Search results

AbstractThis essay introduces the five articles that comprise the special issue of Soviet and Post-Soviet Review on "World War II in Soviet and Post-Soviet Memory." It highlights the variety of means employed by the contributors to explain and assess the construction, reconfi guration, and uncanny persistence of the Great Patriotic War in individual, local, and national narratives. The essay also suggests pathways for future research.

Ideology is one of the foundations of authoritative regimes and forms the image of their leaders. Using Uzbekistan as an example, A. March comes to the conclusion that the ideological system imposed by the state has a tangible impact on society, even one that has already lived at one time under the communist ideology. Based on an analysis of several special features of the development of the post-Communist countries (and several others), the conclusion is drawn that during a political regime change, the population can be ideologically "reset." After a new ideology has been repeatedly fed to the people over the span of several years, it becomes a conscious or subconscious element of society's mindset. Thus ideology plays a significant role in stateand nation-building, particular after the formation of new states or territorial units. The new system forms in several interdependent dimensions. The first, chronologically, is historical ideology. The existence of a historical past that goes back into antiquity sets a nation or nationality above others (usually its neighbors). Research studies in this area are leading to the rapid development of archeology and myth creation about antiquity. Another goal of historical ideology is searching for the most significant periods in history of a certain territory (or nation) which are frequently associated with certain outstanding personalities: "great" nations are regarded as the predecessors of present-day territorial units, and heroes are associated with the leaders of the most recent times (presidents or monarchs), which largely determines the ideology of modern states. As early as Soviet times, studies of the ancient historical past turned into a "struggle over the oldest settlement" in this or another Central Asian republic, whereby the number of celebrations in honor of "the founding of a City" has only increased in the post-Soviet era. In this way, based on the "latest studies," the history of several towns proved older that people thought. Building a modern nation is the second dimension of the ideological system (based on its national and territorial past), which frequently leads to denial of the previous regime. In this way, such "modernization" in post-Soviet countries is turning into denial of the Soviet regime and is manifested differently in each of them. Attempts are being made to introduce modern power institutions and advanced technology (often at any cost), rebuild cities (mainly capitals), democratize society (keeping in mind local national traits), and incorporate other innovations; the regime strives to become "modern." These ways of forming a new system lead to the people identifying the presidents of the new states with historical heroes and sometimes idolizing them (as in the case of the first Turkmen president). Presidents become the guarantors of contemporary development and stability, which in the conditions of the authoritarian regimes of Central Asia (CA) promotes the emergence of personality cults. This article will take a look at these phenomena (the personality cult and its development) based on the example of Tajikistan. An analysis will be conducted of the political portrait of Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov (Rakhmon) drawn by his ideologists and "court" journalists on the pages of official publications. Particular attention will be given to his ancestry and a description of his personality and activity during his time as a statesman. Running ahead, it can be noted that a certain idealized virtual portrait of president Rakhmon has been created in the sources used.

Capturing a unique historical moment, this book examines the changes in urban life since the collapse of the Soviet Union from an ethnographic perspective, thus addressing significant gaps in the literature on cities, Central Asia and post-socialism. It encompasses Tashkent, Almaty, Astana and Ulan-Ude: four cities with quite different responses to the fall of the Soviet Union. Each chapter takes a theme of central significance across this huge geographical terrain, addresses it through one city and contextualizes it by reference to the other sites in this volume. The structure of the.

Intro -- Contents -- Introduction -- Does State Violence Translate into a More Bellicose Foreign Behavior? Domestic Predictors of International Conflict‐Propensity in Post‐Soviet Eurasia -- Threat Perceptions: Russia and the Post‐Soviet Space -- Russia's Arlington? The Federal Military Memorial Cemetery near Moscow -- Partial Russian Justice in Chechnya: The Lapin Case, Anna Politkovskaya, and Transnational Activism -- Review article: Chechen Combatants' Involvement as Foreign Fighters in Ukraine and in Syria and Iraq -- Topography of Terror: Mapping Sites of Soviet Repressions in Moscow -- Conference Report -- Reviews -- About the Contributors.

The political events that took place at the end of 2003 in Georgia, in 2004 in Ukraine and in 2005 in Kyrgyzstan are popularly called the Rose, Orange and Tulip Revolution or collectively: the Colour Revolutions in the post-Soviet space. At first glance the term "revolution" may seem appropriate. The Colour Revolutions have resulted in the regime change in all the three states. However, from a decade-long perspective one may notice that the revolutionary changes in the political systems of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan did not actually take place. The post-revolutionary reality: the Russian-Georgian war and criminal charges against the revolutionary Georgian President Micheil Saakashvili, the infamous ending to the political career of the revolutionary leader Victor Yushchenko just four year after the Orange Revolution and the spectacular collapse of the Victor Yanukovych regime, which led to a hybrid warfare with Russia, or Kyrgyzstan's permanent political instability following the revolutionary events of 2005 require yet another insight into what has happened in Tbilisi, Kiev, and Bishkek. Without an in-depth analysis of the events, it is impossible to understand the fundamental social and political dynamics of the ongoing and future changes in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus or Central Asia. The re-evaluation of the Colour Revolutions is not only of historical importance, though. It is also a universal lesson concerning the most important challenge that all the democratic social movements active in the authoritarian or post-authoritarian states have to face: how to manage large-scale civil disobedience protests of a disappointed society while the ruling governments do not follow democratic rules and the international community does not fully comprehend the significance of the ongoing changes.

Intro -- Table of Contents -- List of Maps and Tables -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Notes on Languages and Spelling -- List of Acronyms and Abbreviations -- Introduction -- 1. A Starting Point: History and Geopolitics and What They Tell Us -- 2. The Open Wound: Mountainous Karabagh and National Consciousness -- 3. Azerbaijan's Best and Brightest: The Rise, Decline, and Renewal of the Democratic Opposition -- 4. Oil Lifts All Boats? Social and Economic Repercussions and the Rise of Corruption -- 5. Jail for the "Donkey Bloggers": Crushing Youth Activism, Human Rights, and a Free Media -- 6. Allah-u Akbar: Islam in Azerbaijan—Piety, Politics, and the Future -- 7. What's Next? The Choices Ahead -- Notes -- Selected Bibliography of Major Sources -- Index

სტატიაში გეოგრაფიული ბრძოლა ძალაუფლებისათვის განხილულია სტრატეგიული სეპარატიზმის კუთხით. ყოფილი საბჭოთა კავშირის ქვეყნები წარმოდგენილია, როგორც იმ ქვეყნების ჯგუფი, რომლებშიც სეპარატიზმი ვლინდება წარმატებული დემოკრატიული ცვლილებების განხორციელების ხელისშემშლელ ინსტრუმენტად. ამავე მიმართულებითაა განხილული რუსეთის ფედერაციის როლი. უსაფრთხოების სახელმწიფო ძალაუფლების თეორიებისა და კოპენჰაგენის სკოლის სექტორული მიდგომის გამოყენებით, ძირითადი ყურადღება გამახვილებულია, თუ როგორ შეიძლებოდა საქართველოს მხრიდან ძალადობის პროვოცირება 2008 წლის ომში. განსაკუთრებული ყურადღება გამახვილდა სახელმწიფო ძალაუფლების კომპონენტების იმპორტირებაზე. მკითხველი ასევე გაეცნობა საგარეო პოლიტიკასა და და ტრანსნაციონალურ ორგანიზებულ დანაშაულს შორის ურთიერთობის მნიშვნელობას.