Suchergebnisse

In the 1990s, Lithuania's sovereignty politics was defined by its departure from the Soviet authoritarian regime and the transition to democracy, culminating in its integration into the European Union and NATO in 2004. Since Russia's occupation of Crimea in 2014, Lithuania's sovereignty has been threatened by Russia's revisionist politics. Lithuania espoused strong support for Ukraine after Russia's 2022 invasion, voicing the most radical positions among the European allies accusing Russia of genocide and terrorism. This article discusses the genealogy of sovereignty-building in Lithuania since the collapse of the Soviet Union, illustrating how geopolitical threats shape sovereignty politics, at the center of which is the idea of freedom.

A war frontier in Lithuania was engendered by the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in March of 2014 and the beginning of the undeclared war in eastern Ukraine. This essay explores how the new war frontier emerged in Lithuania, becoming an integral part of the public sphere and civic life. I argue that the war frontier is a social institution of sovereign uncertainty, which engenders divisive politics of historical justice, protection of the majority's rights, and dangers to liberalism. The geopolitical insecurity and sovereign uncertainty that define this Baltic frontier are essential to understand how Lithuania can be a strong ally of NATO and the EU, a proponent of democratic politics and liberalism, a claimant to regional security expertise to lead western countries, and at the same time undermine liberal ideals of tolerance, multiculturalism, and pluralism.

[only abstract in English; full article and abstract in Lithuanian]
In Lithuania, the politics of history center on Lithuania's Soviet occupation and post-war resistance, while in Russia the focus is on the USSR's victory in WWII and the USSR's role in the liberation of Europe from fascism. I argue that the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia create mutually exclusive, institutionalized, bipolar historical structures, according to which justice for one nationality is presented as an injustice to another. This article draws on the analysis of the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia as well as my own ethnographic research in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda among Lithuanian Russian-speakers and Lithuanians in 2016–2017. I show how in Lithuania, the politics of history surrounding WWII commemorations create the political exclusion of Russian speakers, which is experienced and unmade by personal justice and reconciliation stories of Lithuanian Russian-speakers as well as Lithuanians. In the context of geopolitical insecurity, which intensified after the Russia-Ukraine conflict, bipolar historical structures gain increasing significance as political tools; they are an outcome of both Lithuania's and Russia's politics of history.

[only abstract in English; full article and abstract in Lithuanian] In Lithuania, the politics of history center on Lithuania's Soviet occupation and post-war resistance, while in Russia the focus is on the USSR's victory in WWII and the USSR's role in the liberation of Europe from fascism. I argue that the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia create mutually exclusive, institutionalized, bipolar historical structures, according to which justice for one nationality is presented as an injustice to another. This article draws on the analysis of the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia as well as my own ethnographic research in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda among Lithuanian Russian-speakers and Lithuanians in 2016–2017. I show how in Lithuania, the politics of history surrounding WWII commemorations create the political exclusion of Russian speakers, which is experienced and unmade by personal justice and reconciliation stories of Lithuanian Russian-speakers as well as Lithuanians. In the context of geopolitical insecurity, which intensified after the Russia-Ukraine conflict, bipolar historical structures gain increasing significance as political tools; they are an outcome of both Lithuania's and Russia's politics of history. ; [straipsnis ir santrauka lietuvių kalba; santrauka anglų kalba] Lietuvos istorijos politikoje daug dėmesio skiriama sovietinei okupacijai ir pokario rezistencijai, o Rusijos Federacijoje – Antrojo pasaulinio karo pergalei ir Europos išvadavimui iš fašizmo. Remdamasi Lietuvos ir Rusijos Federacijos istorijos politikos analize bei etnografiniais Vilniuje, Kaune ir Klaipėdoje 2016–2017 m. atliktais tyrimais, šiame straipsnyje teigiu, kad Lietuvos ir Rusijos istorijos politika kuria bipolinio istorinio teisingumo struktūras, straipsnyje įvardijamas "okupacija" ir "išvadavimas". Šios struktūros teisingumą vienai tautinei grupei pateikia kaip neteisybę kitos grupės atžvilgiu. Lietuvoje analizuojamų Antrojo pasaulinio karo pabaigos minėjimų atveju jos formuoja politinę atskirtį, kuri tiek rusakalbių, tiek lietuvių kvestionuojama asmeninio kentėjimo ir susitaikymo istorijomis. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad geopolitinio nesaugumo, susidariusio po 2014 m. Rusijos ir Ukrainos konflikto, sąlygomis bipolinės istorinės struktūros įgyja ypatingą politinę reikšmę ir yra tiek Lietuvos, tiek Rusijos vykdomos (istorijos) politikos padarinys.

In Lithuania, the politics of history center on Lithuania's Soviet occupation and post-war resistance, while in Russia the focus is on the USSR's victory in WWII and the USSR's role in the liberation of Europe from fascism. I argue that the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia create mutually exclusive, institutionalized, bipolar historical structures, according to which justice for one nationality is presented as an injustice to another. This article draws on the analysis of the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia as well as my own ethnographic research in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda among Lithuanian Russian-speakers and Lithuanians in 2016–2017. I show how in Lithuania, the politics of history surrounding WWII commemorations create the political exclusion of Russian speakers, which is experienced and unmade by personal justice and reconciliation stories of Lithuanian Russian-speakers as well as Lithuanians. In the context of geopolitical insecurity, which intensified after the Russia-Ukraine conflict, bipolar historical structures gain increasing significance as political tools; they are an outcome of both Lithuania's and Russia's politics of history.

