Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Post-Soviet states
View on Wikipedia

1.
Armenia • 2.
Azerbaijan • 3.
Belarus • 4.
Estonia • 5.
Georgia • 6.
Kazakhstan • 7.
Kyrgyzstan • 8.
Latvia • 9.
Lithuania • 10.
Moldova • 11.
Russia • 12.
Tajikistan • 13.
Turkmenistan • 14.
Ukraine • 15.
UzbekistanThe post-Soviet states, also referred to as the former Soviet Union[1] or the former Soviet republics, are the independent sovereign states that emerged/re-emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Prior to their independence, they existed as Union Republics, which were the top-level constituents of the Soviet Union. There are 15 post-Soviet states in total: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Each of these countries succeeded their respective Union Republics: the Armenian SSR, the Azerbaijan SSR, the Byelorussian SSR, the Estonian SSR, the Georgian SSR, the Kazakh SSR, the Kirghiz SSR, the Latvian SSR, the Lithuanian SSR, the Moldavian SSR, the Russian SFSR, the Tajik SSR, the Turkmen SSR, the Ukrainian SSR, and the Uzbek SSR. In Russia, the term "near abroad" (Russian: ближнее зарубежье, romanized: bližneye zarubežye) is sometimes used to refer to the post-Soviet states other than Russia.
Following the transition period and cessation of the existence of the Soviet Union, post-Soviet states and the international community de facto and de jure recognized Russia as the only continuator state to the Soviet Union as a whole, rather than to just the Russian SFSR including UN and UNSC membership (see agreements in Succession, continuity and legacy of the Soviet Union). The other post-Soviet states were recognized as successors only to their corresponding Union Republics and to international treaties concluded by the Soviet Union. All 12 post-Soviet states are successors of the Soviet Union, but not continuators.[2]
The Union Republics of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) were the first to break away from the Soviet Union by proclaiming the restoration of their national independence in 1990; they cited legal continuity from the original Baltic states, asserting that Baltic sovereignty had continued on a de jure basis due to the belligerent nature of the 1940 Soviet annexation.[3][4] Subsequently, the 12 remaining Union Republics seceded, with all of them jointly establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and most of them later joining the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). On the other hand, the three Baltic states pursued a policy of near-total disengagement with the Russian-dominated post-Soviet sphere, instead focusing on integrating themselves with the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).[5] They successfully attained NATO membership and were granted EU membership in 2004. Since the 2000s, many EU officials have stressed the importance of establishing EU Association Agreements with the other post-Soviet states. Ukraine and Georgia have actively sought NATO membership due to increasingly hostile Russian interference in their internal affairs.[6][7]
Due to the post-Soviet conflicts, several disputed states with varying degrees of international recognition have emerged within the territory of the former Soviet Union. These include: Transnistria, an unrecognized Russian-backed state in eastern Moldova; and Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two partially recognized Russian-backed states in northern Georgia. The United Nations (UN) has historically considered Russian-backed states in the "near abroad" to be illegitimate and instead views them as constituting Russian-occupied territories. The aftermath of Ukraine's Maidan Revolution saw the emergence of Russian-backed states in Ukraine in 2014: the Republic of Crimea in southern Ukraine briefly proclaimed independence before being annexed by Russia in 2014;[8] and the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, both located in Ukraine's Donbas, were occupied and subsequently declared independence in 2014 before being formally annexed by Russia in 2022, amidst the broader Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Name
[edit]In the political language of Russia and some other post-Soviet states, the term near abroad (Russian: ближнее зарубежье, romanized: blizhnee zarubezhe) refers to the independent republics that emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Increasing usage of the term in English is connected to assertions of Russia's right to maintain significant influence in the region.[9][10][11] The concept has been compared to the Monroe Doctrine, central to American grand strategy in the 20th century.[9]
The AP Styleguide recommends avoiding the use of the shorthand "former Soviet republic(s)" unless relevant to the story.[12]
The present definition restricts the notion of post-Soviet states to the 15 former republics of the Soviet Union (USSR). A broader definition includes also all the formerly communist-bloc countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE countries), Asia, and Latin America.[5][13]
Country comparison
[edit]The 15 sovereign post-Soviet states are usually divided into five subregions.
Russia (Eastern Eupore and Northern Asia)- Baltics:
Estonia,
Latvia,
Lithuania - Eastern Europe:
Belarus,
Moldova,
Ukraine - South Caucasus:
Armenia,
Azerbaijan,
Georgia - Central Asia:
Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan
There are three additional de facto independent states presently lacking international recognition. (read below: Post-Soviet conflicts)
Current leaders
[edit]Heads of state
[edit]Heads of government
[edit]Economy
[edit]The dissolution of the Soviet Union occurred against a backdrop of economic stagnation and regression within the economy of the USSR. This period marked the breakdown of the Gosplan, the state planning agency responsible for economic planning and inter-republic economic connections, exacerbating the effects on the economies of the post-Soviet states.
Most of the former Soviet states began the transition to a market economy from a command economy in early 1990s and made efforts to rebuild and restructure their economic systems, often following neoliberal shock therapy policies, with varying results. In all, the process triggered severe economic declines, with gross domestic product (GDP) dropping by more than 40% overall between 1990 and 1995.[39] This decline in GDP was much more intense than the 27% decline that the United States suffered in the wake of the Great Depression between 1930 and 1934.[40] The reconfiguration of public finance in compliance with capitalist principles resulted in dramatically reduced spending on health, education and other social programs, leading to a sharp increase in poverty and economic inequality.[41][42] The economic shocks associated with wholesale privatization resulted in the excess deaths of roughly 1 million working age individuals throughout the former Soviet bloc in the 1990s.[43][44][45] A study by economist Steven Rosefielde asserts that 3.4 million Russians died premature deaths from 1990 to 1998, partly as the result of the shock therapy policies imposed by the Washington Consensus.[46]
The initial transition decline was eventually arrested, and after 1995 the economy in the post-Soviet states began to recover, with GDP switching from negative to positive growth rates. By 2007, 10 of the 15 post-Soviet states had recovered their 1991 GDP levels.[47] According to economist Branko Milanović, in 2015 many former Soviet republics and other former communist countries still have not caught up to their 1991 levels of output, including Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Serbia, Tajikistan and Ukraine. He concluded that "only 1 out of 10 people living in 'transition' countries have seen a successful transition to capitalism and more democracy."[48][49] Commenting on Milanović's report in 2021, Kristen Ghodsee says this view is "essentially correct" and perhaps underestimates "the negative impacts of transition by focusing only on GDP, inequality and democratic consolidation" whereas Mitchell A. Orenstein says this view is "overly pessimistic" and notes that "Poland had done spectacularly well and living standards had increased in many countries."[50]
Most of the new states' constitutions define directly or indirectly the economic system of the countries parallel to the democratic transition of the 1990s, emphasising the free market economy. The average government debt in these countries is nearly 44%, but the deviation is great, because the lowest figure is close to 10% but the highest is 97%. The trend shows that the sovereign debt-to-GDP ratio in most of the countries has been rising. The constitutional background for taxation is similar. Central banks are often independent state institutions, which possess the monopoly on managing and implementing a state's or federation's monetary policy. Besides monetary policy, some of them also perform the supervision of the financial intermediary system.[51]
Change in gross domestic product (GDP) in constant prices, 1991–2015[52]
| Country | 1991* | 1996 | 2001 | 2006 | 2011 | 2015 | 2021 | 2022 | Turnaround year** |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central Asia | |||||||||
| 100 | 69.3 | 88.5 | 141.4 | 185.7 | 219.0 | 252.3 | 261.1 | 1996 | |
| 100 | 58.9 | 76.1 | 89.6 | 114.4 | 133.9 | 154.5 | 169.6 | 1996 | |
| 100 | 34.1 | 45.2 | 56.0 | 98.1 | 124.5 | 189.5 | 205.0 | 1997 | |
| 100 | 70.7 | 86.0 | 117.2 | 199.2 | 285.5 | 367.9 | 374.2 | 1998 | |
| 100 | 82.9 | 102.6 | 137.5 | 208.4 | 281.2 | 363.6 | 387.5 | 1996 | |
| Eastern Europe | |||||||||
| 100 | 67.9 | 94.0 | 141.5 | 192.5 | 193.9 | 206.0 | 196.7 | 1996 | |
| 100 | 45.2 | 45.0 | 62.5 | 74.5 | 83.2 | 104.6 | 98.4 | 1997 | |
| 100 | 63.1 | 74.5 | 103.3 | 118.3 | 119.8 | 135.2 | 133.3 | 1997 | |
| 100 | 47.2 | 51.8 | 73.7 | 75.9 | 63.4 | 68.8 | 48.6 | 2000 | |
| Baltic states | |||||||||
| ? | 105.0 | 143.9 | 212.3 | 203.2 | 222.3 | 281.9 | 278.2 | ? | |
| 100 | 67.8 | 92.9 | 143.1 | 130.1 | 145.8 | 165.3 | 171.7 | 1993 | |
| 100 | 64.6 | 81.5 | 119.8 | 123.9 | 139.6 | 173.2 | 180.0 | 1995 | |
| South Caucasus | |||||||||
| 100 | 63.3 | 84.2 | 154.7 | 172.5 | 202.6 | 244.2 | 276.0 | 1994 | |
| 100 | 42.7 | 65.2 | 150.2 | 241.1 | 276.5 | 269.6 | 282.1 | 1996 | |
| 100 | 39.8 | 49.8 | 74.1 | 93.2 | 109.3 | 136.0 | 150.3 | 1995 |
*Economy of most Soviet republics started to decline in 1989–1990, thus indices for 1991 do not match pre-reform maximums.
