PSCRP-BESA Reports No 125 (May 02, 2025)
by Alexander Shpunt
The April issue of our monitoring turned out to have a certain bias towards historical themes. We did not plan this initially, but researchers are increasingly turning to historicism and the historical method as a reliable support in the rapidly changing, fragmented flow of events. The political process – both global and in the countries of the former USSR – has noticeably accelerated in recent months, and it is possible to correspond to these changes only with clear guidelines in the historical field.
1. Article by Karolina Klutsevska, published in the April issue of “New Eastern Europe”, editions Jan Nowak-Jeziorański College of Eastern Europe in Wrocław, a Polish-based NGO think tank, explores the confrontation around the interpretation of historical heritage in Tajikistan, recorded in school textbooks, and its impact on contemporary Russian-Tajik relations. The author examines how in the post-Soviet territory, in particular in Central Asia, educational materials on history are transformed into a tool for constructing national identity and epistemologically overcoming the colonial legacy.
The article attracted our attention because it explores the topic using the case study method, which is extremely rare in studies on the so-called “politics of memory”.
The central focus of the analysis is Tajik school historiography, which, unlike its Kazakh and Uzbek counterparts, preserves a hybrid Soviet narrative: condemnation of the policies of the Russian Empire is combined with approval of Soviet modernization. However, it is precisely this duality that has provoked criticism from Russian politicians, including State Duma deputy Mikhail Matveyev, who has labeled the use of the terms “occupation” and “colonization” in describing Russian expansion in the 19th century as a manifestation of “Russophobia.”
Klutsevskaya emphasizes that such accusations, even voiced through the personal accounts of politicians, should be interpreted as an element of an informal foreign policy strategy of pressure. An illustration is the response of the Tajik side: Shokhin Samadi, the press secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in his Facebook account, avoiding direct confrontation, pointed out the presence of similar assessments in Russian textbooks, thereby identifying the problem of double standards. At the same time, he refuted the thesis about the “genocide of Russians” during the civil war of the 1990s, emphasizing its political, rather than ethno-confessional nature.
Another strength of the paper is its exploration of the differences in approach between the Central Asian republics: “…Kazakh and Uzbek historians and political scientists increasingly describe these processes as colonial expansion and point to genocidal processes against local populations as a way of exercising control and ensuring subordination. In turn, a growing number of Russian historians and politicians insist that this is a false history and amounts to teaching new generations Russophobia…. To support this argument, they point to what they see as the economic and cultural backwardness of Central Asia in the 19th century, as well as the beneficial influence of the Russian Empire on local communities…. Unlike its neighbours, in Tajikistan the debate on decolonisation has so far been rather muted, with no major pronouncements and no official reorientation towards the local influence of the Russian Empire and later Soviet rule….”
Klutsevskaya’s research examines how debates over historical interpretations are becoming part of ongoing geopolitical competition on the post-Soviet periphery. History textbooks function as a space for symbolic contestation between aspirations for national sovereignty and Russia’s attempts to maintain dominance in the interpretation of the imperial and Soviet past. In the Tajik case, decolonization discourse remains hidden due to the country’s dependence on the Russian labor market and security cooperation. Nevertheless, Dushanbe’s response to the Matveyev incident demonstrates a measured but principled defense of the national version of history from external interference.
2. Another work that we would like the reader’s attention to is also related to so-called “memory politics” and its influence on current conflicts in post-Soviet countries. The publication “Rethinking historiographical disparities and pathways to reconciliation in the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict” prepared two by researchers Sh . Kikalishvili And D. Bragvadze, representing the Liberal Arts Department, American University of the Middle East, Egaila, Kuwait and the School of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
The work is based on an interdisciplinary study devoted to historiographical discrepancies, which serve as one of the key obstacles to a peaceful settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. The authors examine the conflict through the prism of competing historical narratives, rooted in nationalist interpretations of the past and aggravated by the influence of Soviet historical policy. The central thesis of the work is the assertion that it is precisely these historiographical discrepancies that form persistent mutual mistrust and alienation, hindering dialogue and compromise.
There are many works published on this topic, including some that are of interest.
