In the first month of 2025, the papers authored by the PSCRP researchers covered a broad range of post-Soviet subregions, including the South Caucasus, Central Asia, Russia, and the Baltics.
Alexander Grinberg analyzes the aftermath of an Azerbaijani airplane crash near Aktau on December, 25. Though the Russian authorities denied any involvement in the incident, the evidence might suggest that the crash could have been caused by anti-drone interference and the use of surface-to-air weaponry over the territory of the Chechen region. Grinberg notes that “Azerbaijan’s response demonstrated remarkable diplomatic finesse. While avoiding direct confrontation, Azerbaijani authorities systematically dismantled the Russian narrative. They first rejected the bird strike theory, then strategically released information through international media.” He concludes that the crisis “has demonstrated that effective confrontation with Russia requires a delicate balance: maintaining firmness while preserving diplomatic channels.”
Further on, Vladimir (Ze’ev) Khanin and Alexander Grinberg have prepared a brief overview of Azerbaijan’s broader role in Israel’s regional security system. They underscore the importance of Azerbaijan for both Israel and the US, as a state that “has maintained a 30-year-long military-strategic partnership with the U.S.’s key ally in the Middle East while bordering two of America’s geopolitical rivals—Russia and Iran.” Khanin and Grinberg enumerate the reasons why relationships with Azerbaijan are crucial to the Jewish state: since the 1990s, being a secular, Muslim-majority state, Azerbaijan has been a key pillar of Israel’s energetic security, a top importer of Israeli military products, and a key Israeli partner against Iran, “with both viewing the Ayatollah regime as an existential threat.” Importantly, Azerbaijan, as a traditional ally of Turkey, works to normalize Turkey-Israel relations and mediates during interstate crises. Overly, the country has for more than a century exemplified Muslim-Jewish symbiosis, and might serve as a role model and foster Israel-Muslim ties.
Andrei Kazantsev-Vaisman provides a thorough overview of Kazakhstan’s energy supply diversification prospects. The Caspian Pipeline Consortium, through Russia, “remains the primary export route for Kazakh oil, accounting for about 80% of total shipments.” However, amid the political instability caused by the ongoing war, Kazakhstan attempts to diversify the shipment trajectories, namely, through the Trans-Caspian route that bypasses Russia. Russia and Iran oppose this plan: for Iran, it would undermine its exports; for Russia, it will “weaken Moscow’s leverage over Europe through energy pressure and create competition for Russian oil and gas,” and “undermine its influence in the southern post-Soviet region.” Europe and Israel support the Trans-Caspian route project because it would undermine the economic positions of Russia and Iran, respectively; also, this support “strengthens Israel’s relations with Azerbaijan, an informal strategic partner, and with Central Asian countries that maintain a neutral stance in Middle Eastern conflicts.” China also diverts here from its tactical alliances with Moscow and Tehran, because for Beijing, “the Trans-Caspian routes represent the middle corridor of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), where the establishment of routes through Kazakhstan to Europe plays a crucial role.” At the same time, Kazantsev-Vaisman points out that Kazakhstan and Russia remain interdependent: “Kazakhstan exports oil to Europe via Russian territory, while Russia exports oil to China via Kazakh territory.”
Velvl Chernin continues his paper series analyzing ethnic movements in various regions of the Russian Federation. He provides an analysis of the Komi people’s ethnopolitical situation in recent years. Chernin specifically points out the Komi ethnic presence in Russia’s regions neighboring the “proper” Komi Republic (Nenets Autonomous Okrug and Perm Krai), the inactivity of institutionalized Komi ethnopolitical institutions, and the tacit support for the Komi ethnopolitical mobilization from the regional branch of the Communist Party of Russian Federation. Ethnic activism in the Komi Republic and the decentralizing prospects are further complicated by the region’s rich natural resources and its proximity to the Arctic, which determines Komi’s strategic significance for Moscow.
Another paper by Velvl Chernin analyzes, in the same vein, the ethnopolitical prospects of Karelia, a Russian Federation’s region bordering Finland. The author emphasizes that the indigenous, Karelian (Finno-Ugric) population of Karelia makes up just 5.5 percent of the region’s inhabitants, and the Karelian language does not enjoy any formal status there. Chernin articulates the historical difficulties of forming the region’s borderline and ethnic composition and underscores the importance of the “Karelian question” for neighboring Finland.
Moving north(west)wards, Petr Oskolkov scrutinizes the public reactions in Estonia regarding the decision of the Estonian Academy of Arts (EKA) to cease any cooperation with Israeli institutions. He points out that this news has become the biggest academic scandal in Estonia in 2024, with numerous political figures, artists, and journalists speaking against or for the move. Notably, the country’s leadership has explicitly recommended that EKA’s rector reconsiders his decision. The scandal highlighted pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli camps in the Estonian public sphere. Interestingly, this division does not correlate anyhow with the linguistic dividing line but is rather determined by a particular newspaper (out of the major outlets, Postimees stands on the pro-Israeli positions, while Eesti Päevaleht is explicitly “anti-Zionist”), university (alongside EKA, some Tallinn University professors might be considered more anti-Zionist leaning, while other major universities remain neutral about the issue), or political party (Isamaa, center-right conservative party, is characterized by pro-Israeli stance while accusing Eesti 200 and Reform Party of anti-Zionist views). Both camps invoke the ongoing war in Ukraine as a reference point: pro-Israeli commentators compare Russia to Hamas, and Ukraine to Israel, while the anti-Israeli public reverses the comparison to 180 degrees. Eventually, the scandal has “finally turned the Middle Eastern conflict into a fully-fledged and widely discussed issue in Estonian society.”
Apart from the publications, in January, the PSCR program also hosted an online discussion of the new book by Prof. Dr. Irina Busygina (Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University), “How Geography and Institutions Shaped the Development of Nations” (Routledge, 2024). The monograph analyzes the intersection of institutions and geography on the examples from various parts of the world, and the impact that different combinations of institutional and geographical systems have on nations’ development. The event was attended by scholars representing leading universities and think tanks of Israel, the United States, France, and other countries.
Although the numbers have changed in our calendars, and it is already 2025, our program still continues to provide those who are interested in the post-Soviet conflict dynamics with the most relevant information and up-to-date analysis. Stay tuned.