**The year when GDP decline switched to GDP growth
***World bank publishes GDP data for Estonia only from 1995 onwards. Figures for Estonia are relative to 1995 GDP.
List of the present gross domestic product (GDP) (figures are given in 2025 USD for the year 2025 according to the IMF[53])
| Country | Nominal (millions USD) |
Nominal per capita (USD) |
PPP (millions USD) |
PPP per capita (USD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post-Soviet States | 3,250,134 | 10,880 | 10,703,395 | 35,830 |
| 26,258 | 8,857 | 74,294 | 25,060 | |
| 78,870 | 7,604 | 272,100 | 26,235 | |
| 71,561 | 7,875 | 311,791 | 34,313 | |
| 45,004 | 32,760 | 68,235 | 49,671 | |
| 35,353 | 9,571 | 113,583 | 30,749 | |
| 300,538 | 14,768 | 904,496 | 44,446 | |
| 19,849 | 2,747 | 63,455 | 8,781 | |
| 45,535 | 24,374 | 83,251 | 44,563 | |
| 89,192 | 30,835 | 165,442 | 57,196 | |
| 19,462 | 8,260 | 46,365 | 19,678 | |
| 2,076,396 | 14,258 | 7,191,718 | 49,383 | |
| 14,836 | 1,432 | 62,656 | 6,048 | |
| 89,054 | 13,337 | 186,106 | 27,873 | |
| 205,742 | 6,261 | 690,059 | 20,999 | |
| 132,484 | 3,514 | 469,844 | 12,462 |
Demographics
[edit]The Post-Soviet Union region encompasses 30 cities with populations exceeding one million residents. Russia leads with 16 such cities, including Moscow and Saint Petersburg, followed by Kazakhstan and Ukraine, each having three. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan each host one city surpassing the million-resident threshold. These major population centres play significant roles in the economic, cultural, and political dynamics of their respective countries.
Largest population centres of the Soviet Union
Current population, city proper | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | City name | Republic | Pop. | Rank | City name | Republic | Pop. | ||
| 1 | Moscow | Russia | 13,274,285 (2025)[54] | 11 | Kharkiv | Ukraine | 1,421,125 (2022)[55] | ||
| 2 | Saint Petersburg | Russia | 5,652,922 (2025)[54] | 12 | Kazan | Russia | 1,329,825 (2025)[54] | ||
| 3 | Tashkent | Uzbekistan | 3,095,498 (2024)[56] | 13 | Bishkek | Kyrgyzstan | 1,321,900 (2025)[57] | ||
| 4 | Kyiv | Ukraine | 2,952,301 (2021)[58] | 14 | Shymkent | Kazakhstan | 1,264,492 (2025)[59] | ||
| 5 | Baku | Azerbaijan | 2,344,900 (2024)[60] | 15 | Nizhny Novgorod | Russia | 1,222,172 (2025)[54] | ||
| 6 | Almaty | Kazakhstan | 2,305,765 (2025)[61] | 16 | Krasnoyarsk | Russia | 1,211,756 (2025)[54] | ||
| 7 | Minsk | Belarus | 1,996,730 (2025)[62] | 17 | Tbilisi | Georgia | 1,202,731 (2021)[63] | ||
| 8 | Novosibirsk | Russia | 1,637,266 (2025)[54] | 18 | Dushanbe | Tajikistan | 1,201,800 (2022)[64] | ||
| 9 | Yekaterinburg | Russia | 1,592,493 (2025)[54] | 19 | Chelyabinsk | Russia | 1,176,770 (2025)[54] | ||
| 10 | Astana | Kazakhstan | 1,551,213 (2025)[65] | 20 | Ufa | Russia | 1,166,098 (2025)[54] | ||

- Demographics of Armenia
- Demographics of Azerbaijan
- Demographics of Belarus
- Demographics of Estonia
- Demographics of Georgia
- Demographics of Kazakhstan
- Demographics of Kyrgyzstan
- Demographics of Latvia
- Demographics of Lithuania
- Demographics of Moldova
- Demographics of Russia
- Demographics of Tajikistan
- Demographics of Turkmenistan
- Demographics of Ukraine
- Demographics of Uzbekistan
Regional organizations
[edit]

A number of regional organizations and cooperating blocs have sprung up since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Only organizations that are mainly (or completely) composed of post-Soviet states are listed in this section; organizations with wider memberships are not discussed. The 15 post-Soviet states are divided in their participation to the regional blocs:
- Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine founded the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in December 1991. Conceived as a successor organization to the USSR, it included 12 of the 15 former Soviet republics (all except the three Baltic states) by December 1993.[66] It now has nine members and one associate state (Turkmenistan). Georgia withdrew from the CIS in August 2008, while Ukraine stopped participating in May 2018. Although it was one of the founding countries of the CIS, Ukraine was never legally a member because it didn't ratify the 1993 CIS Charter.[66]
- The three Baltic states have not sought membership in any of these post-Soviet organizations, seeking and achieving membership in the European Union and NATO instead, although their electricity and rail systems remain closely connected with former Soviet organizations. The sole exception to the above has been their recent membership in the Community of Democratic Choice.
- The Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan (as well as Belarus) are members of the CIS and participate in several regional organizations that have Russia as a primary mover. Such organizations include the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC, which later merged with Eurasian Economic Union, of which Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are not members), the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The last two groups only became distinct once Uzbekistan withdrew from GUAM and sought membership in EurAsEC and CSTO (from which it subsequently withdrew in 2008 and 2012, respectively).
- Armenia, besides its membership in CIS, participates in the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union.
