The so-called post-Soviet space is often characterised as a region of high conflict potential—a ‘tinderbox’. Of course, this observation could spark a lengthy debate about the use, function and imaginary power of the term ‘post-Soviet’, which could express a continuum, path dependency or disconnection from the legacies of the collapsed Soviet Union. In any case, it is safe to say it describes a space of entrenched contestations of the territories and boundaries of the independent states that emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But besides struggling with, for instance, the causes and consequences of so-called ‘frozen conflicts’ and the existence of non-recognised states, the 15 states that emerged from the Soviet Union have also undergone profound processes of legal, political and economic transformation. Over the past three decades, ‘Soviet studies’ turned into ‘post-Soviet studies’, ‘Russian studies’ and ‘Eurasian studies’, focused inter alia on the theoretical and practical challenges of state-building, transformation, regime change, democratisation, constitution-making and the rule of law, as well as the emergence of hybrid regimes in the post-Soviet region. Scholars have also addressed the question of why some political, social, economic, ethnic and territorial conflicts in the post-Soviet space escalated into violent conflict while others did not.
Moreover, having witnessed the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and Russia's contentious involvement in both the escalation of violent conflicts in Donbas and the war in Syria, public commentators and scholars alike have started treating the conflict potentials and escalations that fuel contemporary struggles between Russia and ‘the West’ as a kind of ‘New Cold War’. Such discussions seem to frame new challenges in old terminology and the associated images.
Instead of resurrecting old images and nourishing narratives about a ‘New Cold War’, the special section ‘Post-Soviet Conflict Potentials’ will feature politically and legally oriented critical investigations into conflict potentials and dynamics in the post-Soviet region and beyond. Contributions coming from the disciplinary perspectives of international relations, international law and comparative political science will be linked to investigations dealing with international, transnational, regional and local levels. Despite their diversity of foci and perspectives, the authors of this special section take a critical view of this ‘New Cold War’ as their point of departure, observing that contemporary post-Soviet conflict potentials are produced through discursive practices ranging from intentional choices of belligerent language to unintentional misinterpretations. Contributions to this section will shed light on conflict potentials from different angles as well as on processes that increase or decrease the probability of political and violent conflicts in the post-Soviet region. Together, the authors will offer individual and shared ‘outside-the-box’ approaches to the study of conflict dynamics and potentials in the post-Soviet space. Their contributions will also draw connections to conflict potentials on the cross-regional and global levels, providing varied perspectives on what can be learned in and from the post-Soviet region.
‘Conflict Over Peace? The United States’ and Russia's Diverging Conceptual Approaches to Peace and Conflict Settlement’ by Evgeniya Bakalova and Konstanze Jüngling takes an international relations perspective on the disputed nature of ‘peace’ between Russia and the United States in their debates at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Bakalova and Jüngling ask inter alia whether the plurality of conceptual definitions of ‘peace’ is reflected in the political debates on conflict settlement. Following on from this question, they ask whether such different understandings of ‘peace’ are invoked consistently or on a more situational basis. How do the actors’ understandings of peace relate to the conflict resolution proposals they make? Taking a constructivist approach, Bakalova and Jüngling analyse Russia's and the US's peace conceptualisations as reflected in the contentious conflict discourses at the UNSC. Empirically, they focus primarily on the debates around recent and/or ongoing conflicts that threatened international peace and security: the 2008 Russo–Georgian War, the conflict in Libya and the NATO intervention of 2011, and the Syrian war in the period from 2011 to 2014—as well as on the debates held shortly before and after the annexation of Crimea in March 2014. As a control, they drew evidence from UNSC debates over the situations in Haiti, Mali, Sierra Leone and DR Congo in the period from 2012 to 2016 to assess the stability and consistency of the specific ‘peace’ and ‘conflict’ narratives of Russia and the US.
Their analysis reveals significant divergence between Russia and the US regarding the fundamental conceptual premises of peace and peace strategies. They furthermore find that although peace rhetoric of these states fluctuates depending on the particular situation and the states’ involvement in the conflict under debate, the discursive core of each of their conceptualisations of ‘peace’ remains relatively stable. Thus, according to Bakalova and Jüngling, increased analysis of this stable core of subjective peace conceptions could increase understanding of states’ domestic and foreign policies while also anticipating and addressing potential disagreements over conflict settlement strategies. Finally, from a practical perspective, the authors encourage diplomats and peacemakers to pay attention to the crucial question of states’ attitudes and struggles over the very nature of peace.