We have highlighted the work of Kikalishvili and Bragvadze because the researchers have placed emphasis on the dual nature of the conflict: on the one hand, as an armed confrontation, on the other, as a deeply rooted socio-cultural and political-historical rift. The authors emphasize that reducing the conflict exclusively to Russian occupation is analytically untenable. The researchers have also discovered another duality: the Abkhazia-Georgia conflict can be framed similarly to the Russia-Georgia conflict, in which the topic of Abkhazia is one of the fields.
According to the authors, the conflict cannot be reduced to an external – Russian – factor (although much attention is paid to its analysis in the report). The authors criticize one-sided and simplified narratives in which the Abkhaz side is presented exclusively as an instrument of Russian policy, and insist on a differentiated approach that assumes recognition of the historical subjectivity of the Abkhaz population. Such a position, in their opinion, does not mean recognition of Abkhazia’s independence, but is a necessary condition for productive dialogue.
3. In a scientific article published in “European Journal of Politics and Gender”, by Karolina Kluczewska and Laura Luciani, provides a critical analysis of the strategies used by local feminist initiatives in the post-Soviet space. The study focuses on three Eurasian countries – Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Azerbaijan – and is based on the case studies of the initiatives UyatEmes.kz, Tell Me Sister and Feminist Peace Collective . The authors’ attention is focused on the ways in which these groups localize, adapt, and transform the feminist agenda in the context of the dominance of external donors on the one hand, and patriarchal state narratives on the other.
For us, the importance of the article in a fairly extensive body of materials on feminism – including feminism in the post-Soviet space – was manifested in the identification of two paradigmatic framing strategies used by movements and their public actors: depoliticization and repoliticization. The first strategy involves softening rhetoric and adapting discourse to dominant social norms in order to expand the audience and minimize the risk of repression. The second, on the contrary, is aimed at deconstructing the dominant gender orders and articulating alternative, critical views on social justice. The authors point out that both strategies are associated with certain compromises – primarily in the sphere of solidarity, sustainability of the movement and the effectiveness of mobilization practices – but they see shortcomings in each of the strategies.
Particular attention is paid to visual and artistic forms of expression, considered as political practices capable of not only transmitting messages, but also providing symbolic resistance to dominant narratives. This approach allows the authors to go beyond the traditional analysis of institutionalized NGOs and show the evolution of feminist activism from donor-dependent projects of the 1990s to more flexible, horizontal forms of self-organization. This is what allowed the authors to achieve results that deserve special attention.
In our opinion, the significance of the article is manifested in the emphasis on the “third way” of development of the gender agenda identified by the researchers, which is formed from below – as opposed to the universalizing neoliberal discourse of international donors and nationalist projects of states that reinforce traditional patriarchal norms. The authors demonstrate that in conditions where overt feminist mobilization is perceived as a threat, activists resort to hybrid strategies – from anonymous online campaigns to visual art – to create new forms of political participation.
4. In Robert Hornsby’s article “Watching, Listening and Learning: KGB Agency in Soviet Lithuania“, published in the journal “EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES”, the KGB’s intelligence tools in the Lithuanian SSR in the 1950s and 1960s are examined as a mechanism for controlling dissident activity. Based on declassified documents from the Lithuanian Special Archives, the author from School of History, University of Leeds analyses the transformation of the methodology of state security agencies in the post-Stalin period.
As a rule, publications by historians pass by the attention of those researchers who study conflicts “here and now”. But not in this case – the topic of KGB agents is still the most important mechanism of escalation in Lithuania between Lithuanians and Russians, between those who are oriented towards the East and those who are closer to the West. The discussion of “repressions” in Lithuanian society does not subside, and Hornsby’s work categorizes the very concept of “KGB repression” from a new, in our opinion, angle.
In the text, Robert Hornsby proves the significant opposition activity in the republic: in 1954 alone, the KGB uncovered 20 underground groups with more than 200 members. According to archival data, in the early 1960s, 283 cases of sending threatening letters to the authorities, 42 episodes of anti-Soviet inscriptions in public places, 160 cases of illegal use of the flag of independent Lithuania were recorded.