- Moldova and Azerbaijan participate in the CIS but otherwise mostly cooperate within regional organizations not dominated by Russia, such as GUAM and the Community of Democratic Choice.
- Turkmenistan is an associate member of CIS, having withdrawn from full membership in August 2005,[67] and a member in the Economic Cooperation Organization; it has not sought closer integration through any of the other Western or post-Soviet organizations.
- In 2008, Georgia notified the CIS executive bodies of its decision to leave the regional organization,[68][69] and this decision came into force 12 months after the notification date, in accordance with the CIS Charter (sec. 1, art. 9).[70]
Commonwealth of Independent States
[edit]The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) consists of 10 former Soviet Republics that differ in their membership statuses. As of December 2024, 9 countries have ratified the CIS charter and are full CIS members (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), one country is an associate member (Turkmenistan), and one country left the organization (Georgia in 2009). Ukraine is a founding state of the CIS, but never became a full member state since it never ratified the CIS Charter. In 2014, Ukraine had declined its CIS chairmanship and considered withdrawal from the organization.[71]
In 1994, the CIS countries agreed to create a free trade area, but the agreements were never signed. In 2011, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Ukraine signed a free trade agreement.[72] Uzbekistan joined the free trade area in 2013.[citation needed]
Eurasian Economic Community
[edit]
The Eurasian Economic Community (EURASEC), formerly the CIS Customs Union, was established by Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Ukraine and Moldova had observer status in the community; however, Ukraine declared its desire not to become a full member state. Because having common borders with the rest of the community was a prerequisite for full membership, Moldova was barred from seeking it. Uzbekistan joined in 2006 during the process of merging with the Central Asian Cooperation Organization but suspended its membership in 2008.[citation needed]
On 10 October 2014, after a session of the Interstate Council of the Eurasian Economic Community in Minsk, member states signed an agreement to terminate the organization which took effect 1 January 2015 with the launch of the Eurasian Economic Union.[citation needed]
Customs Union of the Eurasian Economic Union
[edit]Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan created a customs union that entered into force in July 2010. Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan indicated interest in joining at the time.[citation needed] Russia has been eager for Armenia, Moldova, and Ukraine to join the custom union instead of the European Union, and the Moldovan break-away state of Transnistria has supported this. In 2013, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia announced plans to seek membership, but division over the issue in Ukraine led to the Revolution of Dignity after the Ukrainian government backed out of an EU Eastern Partnership in favor of the union. In 2014, voters in the Moldovan autonomous region of Gagauzia rejected closer ties to the EU in favor of the union.[73]
On 1 January 2012, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus established the Single Economic Space to ensure the effective functioning of a single market for goods, services, capital, and labour, and to establish coherent industrial, transport, energy, and agricultural policies.[74][75] The agreement included a roadmap for future integration and established the Eurasian Economic Commission (modelled on the European Commission).[76] The Eurasian Economic Commission serves as the regulatory agency for the Eurasian Customs Union, the Single Economic Space, and the Eurasian Economic Union.[74]
Eurasian Economic Union
[edit]
The Eurasian Economic Union is an economic union of post-Soviet states. The treaty aiming for the establishment of the EAEU was signed on 29 May 2014 by the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, and came into force on 1 January 2015.[77] Treaties aiming for Armenia's and Kyrgyzstan's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union were signed on 9 October 2014 and 23 December respectively. Armenia's accession treaty came into force on 2 January 2015.[78] Kyrgyzstan ratified its accession's treaty in May 2015, and it came into force in August 2015.[79][80][81][82][83][84] Moldova and Tajikistan are prospective members.[85][86]
Collective Security Treaty Organization
[edit]
Seven CIS member states, namely Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Armenia, have enhanced their military cooperation, establishing the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), this being an expansion of the previous Collective Security Treaty (CST). Uzbekistan which (alongside Georgia and Azerbaijan) withdrew from the CST in 1999, joined GUAM. Then in 2005, it withdrew from GUAM and joined the CSTO in 2006. On 28 June 2012, Uzbekistan suspended its membership in the CSTO.[87]
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
[edit]
Three former Soviet states are members of NATO: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Georgia, where both public opinion and the ruling government favor NATO membership, is in the Intensified Dialogue program with NATO. Ukraine also declared joining NATO as its geopolitical goal once again in 2017 (the first time being right after the Orange Revolution and in the beginning of presidency of Viktor Yushchenko), after the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, during which the government officially declared non-alignment status and ceased to seek NATO membership.[88][89]
Other states in the Partnership for Peace and Individual Partnership Action Plan program include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
GUAM
[edit]Four member states, Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova, established the GUAM group that was largely seen as intending to counter Russian dominance in the region. Notably, these four nations do not participate in any of the other regional organizations that sprang up in the region since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (other than the CIS).
Union State
[edit]
The Union State of Russia and Belarus was originally formed on 2 April 1996 under the name Commonwealth of Russia and Belarus before being tightened further on 8 December 1999. It was initiated by the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko. On paper, the Union of Russia and Belarus intends further integration, beyond the scope of mere cooperation, including the introduction of the rouble as a common currency.
Other regional organizations
[edit]Economic Cooperation Organization
[edit]
The Economic Cooperation Organization was originally formed in 1985 by Turkey, Iran and Pakistan but in 1992 the organization was expanded to include Afghanistan and the six primarily Muslim former Soviet republics: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations
[edit]The post-Soviet disputed states of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria are all members of the Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations which aims to forge closer integration.
Community of Democratic Choice
[edit]The Community of Democratic Choice (CDC) was formed in December 2005 at the primary instigation of Ukraine and Georgia, and composed of six post-Soviet states (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and three other countries of Eastern and Central Europe (Slovenia, Romania and North Macedonia). The Black Sea Forum (BSF) is a closely related organization. Observer countries include Armenia, Bulgaria and Poland.
Just like GUAM before it, this forum is largely seen as intending to counteract Russian influence in the area. This is the only international forum centered in the post-Soviet space in which the Baltic countries also participate. In addition, the other three post-Soviet states in it are all members of GUAM.
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
[edit]
Six post-Soviet states are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), namely Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The organization was founded in 2001, though its predecessor, the Shanghai Five grouping, has existed since 1996. Its aims revolve around security-related issues such as border demarcation, terrorism and energy.[90]
Economic cooperation organizations
[edit]- Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) with Moldova (it includes also non post-Soviet countries of the former Yugoslavia; previously, also included other Central European countries that left CEFTA when joining the European Union; CEFTA plays a role in Central Europe similar to what European Free Trade Association (EFTA) provides in Western Europe for non EU-members; this alliance an economical organization with strong cooperation with the European Union, for countries that do not want to participate in EurAsEC centered on Russia but that are seeking alliances to the West); even if Moldova is the only CEFTA country that is still within a weakening CIS, it no longer participates to the CSTO for most of the common security policy (but cannot join the EU because of incompatibility with WEU stability rules and the unsolved problem of Transnistria) but can still benefit from the Free Trade Area notably with Romania and Bulgaria (in the EU).
- Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) with Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Turkey, Albania, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Armenia (an economic organisation closely related to the SCO but more focused regionally to include also Armenia; it also aims for the harmonious development of democracy for increasing the commerce in South-East Europe and includes some EU members, so it cannot be a regional free-trade union).
- The European Union (EU) with the three Baltic countries that were the first ones to declare independence from the former USSR have never joined CIS after the collapse of USSR (it includes also now some post-communist countries in Central Europe, that have left CEFTA when entering the EU : Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia).
Political integration and security alliances
[edit]- Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe (SPforSEE) with Moldova (similar in structure to CEFTA, but does not focus on economy but security, for those countries that are not NATO members); this organization largely cooperates with NATO, and is related to the group of observers at Western European Union (WEU).
