Vladimir Kolossov

Border Studies: Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

The author considers the stages of development and the progress in theory of border studies from the early twentieth century to the present. He characterises the content of each stage, new ideas, the main achievements and practical applications. The essay is particularly focused on postmodern approaches that have emerged during the last 15 years.

New borders for new world orders: territorialities at the fin-de-siecle

After decades of relative silence, the study of frontiers and boundaries is resuming a prominent place in political geography. The impetus for the revival of limology (border studies) comes from the global context of a post-Cold War order, which has led to challenges to existing political arrangements, and from the identity turn in human geography and related disciplines. The study of frontiers and borders needs to be integrated into the main theories of the discipline. World-system theory, long criticized for its lack of a territorial footing, offers an opportunity for extension of its three geographic scales (world-economy, nation-state and locality) to incorporate two newly-emerging spatial dimensions at the macro-regional (bloc) and sub-national levels. Global and geopolitical trends, as well as shifting identities at national and sub-national scales, are reviewed and their effects on the changing scales of territoriality are reviewed. A geographic model illustrating the shifting and overlapping nature of borders is developed based on the contemporary developments in Eastern Europe. The case of contemporary Ukraine, as an example of state-and nation-building, shows these geopolitical changes as complex and dynamic.

Inside the post-Soviet de facto states: a comparison of attitudes in Abkhazia, Nagorny Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Transnistria

In the wake of the Ukrainian crisis in 2013–2014, renewed attention has been given to the earlier so-called “frozen conflicts” of the successor states of the Soviet Union. In Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan, national conflicts of the early 1990s resulted in establishment of four breakaway regions, the de facto states of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Nagorny Karabakh. While the first three are supported by Russia, the latter is supported by Armenia. Such support as well as growing internal legitimacy has enabled these republics to retain separate status for almost 25 years. Though appearing quite similar from an external perspective, the populations of the de facto states are quite diverse in composition, geopolitical preferences, and support for political institutions and persons. Large representative public opinion surveys conducted by the authors in 2010–2011 in the four de facto states allow a deeper comprehension of internal political and social dynamics. Three main dimensions of their current status and orientation (relations with Russia, support for local institutions, and possibilities of post-war reconciliation) are examined using nine key comparative questions. Nationality is the main predictor of divergent opinions within the republics, and results are reported along this dimension. Close relations with the external patron, support for the legitimacy and identity of the respective de facto republics, and little interest in returning to the parent state testify to the longevity and successful promotion of state and nation in the de facto republics in the Caucasus-Black Sea Region.

Still not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier: the geopolitics of the Kosovo war 1999

Abstract The Kosovo war of 1999 brought the checkered legacies of Russian and Western geopolitics back to the forefront of international relations. Central to the discussions of the Balkans is its century-old legacy as a Shatterbelt or Crush Zone. Though not identified by Saul Cohen as a Shatterbelt during the Cold War, the region is now located where the maritime (Western) and land power (Russian) geostrategic realms come into contact. NATO expansion and Russian insecurities about the region’s future have revised interest in geopolitical linkages and historical antecedents. The tradition of pan-Slavism, linking Russia to the Balkans cultural and political networks, has been uneven and is now subject to intensive debate within Russian political circles. In 1999, public opinion surveys showed consistent support in NATO countries for the bombing of Yugoslavia but strong opposition in Russia and other Slavic states. The surveys also question many stereotypes, especially the geopolitical visions of Russian citizens. Modern geopolitics is differentiated from classical geopolitics by the insertion of public opinion into the formation of geopolitical codes and foreign policy, in both the western countries and in Russia. In such an environment, the Balkans will remain central to the strategies of the great powers but public opinion, modifying geopolitical cultures, will ameliorate confrontations.

National Construction, Territorial Separatism, and Post-Soviet Geopolitics in the Transdniester Moldovan Republic

A team of U.S. and Russian political geographers assesses the emergence of a new kind of quasistate within the territory of the former USSR—the Transdniester Moldovan Republic (Transniestria, or TM...

The Caucasus in a Time of Conflict, Demographic Transition, and Economic Change

In an introductory paper to a special issue of Eurasian Geography and Economics, the authors examine contemporary economic, social, demographic, and political developments in the Caucasus in light of their historical contexts. They emphasize the need to look beyond simple ethnic categories to understand the nature of local tensions and also propose that the profound nature of the post-Soviet upheavals has uprooted long-standing practices. The paper covers physical diversity, historical and administrative geopolitics, Stalinist deportations in the 1940s, and post-Soviet demographic and economic developments. An introduction to each of the five papers comprising the special issue follows the regional overview. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: H11, I31, O18, P30. 2 tables, 62 references.