In Lithuania, the politics of history center on Lithuania's Soviet occupation and post-war resistance, while in Russia the focus is on the USSR's victory in WWII and the USSR's role in the liberation of Europe from fascism. I argue that the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia create mutually exclusive, institutionalized, bipolar historical structures, according to which justice for one nationality is presented as an injustice to another. This article draws on the analysis of the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia as well as my own ethnographic research in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda among Lithuanian Russian-speakers and Lithuanians in 2016–2017. I show how in Lithuania, the politics of history surrounding WWII commemorations create the political exclusion of Russian speakers, which is experienced and unmade by personal justice and reconciliation stories of Lithuanian Russian-speakers as well as Lithuanians. In the context of geopolitical insecurity, which intensified after the Russia-Ukraine conflict, bipolar historical structures gain increasing significance as political tools; they are an outcome of both Lithuania's and Russia's politics of history.

In Lithuania, the politics of history center on Lithuania's Soviet occupation and post-war resistance, while in Russia the focus is on the USSR's victory in WWII and the USSR's role in the liberation of Europe from fascism. I argue that the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia create mutually exclusive, institutionalized, bipolar historical structures, according to which justice for one nationality is presented as an injustice to another. This article draws on the analysis of the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia as well as my own ethnographic research in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda among Lithuanian Russian-speakers and Lithuanians in 2016–2017. I show how in Lithuania, the politics of history surrounding WWII commemorations create the political exclusion of Russian speakers, which is experienced and unmade by personal justice and reconciliation stories of Lithuanian Russian-speakers as well as Lithuanians. In the context of geopolitical insecurity, which intensified after the Russia-Ukraine conflict, bipolar historical structures gain increasing significance as political tools; they are an outcome of both Lithuania's and Russia's politics of history.

In Lithuania, the politics of history center on Lithuania's Soviet occupation and post-war resistance, while in Russia the focus is on the USSR's victory in WWII and the USSR's role in the liberation of Europe from fascism. I argue that the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia create mutually exclusive, institutionalized, bipolar historical structures, according to which justice for one nationality is presented as an injustice to another. This article draws on the analysis of the politics of history in Lithuania and Russia as well as my own ethnographic research in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda among Lithuanian Russian-speakers and Lithuanians in 2016–2017. I show how in Lithuania, the politics of history surrounding WWII commemorations create the political exclusion of Russian speakers, which is experienced and unmade by personal justice and reconciliation stories of Lithuanian Russian-speakers as well as Lithuanians. In the context of geopolitical insecurity, which intensified after the Russia-Ukraine conflict, bipolar historical structures gain increasing significance as political tools; they are an outcome of both Lithuania's and Russia's politics of history.

SUMMARY: Guest editor of the forum "Sovereign Futures: Politics of Justice and Governance in Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia," Neringa Klumbytė, introduces the articles that it features. She invites readers to look at sovereignty and justice as a historical, political, and cultural process involving multiple political actors, from the government to citizens to mafia groups. Dedicated to differing scenarios of sovereignty and varying understandings of justice after 1991, the materials of the forum reveal the contextuality of these key categories of social cohesion in post-Soviet societies. В своем введении приглашенный редактор форума "Разное суверен-ное будущее: политика правосудия и управления в Литве, Кыргызстане и России" Неринга Клумбите представляет вошедшие в него матери-алы. Она призывает читателей взглянуть на феномен суверенитета и правосудия как на исторический, политический и культурный про-цесс, в котором участвуют множественные политические агенты, в диапазоне от правительств до граждан и до мафиозных объединений. Материалы форума, посвященные альтернативным сценариям сувере-нитета и разным пониманиям справедливости после 1991 г., вскрывают контекстуальность этих ключевых категорий социальной организации в постсоветских обществах.

In the early 1990s, many people in Lithuania supported independence from the Soviet Union. However, in 2003-4 during the author's ethnographic research in several village and urban communities, villagers and urban residents questioned liberation and debated ideals of nation and freedom. This article discusses people's memories of liberation and their perspectives on freedom and nationhood. It illustrates how the Soviet and post-Soviet alterity regimes have shaped citizenship enacted in discussions of liberation. It argues that the questioning of liberation is not a rejection of liberation and its ideals of freedom and the nation-state. Rather, it is a negotiation about social and political transformations, national solidarity, and inclusive citizenship. В начале 1990-х гг. многие жители Литвы поддерживали идею независимости от Советского Союза. Однако, как выяснила Неринга Клумбите в ходе этнографического исследования, проведенного ею в нескольких деревнях и городах Литвы в 2003-2004 гг., отношение жителей к освобождению и идеалам нации и свободы изменилось. В настоящей статье Клумбите анализирует воспоминания респондентов о периоде освободительной борьбы и их понимание свободы и национальности. Она показывает, как советский режим и постсоветская трансформация формировали понимание гражданства в контексте темы освобождения. Автор считает, что сомнения в реальности достигнутого "освобождения" не значит отказ от этого идеала и связанных с ним трактовок свободы и национального государства. В статье эти сомнения и критика рассматриваются как процесс переговоров о путях социальной и политической трансформации, национальной солидарности и инклюзивного гражданства.