No. 61 l November 2020 KENNAN CABLE President Vladimir Putin signs a globe at the Russian Geographical Society while taking part in the Globe of Russian Leadership project. (April 2019. Photo from: en.kremlin.ru ) Russia in the Changing Post-Soviet Space By Igor Zevelev The 30-year anniversary of the Soviet collapse of the EU-backed political forces in Moldova, the will hardly be an occasion for a state celebration Kremlin’s goal for Russia to serve as regional in Russia next year. Commemorations in the guarantor of stability and security seems at risk. former Soviet republics will once again illustrate These events question the degree of Moscow’s the difference between Putin’s view of history and influence on domestic political developments even the modern world on one side and the political in those countries that are dependent on Russia outlook of millions of people celebrating their economically and in the area of security. Moscow countries’ independence on the other. The growing now looks dangerously unprepared for a new set gap between the official Russian discourse and of threats and opportunities, while there is no the prevalent perceptions in its neighborhood evidence that Moscow is adapting its vision and has become painfully evident in 2020. With regional strategy to rapidly changing circumstances. political unrest in Belarus and Kyrgyzstan, the Russia’s regional leadership is eroding and it is recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over perceived as an unreliable force by a growing Nagorno-Karabakh, and the growing popularity number of actors. It remains hugely attractive as No. 61 l November 2020 KENNAN CABLE an economic and cultural hub for millions of people ties with the West. Russia’s founding father of the in the region, but the Kremlin is facing mounting movement that advocated restoring Russia as a challenges in translating this into effective soft great power was Evgeniy Primakov. An academic as power and an instrument of influence. well as former prime minister and foreign minister at different stages of his career, Primakov influenced Old paradigms those Russian great power believers who strove to contain U.S. global preeminence and advocated The day after the Soviet flag came down from atop maintaining a sphere of influence in the territory of the Kremlin, citizens across the former Soviet Union the former Soviet Union. were thrust into an unfamiliar world. Outside of In the 2000s, with oil prices on the rise and under Russia, people awoke in a new nation with little steady leadership by the young, disciplined, and if any historical record as an independent state. highly dominant Vladimir Putin as president, Arguably the worst shock was reserved for the Russians rediscovered their national pride, including Russians themselves. Overnight, their nation had pride in their history and traditional role as a global been reduced to borders last seen in the 17th leader. In the post-Soviet space, Moscow adopted century, with millions of ethnic Russians stranded policies that promoted Russian hegemony. They on the wrong side of a previously meaningless sought to create a buffer zone of semi-dependent border. Most Russians had difficulty recognizing the countries, all former Soviet republics, around neighboring newly independent states, Ukraine and Russia. Moscow often pursued policies of coercion, Belarus in particular, as separate nations. However, whether through strategic economic investment, immediately after the Soviet collapse, the Russian corrupting foreign leaders, or outright threats. They government lacked the intentions, capabilities, or relied on a very hard-edged realism rather than political will to try to restore the Soviet Union or compete with other actors on the basis of attraction. take on a leadership role in the post-Soviet space. Throughout the 1990s, Russia focused on its own Putin transformed from a cautious centrist state-building by creating and stabilizing new power balancer, tending to pursue partnerships institutions within its new borders. Many Russians with Western states in 2001-2002, to a leader believed that the other newly independent states more inclined to appeal to state-centric Russian owed their level of modern development entirely to nationalism at home through opposition to US historic Russian self-sacrifice, and were unwilling policies, especially in the post-Soviet space. By to invest further Russian resources there when 2003-2004, Moscow became convinced that conditions at home were so poor. the main goal of the United States and Europe in Eurasia was to block any Russian attempts Russian elites began thinking about restoring to restore its historic role as the top regional Russia’s status as a great power and an influential hegemonic power. A series of “color revolutions” in center of a multipolar world in the late 1990s. Georgia (“Rose,” 2003), Ukraine (“Orange,” 2004), Policymakers in Moscow came to view the post- and Kyrgyzstan (“Tulip,” 2005), cemented in many Soviet space through the prism of its worsening Russian minds the argument that the West wanted