- The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Central European countries that have also joined the EU (the EU membership includes also WEU membership because they follow the Common Foreign and Security Policy and European Security and Defence Policy policies shared now by the EU, the WEU and all European NATO members).
- The other remaining countries are those part of the former Yugoslavia, but their recent conflict and political tensions still does not allow them to cooperate efficiently for their political integration and for their mutual security; in addition, they still do not have full sovereignty in this domain (some of them are still under surveillance by EU or NATO, as mandated by UNO). They still need to find an internal stability and they can collaborate economically with the help of other organizations focusing on economy or political cooperation and development. However, a more limited cooperation for security is possible through their membership to the larger Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
- The only exception is Belarus (whose post-soviet democratic transition did not occur) that still rejects political integration, and all security alliances with NATO, OSCE, WEU or other countries in Europe other than Russia (which the process of reintegration of Belarus has been tightened in almost all domains).
Organizations in other domains
[edit]- Southeast European Cooperation Process (SEECP) with Moldova (similar to SPforSEE, but focuses on political integration than cooperation for security, and to CEFTA but does not focus on trade).
- Southeast European Cooperative Initiative (SECI) with Moldova (closely related to SEECP).
- Central European Initiative (CEI) with Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus (and also Central and South-Western European countries in the European Union; it aims at helping Eastern European countries to reach the EU standards and cooperate politically and find a better economic development and a strong, working but more democratic legal system); it is the only regional organization where Belarus is still a member (but the political cooperation with Belarus is almost stalled, as it is the only country of the former Communist bloc country that balances in favor of stronger cooperation with Russia and against integration with EU and NATO; however, Belarus remains isolated and still does not cooperate too in the SCO group led by Russia and China).
- Black Sea Forum for Partnership and Dialogue (BSF) with Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Armenia (also non post-soviet countries that are NATO members, interested in their maintaining political stability and avoiding conflicts in the region: Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, whose first two are also now EU and CEI members, using EU rules for their political development); however, this organization does not focus on helping countries to join the EU, but reaching common standards and good governance and internal stability and democracy like in the CEI.[citation needed]
- Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations
Other organizations
[edit]Apart from above, the former Soviet republics also hold membership in a number of multinational organizations such as:
Politics
[edit]Regarding political freedom in the former Soviet republics, Freedom House's 2021 report listed the following:
- Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as "free" countries.
- Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine were listed as "partly free".
- Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were listed as "not free".
Similarly, the Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders in 2025 recorded the following as regards press freedom:[91]
- Estonia – "Good situation"
- Armenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova – "Satisfactory situation"
- Ukraine – "Problematic situation"
- Georgia – "Difficult situation"
- Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan – "Very serious situation"
It has been remarked that several post-Soviet states did not change leadership for decades since their independence, such as Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan until his surprise resignation in 2019,[92] and Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, until his death in September 2016.[93] All of these had originally more limited terms but through decrees or referendums prolonged their stay in office (a practice also followed by Presidents Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus and Emomali Rahmon of Tajikistan). Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan had likewise served as President since its independence until he was forced to resign as a result of the Kyrgyz revolution of 2005.[94] Saparmurat Niyazov in Turkmenistan ruled from independence until his death in 2006, creating a personality cult around himself.[95] His successor, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, has maintained a personality cult of his own that has replaced the worshipping of Niyazov.[96]
The issue of dynastical succession has been another element affecting the politics of some post-Soviet States. Heydar Aliyev, after constructing an extensive and ongoing cult of personality, handed the Presidency of Azerbaijan to his son, Ilham Aliyev. Theories about the children of other leaders in Central Asia being groomed for succession abound.[97] The participation of Akayev's son and daughter in the 2005 Kyrgyz parliamentary elections boosted fears of dynastic succession being used in Kyrgyzstan as well, and may have contributed to the anti-Akayev climate that led to his overthrow.
Post-Soviet conflicts
[edit]Economic, political, national, military and social problems have all been factors in separatism in the post-Soviet space. In many cases, problems due to factors such as ethnic divisions existed before the fall of the Soviet Union, and upon the fall of the union were brought into the open.[98] Such territories and resulting military conflicts have so far been:
Current self-declared states
[edit]
Transnistria, which is de facto independent from Moldova. It declared independence in 1990, due to its majority Russian-speaking population fearing union with Romania. A ceasefire between Transnistrian forces and Moldovan forces has been in place since 1992, enforced by the presence of Russian forces in Transnistria.[99]
South Ossetia, which is de facto independent from Georgia. The region declared its intent to seek independence in 1990, leading to a conflict which led to a ceasefire in 1992. Separatism became powerful after the election of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in 2004, and a referendum in 2006 was in favour of declaring independence. The 2008 war between Georgian forces and the separatist and Russian forces led to Russia's recognition of South Ossetia's independence.[100]
Abkhazia, which is de facto independent from Georgia. Tensions in the area broke out when Georgia sent in troops in 1992 to control groups who wanted separation. The troops and most of the Georgian and Mingrelian speaking population were forced out in 1993, and the region declared independence in 1999. The 2008 war between Georgian forces and the separatist and Russian forces led to Russia's recognition of Abkhazia's independence.[101]
Former self-declared states
[edit]
Gagauz Republic, declared itself the "Gagauz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" within Moldova on 12 November 1989, and the Gagauz Republic, separate from Moldova but still within the Soviet Union, on 19 August 1990; reintegrated into Moldova as an autonomous region through a law passed on 23 December 1994 which entered into force on 14 January 1995.[102][103][104]
Tatarstan, declared itself to be a sovereign state after a referendum on 21 March 1992. Negotiations with Russia led to the signing of a treaty in 1994 which ended Tatarstan's de facto independence, but reserved significant autonomy for the Tatarstan government. In 2002 a new constitution was enacted for Tatarstan which removed the prior constitution's declaration that Tatarstan was a sovereign state.
Republic of Crimea. The entire Crimean Peninsula has been outside the control of Ukrainian authorities since late February 2014, when Russian special forces, some disguised as "armed self-defence forces" occupied the peninsula and seized the local parliament.[105][106][107]: 11 In March 2014, a popular referendum in favor of accession to Russia was held in Crimea and Sevastopol, although Ukraine[108] and most of the international community refused to recognize the vote. The next day, the Republic of Crimea declared independence, and within days Russia absorbed the peninsula. Ukraine continues to claim Crimea as an integral part of its territory.
Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, where Dzhokhar Dudayev declared independence from Russia in 1991, leading to a violent war between local separatist forces and the Russian army. Russia first invaded in 1994, withdrawing after a deal for increased autonomy was granted in 1996. Tensions have continued in the years since then, and the conflict has spilled over into neighbouring regions such as Dagestan, Ingushetia and North Ossetia–Alania. The break away region was disestablished in 2000 after the Second Chechen War with Chechnya rejoining the Russian Federation.[109]
Donetsk People's Republic and
Luhansk People's Republic, states which declared independence from Ukraine in 2014. The two breakaway states were recognized by Russia on 21 February 2022, followed by North Korea and Syria, and they were subsequently annexed by Russia on 4 October of that year after a controversial referendum that were recognized as sham referendums.
