Search results

Twenty years have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Up until the point of dissolution, the Soviet authorities and intellectual elite had attempted to build a community in order to unite all Soviet citizens in the spirit of socialist modernisation. Although it is difficult to demonstrate that 'a Soviet nation' was successfully created [1], the attempt to build such a nation can serve as a case study through which to examine nation-building processes for constructivists as well as modernists . In addition to socialist modernisation, the Soviet nation aimed to be identified as a state, which would make it similar to the political nations dominant in western countries. Contrary to western tradition, however, it was not a nation state that provided full rights for all its citizens, but rather a socialist state that was 'ruled by workers and peasantry'. Nevertheless, the authorities aimed to give the Soviet nation the characteristics of a specific nation state. "It was a nation that in historical terms strived, or more accurately part of which strived, to form or proclaim a particular state" [2]. While at the time of proclaiming the USSR there was no such thing as the Soviet nation, it can be assumed that it was intended to become a constructed titular nation. The majority of national communities, even created ones, have an ethnic core. However academics cannot agree on the kind of state the USSR was, to what extent it took into account the ethnicity of its multinational population, how much it reflected the values, culture, and interests of its largest population group (i.e., the Russians) or even whether it was a Russian national state despite the strong influence of Russian ideology and politics. Some Russian academics, especially those in nationalistic circles (e.g., Valerij Solovej) as well as western scholars such as Terry Martin and Geoffrey Hosking stressed that Russians dominated demographically and politically. However, the USSR did not aim to nurture traditional Russian values. It rather fostered the deethnicisation of Russians and the ethnicisation of non-Russian. Another group of scientists, including those from post-Soviet states (e.g., Žambyl Artykbaev, Otar Džanelidze, and Georgij Siamašvili) as well as western scholars (e.g., Rogers Brubaker) concede that positive processes such as the allotment of territory to republics and other territorial units, the constitution of authority and administrative apparatus, and the formation of the elites once characterised the ethnic history of the USSR. All these processes, however, were dominated by a lack of sovereignty, a loss of national identity, and damage to the living environment. Georgia rather than the USSR has always been regarded by the Georgian people as their mother country. The Soviet Union, which was considered to be a voluntary union of equal republics, was in fact an artificial creation that non-Russian nations were forced to join. The majority of Georgians did not therefore claim the USSR as their homeland: 'The USSR was for its nations a socio-political state not a homeland' [3]. Non-Russian citizens in the Soviet Union perceived the Russians to be a state-building 'nation' and the USSR a Russian state. The Soviet authorities, who predicated internationalism on the Russian language and new Russian culture, actively combated ethnic nationalism (including Russian nationalism, which was associated with chauvinism and a tsarist legacy). Although Russkost was considered to be a remnant of a disgraceful past, it was nonetheless used as a tool to sovietise society. Indeed, Russian language and culture were both conducive to the assimilation of non-Russians. 'The Great Russian nation' was to be 'the first among equals' and thus Russia provided. Soviet state with certain features of ethnicity. However, Russian characteristics were never treated as instrumental to the USSR, because the aim was to form a new socialist, national community, that was beyond ethnicity, rather than to convert the citizens of the former USSR into Russians. Soviet ideology and science thus set the direction for nationality policy in the USSR, especially in terms of forming a Soviet nation. Based on the foregoing, the present paper identifies how the ethnic character of both the Soviet nation and the state. ; Twenty years have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Up until the point of dissolution, the Soviet authorities and intellectual elite had attempted to build a community in order to unite all Soviet citizens in the spirit of socialist modernisation. Although it is difficult to demonstrate that 'a Soviet nation' was successfully created [1], the attempt to build such a nation can serve as a case study through which to examine nation-building processes for constructivists as well as modernists . In addition to socialist modernisation, the Soviet nation aimed to be identified as a state, which would make it similar to the political nations dominant in western countries. Contrary to western tradition, however, it was not a nation state that provided full rights for all its citizens, but rather a socialist state that was 'ruled by workers and peasantry'. Nevertheless, the authorities aimed to give the Soviet nation the characteristics of a specific nation state. "It was a nation that in historical terms strived, or more accurately part of which strived, to form or proclaim a particular state" [2]. While at the time of proclaiming the USSR there was no such thing as the Soviet nation, it can be assumed that it was intended to become a constructed titular nation. The majority of national communities, even created ones, have an ethnic core. However academics cannot agree on the kind of state the USSR was, to what extent it took into account the ethnicity of its multinational population, how much it reflected the values, culture, and interests of its largest population group (i.e., the Russians) or even whether it was a Russian national state despite the strong influence of Russian ideology and politics. Some Russian academics, especially those in nationalistic circles (e.g., Valerij Solovej) as well as western scholars such as Terry Martin and Geoffrey Hosking stressed that Russians dominated demographically and politically. However, the USSR did not aim to nurture traditional Russian values. It rather fostered the deethnicisation of Russians and the ethnicisation of non-Russian. Another group of scientists, including those from post-Soviet states (e.g., Žambyl Artykbaev, Otar Džanelidze, and Georgij Siamašvili) as well as western scholars (e.g., Rogers Brubaker) concede that positive processes such as the allotment of territory to republics and other territorial units, the constitution of authority and administrative apparatus, and the formation of the elites once characterised the ethnic history of the USSR. All these processes, however, were dominated by a lack of sovereignty, a loss of national identity, and damage to the living environment. Georgia rather than the USSR has always been regarded by the Georgian people as their mother country. The Soviet Union, which was considered to be a voluntary union of equal republics, was in fact an artificial creation that non-Russian nations were forced to join. The majority of Georgians did not therefore claim the USSR as their homeland: 'The USSR was for its nations a socio-political state not a homeland' [3]. Non-Russian citizens in the Soviet Union perceived the Russians to be a state-building 'nation' and the USSR a Russian state. The Soviet authorities, who predicated internationalism on the Russian language and new Russian culture, actively combated ethnic nationalism (including Russian nationalism, which was associated with chauvinism and a tsarist legacy). Although Russkost was considered to be a remnant of a disgraceful past, it was nonetheless used as a tool to sovietise society. Indeed, Russian language and culture were both conducive to the assimilation of non-Russians. 'The Great Russian nation' was to be 'the first among equals' and thus Russia provided. Soviet state with certain features of ethnicity. However, Russian characteristics were never treated as instrumental to the USSR, because the aim was to form a new socialist, national community, that was beyond ethnicity, rather than to convert the citizens of the former USSR into Russians. Soviet ideology and science thus set the direction for nationality policy in the USSR, especially in terms of forming a Soviet nation. Based on the foregoing, the present paper identifies how the ethnic character of both the Soviet nation and the state.