The war of words about peace can be linked to other legal and political clashes between Russia and ‘the West’ over basic principles and ideas of international order and law, and ultimately the function(s) of international law. In her contribution, Cindy Wittke asks whether, why, how and to what effect Georgia, Ukraine and Russia ‘speak’ international law in international and regional politics differently. Wittke's essay starts by observing that since the Soviet Union's collapse, Ukraine, Georgia and Russia have faced the challenge of positioning themselves within the politics of international law in the course of their state-building and transformation processes. Strong dynamics of conflict have shaped these states’ politico-legal actions and interactions in, for example, the Russo–Georgian War of 2008, the annexation of Crimea and the armed conflict in East Ukraine. Wittke's contribution discusses conceptual approaches to empirical analysis of the processes of translating political preferences into legal arguments and shows how different ‘communicators of international law’ use the language of international law differently across the post-Soviet region. Her essay draws on expert interviews that lead to different analytical perspectives, enabling, for instance, a better informed discussion of how assumed differences in ‘speaking’ international law in international politics affect relations between Georgia, Ukraine and Russia and their communities of international law experts. Her analysis also enables discussions of the role and practice of international law in the post-Soviet region. The essay centres on the different ways in which these three states use the language of international law and how their usage affects the dynamics of conflict and cooperation in the so-called post-Soviet space. Wittke's analysis of her empirical material justifies her preliminary conclusions that Georgia, Russia and Ukraine do in fact ‘speak’ international law differently at the domestic, regional and international levels. Thus, future investigations may ask whether this approach also holds potential for inter-regional comparisons of variations on the languages of international law, or for relating and correlating conflict potentials in different regions.
In the third contribution to the special section, ‘Evolving Dynamics of Societal Security and the Potential for Conflict in Eastern Ukraine’, authors David Galbreath and Tetyana Malyarenko zoom in from the regional to the local level of conflict potentials and dynamics. To identify the drivers of conflict in Ukraine and what they reveal about the potential for conflict in transitioning states in general, the authors draw on organisational theory and present new data including extensive interviews, government documents in the Ukrainian and Russian languages, and fieldwork in the Donbas region. The authors’ core question is, what are the causes of war in Ukraine? Galbreath and Malyarenko argue that the changes in political structures in post-Soviet Ukraine heightened the potential for conflict during transition. They draw attention to weak, asymmetric state power and centre–periphery relations, and to the unsettled relationship between Ukraine and Russia. The authors conclude that even if Russia withdrew its support from the separatists in Donbas, the conflict potential would remain. Their finding that conditions for peace in Ukraine are much weaker than the conditions for further conflict holds troubling implications for the future of the Minsk Process.
Marc Dietrich's contribution, ‘A Critical Political Cosmopolitanism for Conflict De-escalation: The Crimean Example’, focuses on Ukraine's other unresolved territorial conflict. Coming from a different theoretical and methodological background, Dietrich attempts to find common ground between international relations and political theory. According to Dietrich, when it comes to understanding de-escalation of and increased potential for complex hybrid conflicts, international relations theories are often limited by state-centred perspectives that overlook the role of the individual actor—alone or organised—as a political and moral agent. As a corrective, Dietrich proposes the concept of ‘critical political cosmopolitanism’, which he claims transcends the limitations of state-centric paradigms to provide valuable alternative insights into conflict de-escalation scenarios in Crimea and can also, when implemented collaboratively with a robust peacebuilding community, lead to conflict de-escalation.
Lastly, in his essay ‘Accepting Alien Rule? State-building Nationalism in Georgia's Azeri Borderland’, Christofer Berglund addresses conflict potentials within the former USSR, focusing on why (violent) conflict did not break out in particular settings. He outlines how the USSR's disintegration left countless minorities ‘beached’ inside independent states that promoted the dominance of their titular nationalities. Stranded in borderlands across from their kin in other states, minorities in this situation were exposed to both conflict potentials and violent conflict. Ethnic conflicts flared across Eurasia as ‘beached minorities’ struggled to come to grips with their ‘alien rulers’. Yet Berglund also observes that some Eurasian minorities accepted their alien rulers. Based on analysis of elite interviews and data from a matched-guise experiment, Berglund's ‘Accepting Alien Rule?’ unpacks Georgian Azeris’ eventual acceptance of their host state, Georgia, after its state-building nationalism took an inclusive turn, blurring the distinction between aliens and natives. Thus, Berglund continues, host states that include their ‘beached’ minorities through co-optation or acculturation and offer them equitable access to public goods appear more likely to gain acceptance and overcome the divide between aliens and natives, thereby coping with conflict potentials and dynamics.
Altogether, the five diverse contributions to this special section highlight changes in political discourses and dynamics in and beyond the post-Soviet region and explore how political narratives affect various connections to the dynamics that motivate conflict potentials—and cooperation—on the local, regional and international levels. Thus, instead of resorting to catchphrases and placeholder terms like ‘New Cold War’, this special section underlines the importance of discussing the dynamics and potentials of conflict—regardless of whether they escalate into violent conflict—when thrashing out the mechanisms for conflict prevention, management and transformation.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Cindy Wittke
Cindy Wittke, Leibniz Institute for East and Southeast European Studies (IOS), Landshuter Str. 4, 93047 Regensburg, Germany. Email: [email protected]