Republic of Artsakh, which declared independence from the Soviet Union. Ethnic conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis began in 1988, and expanded into a war which lasted until a ceasefire in 1994. Sporadic attempts at negotiating a final peace and sporadic bursts of violence have continued up until September 2023 when Azerbaijan launched another military offensive. The government of Artsakh agreed to disarm and enter talks with Azerbaijan, prompting a flight of ethnic Armenians from the area. The president of Artsakh also signed a decree calling for the republic to dissolve itself by 1 January 2024.[110][111][112]
Kurdish Republic of Lachin, proclaimed in 1992 during First Nagorno-Karabakh War. Territory later taken over by Artsakh forces.[113]
Talysh-Mughan, declared autonomy within Azerbaijan, that lasted from June to August 1993.[114]
Civil wars
[edit]Civil wars unrelated to separatist movements have occurred twice in the region:
- The Georgian Civil War between the forces of Zviad Gamsakhurdia and Eduard Shevardnadze. The war ended after Russian forces intervened in support of Shevardnadze's government, which in turn agreed to join the Commonwealth of Independent States.
- The Tajikistani Civil War that lasted between 1992 and 1997.
Colour revolutions
[edit]Since 2003, a number of (largely) peaceful "colour revolutions" have happened in some post-Soviet states after disputed elections, with popular protests bringing into power the former opposition.
- The Rose Revolution in Georgia, leading to the resignation of Eduard Shevardnadze
- The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, bringing into power Viktor Yushchenko and toppling the pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych
- The Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, leading to the resignation of Askar Akayev
- The Velvet Revolution in Armenia, leading to the resignation of Serzh Sargsyan
Russian population in post-Soviet states
[edit]There is a significant Russophone population in most of the post-Soviet states, whose political position as an ethnic minority varies from country to country.[115] While Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, in addition to Russia, have kept Russian as an official language, the language lost its status in other post-Soviet states after the end of the Soviet Union. It maintains semi-official status in all CIS member states, because it is the organisation's official working language, but in the three Baltic states, the Russian language is not recognized in any official capacity. Georgia, since its departure from the CIS in 2009, has begun operating its government almost exclusively in the Georgian language.
Religion
[edit]While the Soviet system placed severe restrictions on religious intellectual life, traditions continued to survive. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Islamic movements have emerged alongside ethnic and secular ones. Vitaly Naumkin gives the following assessment: "Throughout the time of change, Islam has served as a symbol of identity, a force for mobilization, and a pressure for democracy. This is one of the few social disasters that the church has survived, in which it was not the cause. But if successful politically, it faces economic challenges beyond its grasp."[116]
The Central Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) plus Azerbaijan in the Southern Caucasus are Muslim, except for their dwindling Russian and other European minorities. The Baltic countries are historically Western Christian (Protestant and Roman Catholic), which adds another layer of pro-Western orientation to those countries, although the majority of what has been the traditionally Protestant population there (in Estonia and northern Latvia) is now relatively irreligious. The dominant religion in the other former Soviet countries (Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine) is Eastern Orthodox Christianity, while Armenia is Apostolic Christian.
LGBTQ rights
[edit]LGBT people may encounter difficulties not shared by non-LGBT residents. In Transnistria homosexuality is illegal. In some other regions, such as Russia and Ukraine, homosexual actions are legal, but there is still discrimination and bias towards the gay community. In June 2023, Estonia became the first former Soviet state to legalize same-sex marriage and joint adoption for gay couples.
Environment
[edit]The Soviet Union inherited environmental problems from the pre-Revolutionary era that it blamed on the failings and evils of capitalism.[117] The Soviet Union promoted environmental sentiments; it had a constitutional clause on environmental protection and promoted the idea that, by ending capitalism, environmental problems would cease to arise.[117][118] Some environmental strides were made, such as the banning of lead-based paint and leaded gasoline in the 20th century.[118] However, the prioritization of industrial production over environmental protection meant that many environmental issues were left to post-Soviet institutions, particularly air and water pollution in the Northern regions where industrialism was heaviest.[119] The Northern countries of Central Europe, including Poland, East Germany and Czechoslovakia formed what is referred to as the "black triangle" due to their heavy use of brown coal for energy.[119] Environmental degradation in the former Soviet Union is attributed to rapid industrialization and a lack of institutions that were able to curb pollution levels.[120] Many republics of the Soviet Union experienced soil degradation due to collective farming[119] In the 1970s, a Soviet study revealed vast technological inefficiencies in the USSR: compared to the West, the USSR created double the amount of pollutants for each product produced, and quadruple the amount of pollution for each car.[117] The Soviet regime also withheld information regarding the environmental problems facing them, and when these problems became evident to the public, authorities continued to attribute them to capitalism.[117] The Chernobyl disaster was a turning point in which the Soviets had to take responsibility for a huge environmental disaster amid pressures to disclose information regarding its causes and consequences, and this led to a broader discussion about the state of the environment as well as to concerns about nuclear energy.[117] As general unrest grew in the final years of the Soviet Union, the public began to demand environmental reform as part of their resistance to Communism. Many citizens wanted to capitalize on the political turnover to achieve an environmentalist agenda.[121] There was a push away from coal and towards cleaner forms of energy in the 1980s,[119] and 1986–1987 saw the first wave of environmental protests.[117] Village Prose literature by authors such as Valentin Rasputin fostered an environmentalist sentiment.[117] The Soviet "Green Front" was a populist environmental movement that had five subgroups: the Social-Ecological Union which promoted environmental solutions based in ecological practice, the Ecological Union which advocated for greater monitoring of pollution, the Ecological Foundation that sought to create funds through pollution taxes, the Ecological Society of the Soviet Union that called for a return to the Russian way of life that was closely connected to nature, and the All-Union Movement of Greens which was a culminating body of the four preceding groups.[117] Russian oil-drilling and the military were among the things they took issue with.[117] Critics of the Green Front opposed their effects on the chemical industry and claimed that it led to reduced commercial product availability of items such as soap, which was in very short supply in the late 1980s, and restricted access to pharmaceutical goods.[117]
It was expected that the transition to post-Soviet society would bring about environmental change from both democratic governments and NGOs, but the dissolution of the Soviet Union had both positive and negative effects on the environment. Transition brought about numerous changes that had both positive and negative environmental effects. The abandonment of croplands following dissolution of the Soviet Union led to the creation of carbon sinks.[122] Industrial activity drastically decreased, which reduced air pollution even as the economy took an upturn.[119] However, the introduction of a capitalist market caused new environmental problems: the increase in privately owned cars and the infrastructure changes to accommodate them, the increase in consumerism with no waste management to handle its byproducts, and the poorly planned construction of retail sites.[119][123] Environmental clean-up efforts by post-Soviet regimes included institutional changes through the creation of or reformation of environmental agencies, and legislative changes through the introduction of new environmental regulations and their enforcement.[119] However, some contend that the efficacy of these reforms was curtailed by economic troubles in the 1990s.[119] New environmental standards were sometimes used by governments to lower preexisting ones, and many of the post-Soviet initiatives have been criticized as "neoliberal" for their basis in free market principles and belief that the market would correct for environmental problems.[119] Technological innovation was generally directed towards "end-of-pipe" technologies, which deal with the clean-up of emissions and their byproducts rather than the reduction of emissions.[123]
Nongovernmental environmental organizations did not exist under the Soviet Union.[124] Rather, some republics had state and local institutions for environmental oversight where citizens could voice concerns, but open criticism of the state was prohibited.[124] Conservation brigades, otherwise known as druzhiny,[117] engaged in preservationist and recreational outdoor activities.[124] However, environmental damage and openings in political freedom in the 1980s led to greater grassroots activism.[124] The Chernobyl disaster of 1986, its cover-up by national, republic and local government officials, and its environmental and health effects spurred many to action.[124] General dissatisfaction with the socialist regime and a push for democratization took an environmental focus.[124] As Soviet citizens became more comfortable with the Gorbachev-era ideals of glasnost and perestroika in the late 20th century, environmentalists became more outspoken in their demands, and radical splinter groups formed in the late 1980s.[124] The opening of borders led to the spread of ideas and partnership with international environmental NGOs who were able to visit and converse with environmentalists of post-Soviet nations.[124] The conservation state institutions from the Soviet era continued to exist into the post-Soviet era but experienced difficulty getting funding due to their connection with the socialist regime in national memory.[124] New environmental NGOs had challenges receiving funding as well as organizing, and the NGOs that survived were not as influential on national decision-making as the state.[121][124] Many NGOs expressed disappointment with the lack of substantial environmental change during times of political transformation.[123] It has also been contended that environmental issues are of little importance to Russian citizens today.[121] Many former-Soviet citizens abandoned their earlier interest in the environment after the achievement of independence, while continued demands for environmental reform were suppressed.