The Localized Geopolitics of Displacement and Return in Eastern Prigorodnyy Rayon, North Ossetia

Three noted political geographers examine the geopolitical entanglements of the republic of North Ossetia in Russias North Caucasus, where the countrys first violent post-Soviet conflict occurred. The dynamic history of administrative border changes in the region is reviewed against the backdrop of population movements (most dramatically Stalins 1944 deportation of the Ingush people) and shifting federal-local alliances. The primary focus is on the unresolved territorial dispute in Prigorodnyy Rayon, affected strongly by population displacement from Georgia in the early 1990s. After reviewing the causes of this dispute, which flared into open warfare in late October 1992, the paper examines two of its outcomes: the localized geopolitics of displacement and return on the ground in Prigorodnyy, and the impact of North Ossetias geopolitical entanglements in general on ethnic attitudes. Results of a public opinion survey (N = 2000) in the North Caucasus conducted by the authors revealed high levels of ethnic pride among Ossetians and a generally positive attitude toward relations with other nationalities. Duly noted is the August 2008 confrontation involving Russia and Georgia over neighboring South Ossetia, which generated a new flow of refugees. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: H10, I31, O18, P30. 5 figures, 1 table, 43 references.

The Geopolitical Orientations of Ordinary Russians: A Public Opinion Analysis

The authors examine some of the classic ideas of geopolitical analysis using a recent survey of Russian public opinion. Problematizing prevailing assumptions and binaries in geopolitical discourse, they pose a series of questions that provide measures of Russias geopolitical orientations. Do more Russians think of their country as European or Eurasianist? If the United States is judged the most important state for Russian foreign policy, what country do most respondents view as the most appropriate model for Russia? Logit modeling of the ranking of state importance and preferences of countries as models for Russia show consistent and clear relationships with cleavages in Russian society along socio-demographic and ideological lines. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: F01, F02, Z13. 5 figures, 2 tables, 44 references.

Local Activism and the Prospects for Civil Society in Moscow

Three geographers with extensive knowledge of the development of local activism in Russia seek to identify types of civic engagement present at the local level in Moscow. They focus on the role of neighborhood-based housing movements in the creation of a civil society and as a link between social activity and the implementation of new housing property rights. They then examine the structure and distribution of a wider range of urban social movements and survey four focus groups in an effort to measure the social activity of Muscovites and the emergence of new, residentially based spaces of citizenship in Moscow. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: L30, P30, R21. 4 figures, 3 tables, 37 references.

Moscow: Post-Soviet Developments and Challenges

ussia has always been a highly centralized state, with the capital playing an exceptional economic, social, cultural, and political role. Paradoxically, the post-Soviet economic transition not only did not reduce this primacy but, on the contrary, considerably strengthened Moscow’s hypertrophy. During the 1990s, political events in the capital (attempted coups d’etat in 1991 and 1993, the struggle between “reformers” and left-wingers) decided the trajectory of all of Russia, with most regions only observing with anxiety. Although its share of Russia’s total population is just less than 6 percent, the city contains more than half of the country’s banking activity, more than one-fifth of its retail trade, and one-third of its wholesale trade. To a large extent, Moscow has monopolized the functions of a mediator between Russia and the world economy and has become by far the most important national center of financial flows. Although the August 1998 financial crisis contributed to a certain improvement in the balance of payments between the capital and the provinces, Moscow remains the major “exporter” of Russia’s primary exports (oil, gas, timber, gold, etc.). It is being transformed into a true global city (Gritsai, 1996, 1997; Taylor, 2000). The average per capita income in Moscow is much higher than in any of the other 88 regions in Russia, more than twice that of the second-ranking region, St. Petersburg. Moscow provides an example of post-Communist economic restructuring for the entire country and now contains the most sizeable contingent of the country’s new middle class. The streetscape of the capital has changed considerably during the past decade. In its downtown, contemporary offices are mushrooming, and historical buildings look fresh after recent renovation by private investors. At night, Moscow’s main avenues are brightly illuminated by shining shop windows and advertising by global companies, provoking sharp envy from residents of many other Russian cities, which remain dark while suffering from municipal debts and power shortages. Is Moscow really the dominant player in the Russian economy, determining the direction and rates of national restructuring? How stable is the Moscow “miracle”? What is the reverse side of the coin, the inequities and polarization that have become apparent in the past decade? These questions are increasingly at the center of discussions among politicians and academic specialists. The economic and social costs of Moscow’s rapid changes since 1991 are already clear. Moscow, for example, has become a prominent demographic “black hole.” Mortality has