No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
The formation of fifteen nation states on the territory of the former Soviet Union poses a series of challenges to specialists in Soviet nationalities. They are asked to pronounce on the degree of stability which the new states will enjoy and assess the dangers (mainly military) and the opportunities (mainly economic) that have arisen. The background of preconceptions about nationalism on which such judgements are based is usually characterized by an ambivalence, stemming from a feeling that the dissolution of the Soviet empire into nation states was somehow natural and inevitable, and also by the condescension of mature and powerful states which believe they have outgrown nationalism and the possibly dangerous antics of their younger brothers. Consequently, analysis of the post-Soviet scene produces tentative or confused results. This article attempts to apply a common framework of analysis across all the republics of the former Soviet Union to identify some of the broad but discrete trends which the future development of these states might take. The reader will quite reasonably question whether it makes sense to compare Estonia with Tajikistan or Russia with Moldavia. In reply, it could be argued that political scientists have been presented with an unprecedented opportunity to compare states with very different historical and cultural traditions but which, by virtue of their having been part of the Soviet Union, share remarkably similar political and social structures.
1. I would like to express my gratitude to Geoffrey Hosking, Peter Duncan, Andries Käserkamp and Mark Smith for their comments on this and earlier drafts of this article.Google Scholar
2. Dominic Lieven, The Soviet Crisis, (1991) and Mark Smith, The Soviet Faultline, Ethnic Conflict and Territorial Disputes between the Successor States (1991).Google Scholar
3. Except Georgia.Google Scholar
4. John Armstrong, “The Ethnic Scene in the Soviet Union: The View of the Dictatorship,” Journal of Soviet Nationalities, 1, 1 (1990), pp. 14–65.Google Scholar
5. Seweryn Bialer, Stalin's Successors: Leadership. Stability and Change in the Soviet Union. (1980) and David Lane, The End of Social Inequality? (London, 1982).Google Scholar
6. Hélene Carrere d'Encausse, Decline of an Empire: The Soviet Socialist Republics in Revolt, Alexandre Bennigsen and Majorie Broxup, The Islamic Threat to the Soviet State (London 1983), or Alexander Yanov, The Russian Challenge (Oxford, 1987).Google Scholar
7. Mark Saroyan, “The ‘Karabakh Syndrome’ and Azerbaijani Politics,” in Problems of Communism, Sept-Oct, 1990, pp. 14–29; and David B. Nissman, The Soviet Union and Iranian Azerbaijan The Use of Nationalism for Political Penetration, Westview Press, Boulder and London, 1987.Google Scholar
8. Robert A. Lewis, Richard H. Rowland, Ralph S. Clem, Nationality and Population Change in Russia and the USSR: An Evaluation of Census Data 1897–1970, New York, 1976, pp. 343–354.Google Scholar
9. George Schöpflin, “Post-Communism: Constructing New Democracies in Central Europe,” in International Affairs, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 240–1; and Rudolf Tokes, “Hungary's New Political Elites—Adaptation and Change,” in Problems of Communism, Vol. 39, No. 6.Google Scholar
10. Ukrainian Review, Winter 1990, pp. 74–77.Google Scholar
11. Grazhdanskie dvizheniia v Latvii 1989, p. 84; Narodnyi front Latvii. Programma. Ustav., pp. 9–10, and pp. 25–26 and 32.Google Scholar
12. RFE/RL Research Report. 31/7/92.Google Scholar
13. RFE/RL Research Report. 14/8/92.Google Scholar
14. RFE/RL Research Report, 14/8/92.Google Scholar
15. RFE/RL Research Report, 17/7/92.Google Scholar
16. The Guardian, 16/6/92.Google Scholar