Russia
[edit]Russia has an expansive amount of land which contains a high amount of natural resources and biodiversity. Protected natural areas, or zapovedniki, were created under the Soviet Union.[125] Soviet leaders attributed former pollution and environmental degradation in Russia to private enterprise and capitalism.[125] However, environmental problems arose in Russia under the Soviets because industrialization was favored over environmentalism, and there was little discussion on how to properly use resources and they were depreciated.[125] The task of environmental governance was distributed among 15 different ministries.[125] There is controversy among academics as to whether environmental destruction under the Soviet Union can be attributed more to Marxist ideology or to the industrialization push.[125]
In 1988, the Central Committee and the USSR Council of Ministers formed the USSR Union Republic State Committee for Environmental Control, or the Goskompriroda.[117][125] The intention of this institution was resource management and environmental testing and oversight.[117] Eventually, however, the Goskompriroda was accused of holding "entrepreneurial interests," particularly related to nuclear power.[117] The 1990s saw experiments in taxing pollution of various forms, though this was largely ineffective due to the low charge levels and inflation, as well as more areas of protected land, but there was difficulty overseeing these areas due to small budgets.[125] In 1991, the Federal Act on the Protection of the Natural Environment was passed in the independent Russian Federation, and the Goskompriroda became the Ministry of the Environment, or the Minpriroda, and developed sustainable development goals.[117][125] In 1996, Yeltsin demoted the Ministry of the Environment to the State Committee on Environmental Protection, and in 2000 Putin ended the State Committee on Environmental Protection and the Federal Forestry Service and tasked the Ministry of Natural Resources with their responsibilities.[125] In 2001, to the ire of many environmental advocates, Russia passed a law that allowed the acceptance, treatment, and storage of nuclear fuel from other nations for profit.[125] The Environmental Doctrine was passed in 2002, the Water Code was passed in 2006, and the Forest Code was passed in 2007, though these policies have been critiqued for the difficulty in enforcing them.[125] Today, Russia has a low population density with most citizens gathered in the cities, so environmental degradation is concentrated in certain areas.[125] Putin is criticized by environmental advocates for prioritizing economic gain over environmental protection, and there are high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and frequent oil spills.[125]
Ukraine
[edit]Ukraine is made up of a diverse landscape consisting of plains, temperate forest and mountains, five densely populated cities, and agricultural land that makes up 70% of the country.[126] Ukraine heavily increased industrial and agricultural production in the Soviet period, which had negative effects on the environment, as did the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.[126] Many of these issues have not been addressed post-independence due to lack of funding. Since independence, Ukraine has experienced a decrease in agricultural and industrial productivity and an increase in diseases, birth abnormalities and child mortality, claimed to have been caused at least in part from the Chernobyl disaster and from polluted water and air.[126] The number of cars in Ukraine has increased post-independence.[126] Sewage waste has increased, but there has been no increase in wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate it, diverting the waste into natural bodies of water; the Black and Azov seas have been polluted by wastewater, though this occurs less with the reduction of industry; agricultural runoff has led to decreased fish populations, particularly in the Azov Sea.[126] The damming of the Dnipro for hydroelectric power caused flooding in local and residential areas, though the river has been recovering from contamination caused by the Chernobyl disaster.[126] Radioactive waste remains from the Chernobyl accident, the uranium industry, mining and industrial processing.[126] There are numerous environmental agencies in Ukraine. In 1991, the Ukrainian Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) was formed. It manages the environment and its resources, but it has experienced decreased funding and staff since 1996.[126] There is also the Ministry for Forestry, the State Committee on Geology and Natural Resource Use, the State Committee on Water Management, the State Committee on Land Use, the Health Ministry, the Road Traffic Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the State Committee on Hydrometeorology. Environmental education was also introduced into the school curriculum in the 1990s by the Ministry of Education.[126] Zelenyi svit, or "Green World", was a successful Ukrainian environmental organization whose mission was to hold the Ukrainian government accountable for their environmental failings, particularly the Chernobyl disaster, and to protect the Azov Sea through preventing construction of the Danube-Dnieper Canal.[117]
Central Asia
[edit]Proper water resource management is a significant environmental concern in the post-Soviet nations of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and the Karakalpakstan region, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.[127] Central Asia has an arid climate with hot summers and cold winters.[127] Once within the USSR, the Aral Sea Basin now crosses the geopolitical boundaries of these independent nations. Along with the Aral Sea Basin, Central Asia nations also extract freshwater from the Syr Darya, Amu Darya and Zeravshan rivers.[127] These rivers receive the snowmelt of surrounding mountains.[127]
Following the fall of the Soviet Union, the newly independent states kept their Soviet-era internal administrative structure but were unpracticed in cross-national natural resource management.[127] This has led to conflict regarding proper water allocation to meet the agricultural, industrial and consumer demands of these nations.[127] Water quality degradation, diversion and withdrawal has led to increased insecurity and conflict.[127]
Most of the water is used for irrigation of agriculture, with Uzbekistan the largest user of agricultural water.[127] Uzbekistan has double the population of its fellow nations and uses 3/5 of regional water supplies.[127] Together, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan use twice the amount of water for industrial activities used by Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.[127]
The Interstate Coordinating Commission for Water Resources was formed in 1991 to allocate water from the Syr Darya and Amu Darya but has had difficulty distributing water fairly among nations due to limited funding and physical infrastructure.[127] This has led to conflict between the states.
