PSCRP-BESA Reports No 124 (April 11, 2025)
by Alexander Shpunt
Third Issue of Our Monitoring of Research and Reports on Socio-Political Developments in the Post-Soviet Space: Preliminary Insights from the First Hundred Days of 2025
The third issue of our monitoring of research and reports on the evolution of the socio-political landscape across the post-Soviet space allows us to draw preliminary conclusions regarding the trajectory of scholarly discourse during the first hundred days of 2025.
Perhaps unexpectedly, the protracted conflict in southeastern Ukraine and Russia has emerged as a shaping force not only for internal processes within these two nations but also for the domestic dynamics of other former Soviet states. These states, though seemingly distant both geographically and thematically from the confrontation, now find themselves influenced by its ripple effects.
Another critical factor we wish to highlight for the thoughtful Israeli reader is the role of elites in post-Soviet conflicts, as reflected in the reports featured in this monitoring. Within Israel’s political culture, the study of elites (elitology) receives comparatively less attention than in Western political discourse. This discrepancy, in our view, represents an underexplored field ripe for academic inquiry—one that awaits dedicated researchers to uncover its complexities and implications.
1. The topic of integration across the post-Soviet space attracts significantly less scholarly attention compared to the study of active conflicts—a regrettable oversight. The success or failure of integration processes, including the establishment of power balances within such frameworks—often through non-conventional means, including coups d’état—frequently serves as the breeding ground for conflicts framed as ethnic or territorial disputes.
The study “Regional Integration Efforts in The Post-Cold War USSR Geography: The Eurasian Economic Union”, published in the internationally peer-reviewed journal ASSAM Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi by Meram Tatlı, an emerging yet notable Turkish scholar, offers valuable insights.
The research tests the hypothesis that “member states of the Eurasian Economic Cooperation Organization could establish a robust regional integration structure in the post-Soviet space by deepening collaboration in political, economic, defense, and other spheres.” The Turkish researcher identifies a critical weakness in the integration bloc: the lack of economic complementarity among Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) members. From the EAEU’s founding until 2018, intra-bloc trade stagnated at 8% of total trade volumes. While nominal and physical trade values saw marginal growth, the share of intra-EAEU trade in members’ overall external trade remained unchanged.
The EU (53% of exports, 41% of imports) and China (13% of exports, 23% of imports) dominate as the EAEU’s primary economic partners. Nearly 92% of the bloc’s external trade involves third countries, contrasting starkly with the EU’s 64% intra-bloc trade share. Tatlı—who appears sympathetic to the EAEU’s goals—argues that this structural imbalance constitutes the principal barrier to integration, one that cannot be overcome through political efforts or maneuvering alone.
2. The report “Dönüşen Çok Kutuplu Sistemde Rusya’nin Statü Arayişi” (“Transformation in a Multipolar System: Russia’s Quest for Status”) , prepared by Turkey’s National Intelligence Academy (MİA), merits attention both for its institutional authorship—previously featured in this monitoring series—and its thematic focus.
Russia’s “status”—like Turkey’s own—is often reduced to a rhetorical device in propaganda and counterpropaganda, lacking rigorous conceptualization. The Turkish military analysts adopt a distinct approach.
The authors ambitiously construct a comprehensive framework linking Russia’s strategic, economic, and socio-cultural policies, contextualizing Moscow’s motives within broader systemic shifts. The report explains Russia’s challenge to U.S. hegemony, its use of energy resources as geopolitical leverage, and its prioritization of information warfare tools (media, cultural diplomacy, disinformation).
The study’s core analytical premise—which we find most compelling—frames Russia’s status-seeking not as reactive rhetoric but as a systemic driver shaping its foreign, defense, economic, and cultural policies, albeit absent formal doctrinal codification.
“While Russia’s strategy to forge an alternative power center against the West may yield short-term gains, its long-term sustainability remains uncertain due to economic dependencies and strategic constraints. To achieve a multipolar order, Moscow must develop more balanced and adaptive strategies,” the authors assert. They propose Turkey as a potential “nexus” for such strategies: “Turkey could enhance its strategic maneuvering within the West-Russia balance of power… while consolidating regional leadership and carefully calibrating cooperation with Russia.”
3. Researchers from Gumilyov Eurasian National University’s Faculty of International Relations (Astana, Kazakhstan) and the Kazakh Institute of State History published a notable March article, “Soft Power of Superpowers and Regional Powers in Kazakhstan”.
Kazakhstan is analyzed not merely as a case study but as a model for assessing how major states project soft power. The country’s geopolitical position—bordering Russia and China, with deep ties to the U.S., the West, the Islamic world, and Turkey—provides unique analytical value. Post-independence (1991), Kazakhstan has balanced relations with these powers, avoiding dominance by any single actor. The authors argue this makes Kazakhstan pivotal for understanding soft power dynamics across the post-Soviet space, particularly post-2022.
Key findings:
First, states targeted by external soft power can counter such strategies via policy tools like Kazakhstan’s “multi-vector” foreign policy.
Second, local culture and societal beliefs inherently limit foreign soft power efficacy.
Third, Kazakhstan will sustain its pragmatic multi-vector approach to evade superpower dominance. Finally, the Ukraine conflict will not rupture Kazakhstan-Russia ties; local stereotypes undermine Chinese soft power; Western influence is waning; and Turkish influence is poised to grow.
Each claim is empirically substantiated—readers may judge the persuasiveness independently.
4. The article “Russia’s Energy Interests in Azerbaijan: A Retrospective Analysis and Prospective View” by Gubad Ibadoglu, a senior analyst at Baku’s Center for Economic Research, initially appears narrowly focused on recent energy developments. However, its strategic depth becomes evident upon closer reading.
A pivotal section analyzes the August 19, 2024, Baku negotiations between Gazprom and SOCAR, details of which remain undisclosed.
Ibadoglu speculates: “Russian gas could flow to Armenia and Iran, or Azerbaijani gas might reach Europe via Russia… Existing pipelines enable these scenarios. The Hajigabul-Shirvanovka-Mozdok pipeline, operated by SOCAR and Gazprom, has a 10 bcm/year capacity but historically operated at 50% capacity due to Azerbaijan’s rising domestic gas output post-2007.”
He notes similar Soviet-era infrastructure repurposing: “The Hajigabul-Gazakh-Saguramo pipeline, built in 1978 and idled post-USSR, was reactivated in 2006. With 8.7 bcm/year capacity, it could supply Georgia and Armenia via Azerbaijan.”
This analysis offers critical insights for observers of Caucasus energy geopolitics.
5. The Italian journal The International Spectator published “Performing the (Contested) State: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Transnistria’s Political Elites” by George Sebastian Fârtân and Dimitris Bouris (University of Amsterdam).
Adopting a performative lens, the authors posit that statehood is constructed through political discourse—particularly vital for unrecognized states like Transnistria. By analyzing elite rhetoric (speeches, texts), they trace how institutional legitimacy is forged through narratives of history, culture, democracy, and diplomacy.
The study applies Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to Transnistria, proposing a universal methodology for analyzing state-building in contested post-Soviet territories. Shifting from static conceptions of statehood, the authors emphasize dynamic, iterative discursive practices that sustain such entities as evolving political projects.
Although the piece is overly theoretical, it introduces a novel framework for studying unrecognized states—though further methodological refinement is necessary.
Alexander Shpunt is an Israeli and Russian researcher and expert in theory and practice of information and analytical work in the field of politics. Since 2016 he has served as a professor at the National Research University “Moscow Higher School of Economics” and in 2011 founded and headed the Institute of Political Analysis Tools (Moscow), specializing in systems for monitoring political behavior.