In March 2025, the PSCRP’s publications covered socio- and geopolitical developments in the South Caucasus, Central Asia, Russia, and Belarus.
Velvl Chernin continues his series of papers focused on the ethnic republics within the Russian Federation. This month, Mordovia is in the spotlight, namely, the Erzyan national movement. Chernin provides a brief overview of the Erzyan ethnic history, starting from the Middle Ages through the Soviet times to the current situation. Special attention is given to the struggle against the common exoethnonym “Mordva,” artificially uniting the ethnic groups of Erzya and Moksha, and the attempts at reviving the traditional Erzyan religion. The author highlights the details of the open confrontation between the Erzyan ethnic activists and the federal Russian authorities that has intensified since 2019 and reached its peak after 2022, when the creation of the “independent state of Erzyan Mastor” was proclaimed as “the main goal of the Erzyan national movement.”
In his second material this month, Chernin analyzes the ethnolinguistic situation in Belarus, while comparing the history of the Belarusian national movement to its Ukrainian counterpart. Stressing the threatened state of the Belarusian language, he postulates that the current country’s authorities need it “not as a living language, but as a symbol of the national uniqueness” for Belarus’ statehood not to be absorbed into the Russian Federation (which would entail the loss of effective power by Alexander Lukashenka). At the same time, “communicating in Belarusian in everyday life became a marker of opposition sentiments for many Belarusian citizens,” positioning the modern opposition circles as “ideological successors to the government of Belarus in the first years of independence.” The latter lost its cause in the 1990s to Lukashenka, who restored the Soviet symbolism and oppressive practices because of the “long-standing weakness of the Belarusian national movement compared to the national movements of neighboring nations.” However, the author also underlines the organizational strength of Belarusian opposition in exile that, unlike its Russian counterparts, has managed to create rigid unifying structures officially recognized by European institutions and capable of efficient decision-making.
Ze’ev Khanin and Alexander Grinberg continue their series of posts discussing the potential of extended cooperation between the US, Israel, and Azerbaijan in the Middle East. They clarify their positions in several regards. First, their “policy papers did not merely discuss Azerbaijan’s accession to the Abraham Accords, but rather its inclusion in the ‘club’ of signatory states”; the reference is made here to a specific structured institutionalized framework for multilateral cooperation, financially supported by the US and the UAE. Second, the Abraham Accords are intended not only to normalize Israel’s relations with Arab countries but also with some non-Arab nations in Africa and Southeast Asia. Third, the Accords are not aimed only at the countries that used to be in a state of war with Israel, which is symbolized by the UAE’s example. The authors also emphasize the possible gains for Azerbaijan. First, the idea of integrating Baku into the Abraham Accords reshapes the perception of the country in the US, largely confined now to the issue of Karabakh. Second, the US sanctions against Azerbaijan, under Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, should be lifted. Third, Azerbaijan’s approach to its partnership with Israel, withstanding external pressure, might become a role model for the future Abraham Accords members, which will enhance Azerbaijan’s image and strategic position worldwide.
Turning to another country of South Caucasus, Alexander Shpunt discusses the recent shift in Georgia’s official geopolitical orientation. Upon briefly outlining the history of Tbilisi’s rapprochement with the European institutions, the author scrutinizes the reasons which led to the deterioration of Georgia-West relations. The formal rationale for this lies in the adoption of laws on “foreign influence” and “LGBTQ+ propaganda,” and in the “unmet preconditions for starting accession talks,” after which the EU and the US have effectively frozen their strategic partnership with Tbilisi, accusing the country’s leadership of democratic backsliding. However, Shpunt explains this abrupt reorientation by the political influence of the country’s business elites that “exceeds traditional Western electoral models of sponsorships.” First, the author maintains that Georgian business elites are “heavily dependent on maintaining commercial ties with Moscow and thus vulnerable to pressure,” and demonstrates this by scrutinizing Russian investment and ownership in the country. Second, the Georgian businesses also occupy an important position in Russia, thus making the two countries’ economies interdependent. Third, after the full-scale war started in Ukraine, many Russian entrepreneurs have relocated and “intricately linked Georgia’s small and medium businesses to their remaining operations in Russia.”
The PSCRP team has analyzed the growing cooperation between China and the countries of Central Asia, exemplified by the new joint Chinese-Kazakh railroad project. The latter is aimed at delivering cargo from China to Europe, which might undermine Russia’s position in transcontinental logistical chains. The authors underline the overall decline of Moscow’s influence in the Central Asian region caused partly by the weakening of the CSTO, discriminatory policies toward labor migrants, sanctions, war, economic stagnation, and other factors. Apart from the railroad project mentioned above, the authors mention a joint logistics venture between China Xinjiang Co. Ltd and the largest Kazakhstani terminal operator, and two more large railroad projects that are being developed by China and meant to bypass Russia (namely, the Trans-Caspian International Transportation Route, and a railroad to the Caspian Sea through Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan).
Last but not least, Alexander Shpunt presents his monthly monitoring of analytical publications on post-Soviet conflicts. This initiative, launched in February, presents a summary of the five most interesting, according to Shpunt’s assessment, publications focused on post-Soviet politics.
In the coming month, we will keep abreast of what is going on in the post-Soviet region and update our readership accordingly.