To alleviate the stress on water resources in Central Asia, international organizations looking at the situation have advocated for creation of a river basin commission to represent each nation, equitably distribute water, and peacefully resolve conflicts.[127] It has also been suggested that each nation take responsibility by limiting its downstream environmental effects through reducing agricultural runoff, informing fellow nations of proposed actions which may impact water quality and supply, and sharing data regarding these natural water sources.[127]
Baltic states
[edit]The three Baltic countries—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania—were part of the Soviet Union from the end of WWII until they restored independence in 1991. Afterwards, they have had difficulty acquiring fuels and meeting their energy needs.[128] For this reason, they were reliant on Russian oil, and did not have the capacity to acquire fuel from other producers, which had led to frequent fuel shortages.[128] Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania primarily used fossil fuels for energy including imported gas, oil and petroleum products.[128] The Baltic states used fuels with high amounts of sulfur and pollutants, which has had a negative effect on the environment. Power plants constructed in the Baltic states under the USSR were inefficient, as they were designed to power the entire northwestern region of Soviet territory.[128] During this time, environmental monitoring and regulation were controlled at the local level, but the Baltic states had little influence over the state-managed industrial activities in their area.[128]
Concern for the environment fueled a desire for independence from the USSR.[128] Since declaring independence, the energy consumption of the Baltic states has declined due to a decrease in industrial activity, and each nation has created its own environmental oversight body: the Ministry of Environment in Estonia, the Environmental Protection Committee in Latvia, and the Environmental Protection Department in Latvia, all of which were under the legislative branch but independent from executive government.[128] Air pollution was high in the Baltic states due to the high sulfur and other pollutants emitted from their fuel sources. Water pollution was also considerable due to agricultural and industrial activity, as well as the legacy of Soviet military installations.[128] Emission charges were enacted in the Baltic states to reduce pollution levels.[128]
Estonia
[edit]Northeastern Estonia and the Narva region in particular was the site of an oil-shale industry which provided electricity and heat.[128] Estonia was the only nation to have ever had an oil-shale based energy system.[128] Mining for oil-shale caused Estonia to have the highest amounts of pollution in the Baltic states.[128] Surrounding nations pressured Estonia to reduce its emissions, but a lack of desulfurization equipment has forced Estonia to instead lower its energy production, which has hurt the nation economically.[128] Water pollution has also been considered among the worst of Estonia's environmental problems because it does not have the infrastructure to effectively treat as much sewage as is created.[128]
Latvia
[edit]Latvia produces the least amount of power and pollution and has the highest amount of forest damage of all the Baltic states.[128]
Lithuania
[edit]Lithuania is the largest producer of electricity of all three Baltic states.[128] Lithuania's land area is roughly 31% forested and is both state and privately owned.[129] Under the USSR, forest and other natural resources were state-owned and centrally managed.[129] The State determined how resources would be used and excluded the public from influencing forest policy.[129] The transition to a post-Soviet political and economic system led to privatization of forests and a market economy.[129] Today, Lithuania's forests are managed democratically and sustainably so as to preserve biodiversity and forest resources.[129]
Post-Soviet nostalgia
[edit]
Ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union a certain number of people (predominantly people around the age of ~ 55–80, which is most likely due to the USSR's peak performance in the time of Brezhnev) have expressed a longing for the Soviet period and its values. The level of post-Soviet nostalgia varies across the former republics. For example, certain groups of people may blend the Soviet and post-Soviet experience in their daily lives.[clarification needed][130]
A 2009 Pew Research Center poll showed that 62% of Ukrainians felt that their lives were worse off after 1989, when free markets were made dominant.[131] A follow-up poll by Pew Research Center in 2011 showed that 45% of Lithuanians, 42% of Russians, and 34% of Ukrainians approved of the change to a post-Soviet market economy.[132]
According to July 2012 polling in Ukraine by RATING, 42% of respondents supported the formation of a unified state of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus; earlier in 2012 this support had been 48%.[133]
Polls of Russian citizens conducted by Levada Center in November 2016, 2017, and 2018 showed that a majority viewed the collapse of the USSR negatively (56%, 58%, and 66% respectively) and felt that it could have been avoided (51%, 52%, and 60% respectively). The 2018 figure of 66% who regretted the USSR's collapse was the highest since 2004.[134][135][136] A 2019 poll found that 59% of Russians felt that the Soviet government "took care of ordinary people". Joseph Stalin's favorability also hit record highs that same year.[137]
Characteristics of regionalization
[edit]
Various regional structures have emerged in the post-Soviet geography, which is fragmented in political and geopolitical terms. The first of these was the Independent State Society (CIS), which included former Soviet countries outside the Baltic countries. The failure of the CIS to meet the foreign policy needs of many post-Soviet countries has set the stage for a new regional integration. At the initiative of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova, a GUAM organization was established in Strasbourg on 10 October 1997.[138] The purpose and principles of the organization were determined at the first summit of GUAM on 7 June 2001 in Yalta. The countries participating in the GUAM aimed to maintain their national independence and sovereignty and to increase their maneuverability against Russia.[139]
See also
[edit]- Border states (Eastern Europe)
- Decommunization
- Eurasianism
- Frozen conflict
- Limitrophe states
- Near abroad
- New Union Treaty
- Operation Provide Hope
- Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe statistics
- Pan-Slavism
- Second World
- Sino-Soviet split
- Soviet Empire
- Soviet patriotism
- Sovietization
- Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization
- Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations
References
[edit]- ^ "Managing Conflict in the Former Soviet Union: Russian and American Perspectives". harvard.edu. 30 October 1997. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 2 December 2015.
- ^ "Андрей Козырев: "Союз оставил России плохое внешнеполитическое наследство"". 20 March 2022.
- ^ Van Elsuwege, Peter (2008). From Soviet Republics to Eu Member States: A Legal and Political Assessment of the Baltic States' Accession to the EU. Studies in EU External Relations. Vol. 1. Brill. p. xxii. ISBN 9789004169456.
- ^ Smith, David James (2001). Estonia. Routledge. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-415-26728-1.
- ^ a b Lane, David (December 2007). "Post-Communist States and the European Union". Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics. 23 (4): 461–477. doi:10.1080/13523270701674558. ISSN 1352-3279.
- ^ Moga, Teodor Lucian; Alexeev, Denis (2013). "Post-Soviet States Between Russia and the EU: Reviving Geopolitical Competition? A Dual Perspective" (PDF). Connections. 13 (1): 41–52. doi:10.11610/Connections.13.1.03. JSTOR 26326349.
- ^ Jozwiak, Rikard (5 April 2019). "EU, Ex-Soviet Republics To Extend Partnership Beyond 2020". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Retrieved 10 August 2021.
- ^ Danilova, Maria; Dahlburg, John-Thor (17 March 2014). "Crimea declares independence". The Boston Globe. Associated Press. Retrieved 10 August 2021.
- ^ a b William Safire (22 May 1994). "On Language; The Near Abroad". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 April 2008.
- ^ Robert Kagan (6 February 2008). "New Europe, Old Russia". The Washington Post. Retrieved 18 April 2008.
- ^ Steven Erlanger (25 February 2001). "The World; Learning to Fear Putin's Gaze". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 April 2008.
- ^ APStylebook (5 July 2023). "We have new guidance on AP Stylebook Online, recommending that writers avoid the shorthand former Soviet republic(s) for any of the group of 14 countries besides Russia that existed within the former Soviet Union, unless clearly relevant to the story". Twitter. Retrieved 6 July 2023.
- ^ Lerman, Zvi, Csaki, Csaba, and Feder, Gershon (2004). Agriculture in Transition: Land Policies and Evolving Farm Structure in Post-Soviet Countries. Lanham MD, USA: Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-0806-9.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Human Development Report 2025 - A matter of choice: People and possibilities in the age of AI. United Nations Development Programme. 6 May 2025. Archived from the original on 6 May 2025. Retrieved 6 May 2025.
- ^ Area includes land and water.
- ^ "Time series / Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia". www.armstat.am. Retrieved 28 February 2025.
- ^ "Azərbaycanda demoqrafik". www.stat.gov.az. AZSTAT (portal ASIS). Retrieved 29 August 2025.
- ^ "Population at the beginning of 2022". belstat.gov.by. Archived from the original on 5 January 2023. Retrieved 3 August 2022.
- ^ "Population figure". Retrieved 27 April 2025.
- ^ Georgia's international recognised area is 69,700 km2 (26,900 sq mi), including Abkhazia and South Ossetia
- ^ "საქართველოს სტატისტიკის ეროვნული სამსახური". www.geostat.ge. Retrieved 9 May 2025. Excludes data of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
- ^ "Population in Abkhazia". DataReportal. 3 March 2025.
- ^ Population data for 2021. "Статистический сборник за январь-декабрь 2021 г. (Statistical digest for January–December 2021)" (in Russian). Department of State Statistics of the Republic of South Ossetia. 29 March 2022. Archived from the original on 28 January 2023. Retrieved 20 July 2022.
- ^ "Population". www.stat.gov.kz. QAZSTAT. Retrieved 1 October 2025.
- ^ "Население". Retrieved 15 July 2025.
- ^ "IRS010m. Population and main dataSw of vital statistics 1995M01 – 2025M07". Statistikas datubāzes. Retrieved 15 August 2025.