No. 61 l November 2020 KENNAN CABLE Russian military transport aircraft transferring military units to participate in peacekeeping operations in Nagorno-Karabakh (November 2020. Photo from: en.mil.ru) to weaken Russia and thwart Moscow’s interests Kremlin has adopted three narratives from Russian in its own backyard. As Henry Kissinger argued: intellectual history to guide its actions at home and “In the beginning of his presidency in 2001, Putin abroad.2 sought America as a potential strategic partner, primarily against Islamic extremism. But starting The first narrative describes an unchanging and with American support for the Orange Revolution unchangeable Russia and an uninterrupted flow in Ukraine in 2004, Putin has gradually convinced of Russian history from the time of Grand Prince himself that the U.S. is structurally adversarial.”1 Vladimir (c. 956 – 1015) to President Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin’s successful portrayal of Russian history at home in a convincing manner played a key role Three Russian Narratives in legitimatizing the regime and constructing state- centric Russian nationalism since 2012. Russia’s Russian policymakers grew increasingly concerned annexation of Crimea in 2014 accelerated this that NATO and the EU, and the prospects for their trend—it fit perfectly into the narrative and further enlargement and growing influence in the former developed the Kremlin-authored national myths. Soviet space, not only infringed upon Russia’s This narrative provides a historical anchor for geopolitical interests, but also threatened its very Russian foreign policy, in contrast to the turbulent identity and historic mission as the cultural, political, years of the late 1980s–early 2000s, when Mikhail and economic leader of the entire region. The Gorbachev and then Boris Yeltsin emphasized No. 61 l November 2020 KENNAN CABLE change in the form of reforms at home and think of Russia as far larger than modern political partnerships abroad. boundaries depict. The second narrative concerns Russia’s relationship After successfully annexing and integrating Crimea with the West and the unique role that Russian into the Russian Federation, and subsequently civilization plays in the world. This narrative was not abandoning more ambitious plans in Ukraine by only foundational for constructing a new Russian 2017, the Kremlin toned down policies based on national identity; it also became the North Star for historical myth-making. Following its failure in Russia’s foreign policy. Russia was no longer merely eastern Ukraine, Moscow tried to moderate its competing with the West on the global stage. In rhetoric in its relations throughout the Russian this narrative, the West emerged as an unrelenting World. However, returning the Russia World concept coalition bent on changing Russia’s unique and from battle plan to the marketplace of ideas proved increasingly conservative national identity rooted in nearly impossible in the wake of images from centuries-old history. In this narrative, Russia has Eastern Ukraine and lived experience among the earned the right to global leadership and regional governments and societies of neighboring states. dominion because it has repeatedly saved modern civilization from Napoleon and Hitler. Today, this New challenges narrative is grounded in Russia’s role as the only nation, with its nuclear weapons and veto power at The Kremlin narratives are now running into new the UN Security Council, with the both the capacity challenges. And because the Kremlin doesn’t seem and demonstrated willingness to counter American to have enough information, time, or processing unipolar power. power to deliberate properly in the COVID-19 era, Russian officials frequently base their decisions Finally, the third narrative is grounded in the notion on old paradigms and readymade myths. For of a Russian World. In the Kremlin’s consideration, too long, Russian approaches to the post-Soviet the Russian World includes areas abroad with large spaces have been left not to diplomats, but to the concentrations of Russian compatriots—those ideologues, bureaucrats, and intelligence officers. Russians stranded in newly minted states by They will continue to do what they have been doing the end of the Soviet Union. It also includes the unless the Kremlin rethinks the fundamentals of expanse where Russian language, history, and its approach to the region. The moment is coming, culture are woven into the social fabric. Russia however, when the past is no longer prologue for has used the Russian World concept to question Russia’s standing among the states on its border. the existing political boundaries in the post-Soviet space, and even whether countries like Ukraine President Alexander Lukashenko’s regime in or Belarus are, in fact, “real countries” at all. This Belarus lost legitimacy in the eyes of many ordinary narrative creates a much larger mental map of what citizens in the aftermath of a rigged vote and the Russia really is, and helps citizen and leader alike following crackdown on the opposition in August No.