Cover -- Introduction -- Chapter 1 Historical and cultural conditions -- 1. Name of the state, ethnogenesis, the state- and nation-building process, Belarusian identity -- 2. The Union of Krewo and the Union of Lublin -- 3. The Union of Brest and its consequences -- 4. Polish-Russian rivalry over Belarusian "souls" -- 5. The beginnings of Belarusian nationalism -- 6. The First World War and the October Revolution in Russia -- 7. The reborn Republic and the lands of Belarus -- 8. Belarusians in the Second Republic and the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic -- 9. The Second World War and the post-war period -- Chapter 2 Polish-Belarusian relations from the perspective of Polish policy towards the east -- 1. Transformation of the foreign policy of Poland and Belarus -- 2. Geopolitical situation and social and economic potential -- 3. Poland's policy towards the east -- Chapter 3 Political relations -- 1. A good beginning and a lost opportunity -- 2. "Critical dialogue" -- 3. New challenges and problems after the expansion of the European Union -- 4. The "Ukrainian factor" and the honeymoon -- Chapter 4 "Difficult issues" -- 1. The historical dialogue -- 2. National minorities - Poles in Belarus and Belarusians in Poland -- 3. Border and visa traffic -- Chapter 5 Economic relations -- 1. The legal and treaty foundations of economic cooperation -- 2. Trade -- 3. Investment and capital cooperation -- 4. Cross-border cooperation -- 5. Energy -- 6. Other areas, prospects for and barriers to cooperation -- Chapter 6 Cultural cooperation -- 1. Cultural contacts -- 2. Cooperation in the field of education -- Conclusions -- Bibliography -- Appendix -- Index of names

This book examines Polish-Belarusian relations, which, according to the Polish historian Marcel Kosman, were 'very close, though not always idyllic' (Kosman, 1979, p. 6), or, as the Belarusian author Piotra Rudkoŭski puts it, 'Historically and culturally, Belarus and Poland are Siamese twins' (Rudkoŭski, 2007, p. 185). According to the author of this book, the nature of Polish-Belarusian relations is determined by their historical and cultural positions, identities and geopolitical situations. He underlines that Polish-Belarusian relations are subordinate to Polish-Russian relations and, to a significant extent, play a role in Belarusian-Russian relations. The author pays attention to historical and cultural determinants, Polish policy towards the East, political, economic and cultural relations, and 'difficult issues' such as historical dialogue, national minorities (Poles in Belarus and Belarusians in Poland) and border and visa traffic. He tries to understand the circumstances and international interests of both states, which undoubtedly adds to the book's value.

Referring to the concept of the nation by Ernst Renan and the nation-building process of Antonina Kłoskowska, as well as based on Samuel Huntington's statements the author attempts to verify the hypothesis that the Polish national community retaining its demographic and ethnocultural core, undergoes Ukrainization in the sphere of collective consciousness. For this purpose, using the causal explanation and integral explanation of political actions and phenomena developed by Tadeusz Klementewicz, analyzes the impact of migration on nation-building processes, the status of Ukrainian citizens in Poland, the problems of assimilation and integration, and what speaks for the Ukrainization of the Polish nation.

Ethnosocial Stratification in Central Asia and its Challenges for Ethnopolitics (the Case of Kazakhstan)
The article concerns different dimensions and criteria of ethnosocial stratification in Central Asia and its influence on ethnopolitics, concentrating on case Kazakhstan. The author considers theoretical aspects of the problem and pays attention to circumstances of forming ethno-social stratification and ethnic division of work. He tries to explain the principles of The Doctrine of The National Unity of Kazakhstan. Especially he pays attention to ethnic and sub‑ethnic division of work in authorities and state administration. He concentrates on factors and criteria of ethnic and sub-ethnic division of work. Author of the article underlines that ethno-social stratification can disturb of creation of nation of Kazakhstan as a civil community which is the aim of the state authorities.