, “conceal” their ethnic identity, since the degree of their ethnic identity is negatively associated with life satisfaction, that is, with successful adaptation.