Conceptually significant is the consideration of agent work in the context of the transition from mass repression to more selective methods of social control. The author points out that agents were defined as “the main weapon of the security organs”, and the institutional mechanism included the recruitment of informants from the close circle of the objects of surveillance under the direction of KGB operatives.
Hornsby differentiates the post-Stalin evolution of the state security organs as a transition from direct pressure to a more sophisticated system of surveillance with improved personnel training of operational personnel. Particular attention is paid to the introduction of the practice of “prophylaxis” (preventive measures), which replaced the immediate detention of violators with methods of psychological influence to achieve conformity.
The study traces the duality of the functioning of the intelligence apparatus: on the one hand, extensive penetration into various spheres of public life, on the other, significant shortcomings in the implementation of total control. The author argues that the Lithuanian case demonstrates both breaks with previous practices and significant institutional continuity in ensuring the political stability of the Soviet regime.
In his concluding paragraphs, Hornsby writes: “…. any political gains derived from the widespread use of undercover agents in the police force must be weighed against the wider social and economic harm that has resulted from regimes’ reliance on such activities…” – and this is clearly the most important practical conclusion of the work.
5. Researchers are rightly wary of analyzing processes that have not yet reached their conclusion. A fundamental article is perhaps even an analytical report by Cameroonian researcher Chick Edmond from University of Bamenda, prepared by him in the USA, “The Role of Economic Sanctions in Shaping International Trade Relationships Case Study: Russia“, is interesting for its well-founded, substantiated view of the future.
The researcher meticulously studies the details of the entire complex of sanctions against Russia that have been formed in recent years – but not in the context of their actual impact on the Russian economy, but as a unique Case Study on international sanctions as a mechanism in general.
For this reason, the article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of economic sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy influence and their impact on international trade relations, with a special emphasis on the Russian case. The author examines the evolution of sanctions mechanisms in the post-bipolar era and their transformation in the context of globalization.
The author draws on the works of Bagwati, Pape and Hofbauer, viewing sanctions as an instrument of coercion, similar in dynamics to military action, but perceived as a more rational alternative to the use of force. Leaving aside the fashionable and partly speculative topic of “hybrid wars”, Chick Edmond examines sanctions as an alternative to “hot” war – for example, in the form of supporting combatants or minions – and it is from this perspective that he analyses whether sanctions are capable of achieving the objectives of deterring war.
The article pays special attention to the dichotomy between comprehensive and targeted sanctions, their impact on supply chains, structural deficits and geopolitical consequences. The US-based Cameroonian researcher notes that sanctions often lead to unforeseen results, including structural transformations of global markets and impact on priorities for technological innovation development.
The empirical part of the study analyzes the Russian case in detail. The dynamics of sanctions pressure since 2014 (annexation of Crimea) and its escalation after 2022 are considered. Here Chick Edmond cites data on the sharp decline in bilateral trade between Russia and the EU as a result of the sanctions policy, with considerable attention paid to Russia’s counter-sanctions policy, including the import substitution strategy and reorientation to Asian markets. The “forced turn to the East” has led to stronger economic ties with China, the EAEU, the Middle East and Africa. He notes that sanctions have stimulated de-dollarization processes and Russia’s rethinking of its identity as a non-Western power.
In a theoretical understanding of the effectiveness of sanctions Chick Edmond contrasts the liberal approach, which emphasizes the role of international institutions, with the constructivist paradigm, which emphasizes the transformation of identities. He concludes that in a multipolar world, Russia’s ability to use partnerships with China and India to circumvent Western sanctions demonstrates the weakness of the institutional unity of the international system. At first glance, the conclusion is obvious – but in Chick’s presentation Edmond the ineffectiveness of sanctions makes a “hot war” more attractive, and for us the value of the work is largely related to this.
Alexander Shpunt is Israeli and Russian researcher and expert in theory and practice of information and analytical work in the field of politics, resides in Haifa. Since 2016 he served as a professor at the National Research University “Moscow Higher School of Economics. In 1999 – 2011 he also served as the Executive director of the “Effective Policy Foundation”, the largest think-tank in the RF at that time, and in 2011 founded and headed the Institute of Political Analysis Tools, specializing in systems for monitoring political behavior.