- ^ "Pradžia – Oficialiosios statistikos portalas". osp.stat.gov.lt. Retrieved 5 September 2025.
- ^ Moldova's international recognised area is 33,843 km2 (13,067 sq mi), including Transnistria
- ^ "Population". statistica.gov.md. Biroului Național de Statistică (BNS). Retrieved 12 June 2025.. Does not include population data for Transnistria (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic).
- ^ Moldovian estimate March 2024. "Peste 358 mii de locuitori din Regiunea Transnistreană dețin cetățenia Republicii Moldova și peste 367 mii figurează în registrul de stat al populației". www.gov.md/ro (in Romanian). Guvernul Republicii Moldova (Biroul Politici de Reintegrare). 17 April 2024. Retrieved 19 April 2024.
- ^ The Russian Federation technically achieved de facto independence from the Soviet Union after ratifying the Belavezha Accords. After the Almaty protocol, the RF took over the Soviet Union's UN membership.
- ^ Includes the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol. "Оценка численности постоянного населения на 1 января 2025 г. [Estimated permanent population on 1 January 2025]". www.rosstat.gov.ru (in Russian). Russian Federal State Statistics Service (Росстат). Retrieved 11 February 2025.
- ^ "Population". www.stat.tj. TAJSTAT. Retrieved 1 July 2025.
- ^ Population data as of 17 December 2022 "Итоги сплошной переписи населения и жилищного фонда Туркменистана 2022 года". www.stat.gov.tm/. 14 July 2023. Archived from the original on 20 July 2023. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
- ^ IMF estimate 2025 "World Economic Outlook Database, April 2025 Edition. (Ukraine)". www.imf.org. International Monetary Fund. 22 April 2025. Retrieved 28 May 2025.
- ^ "Permanent Population". www.stat.uz. Государственный комитет Республики Узбекистан по статистике – Демографические данные. Retrieved 29 August 2025.
- ^ 1990 UN data: "Human Development Report 1990" (PDF). HDRO (Human Development Report Office) United Nations Development Programme. January 1990. p. 111. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 February 2019. Retrieved 1 September 2020.
- ^ a b Holds both presidency and executive powers as the Prime Minister of Turkmenistan role was abolished.
- ^ Transition: The First Ten Years – Analysis and Lessons for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 2002, p. 4.
- ^ GDP decline: transition and Great Depression compared, Kalikova and Associates Law Firm, Kyrgyzstan. Retrieved 13 January 2009.
- ^ Study Finds Poverty Deepening in Former Communist Countries, New York Times, 12 October 2000
- ^ Scheidel, Walter (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press. p. 222. ISBN 978-0691165028.
- ^ "Death surge linked with mass privatisation". University of Oxford. 2009. Archived from the original on 2 July 2014. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
- ^ Privatisation 'raised death rate'. BBC, 15 January 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2014.
- ^ Ghodsee, Kristen; Orenstein, Mitchell A. (2021). Taking Stock of Shock: Social Consequences of the 1989 Revolutions. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 195–196. doi:10.1093/oso/9780197549230.001.0001. ISBN 978-0197549247.
In the mortality belt of the European former Soviet Union, an aggressive health policy intervention might have prevented tens of thousands of excess deaths, or at least generated a different perception of Western intentions. Instead, Western self-congratulatory triumphalism, the political priority to irreversibly destroy the communist system, and the desire to integrate East European economies into the capitalist world at any cost took precedence.
- ^ Rosefielde, Steven (2001). "Premature Deaths: Russia's Radical Economic Transition in Soviet Perspective". Europe-Asia Studies. 53 (8): 1159–1176. doi:10.1080/09668130120093174. S2CID 145733112.
- ^ "Edit/Review Countries". 9 May 2006. Archived from the original on 9 May 2006.
- ^ Ghodsee, Kristen (2017). Red Hangover: Legacies of Twentieth-Century Communism. Duke University Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0822369493.
- ^ Milanović, Branko (2015). "After the Wall Fell: The Poor Balance Sheet of the Transition to Capitalism". Challenge. 58 (2): 135–138. doi:10.1080/05775132.2015.1012402. S2CID 153398717.
- ^ Ghodsee, Kristen; Orenstein, Mitchell A. (2021). Taking Stock of Shock: Social Consequences of the 1989 Revolutions. Oxford University Press. p. 184. doi:10.1093/oso/9780197549230.001.0001. ISBN 978-0197549247.
Ghodsee, who had conducted much of her research in the Balkans or East Germany among women and ethnic minorities, believed that Milanović's findings were essentially correct but were most likely underestimating the negative impacts of transition by focusing only on GDP, inequality, and democratic consolidation. Orenstein, on the other hand, whose early career was spent conducting research on the transition process in Poland and the Czech Republic, believed that Milanović's findings were overly pessimistic. Poland had done spectacularly well and living standards had increased in many countries.
- ^ Vértesy, László (2017). "Constitutional Bases of Public Finances in the Central and Eastern European Countries". 25th NISPAcee Annual Conference: Innovation Governance in the Public Sector. Rochester, NY. SSRN 3157175.
- ^ "GDP growth (annual %)". World Bank Group. Retrieved 2 December 2015.
- ^ "Report for Selected Countries and Subjects". International Monetary Fund.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i "Federal State Statistics Service (April 25, 2025)".
- ^ "Статистичний збірник «Чисельність наявного населення України» на 1 січня 2021 року" (PDF).
- ^ ""Toshkent shahar statistika boshqarmasi"".
- ^ "National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic".
- ^ ""Number of present population of Ukraine 1 January 2022"" (PDF).
- ^ "Office of National Statistics".
- ^ ""Population"".
- ^ "Office of National Statistics". Retrieved 25 May 2025.
- ^ ""Population of Minsk"".
- ^ "Population by regions". Archived from the original on 3 June 2021.
- ^ ""ШУМОРАИ АЊОЛИИ ЉУМЊУРИИ ТОЉИКИСТОН ТО 1 ЯНВАРИ СОЛИ 2022"" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 October 2022.
- ^ "Office of National Statistics".
- ^ a b Ratification status of CIS documents as of 15 January 2008 Archived 30 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine (Russian)
- ^ Turkmenistan reduces CIS ties to "Associate Member", Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 29 August 2005.
- ^ Georgian parliament votes to withdraw from CIS on BBC News, 14 August 2008.
- ^ Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia on Georgia's withdrawal from CIS Archived 3 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine, 18 August 2008.
- ^ CIS Charter, 22 January 1993 (unofficial English translation).
- ^ "Ukraine Says It Could Quit Russia-Led Bloc". Reuters. Reuters. 19 March 2014. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
- ^ RFE/RL (19 October 2011). "Most CIS Countries Sign Up To Free-Trade Zone". RFE/RL. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
- ^ "Gagauzia Voters Reject Closer EU Ties For Moldova". RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. 4 February 2014. Retrieved 2 December 2015.
- ^ a b Ukraine cannot get observer status at Eurasian Econ Union due to Association Agreement with EU, Russia, Interfax-Ukraine (14 June 2013)
- ^ Barron, Lisa (1 October 2013). "Belarus eases current account deficit with Customs Union, Common Economic Space". Cistran Finance. Retrieved 25 October 2013.
- ^ Евразийские комиссары получат статус федеральных министров. Tut.By (in Russian). 17 November 2011. Archived from the original on 9 October 2019. Retrieved 19 November 2011.
- ^ "Договор о Евразийском экономическом союзе". Archived from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 13 January 2015.
- ^ Дмитрий. "ДОГОВОР О ПРИСОЕДИНЕНИИ РЕСПУБЛИКИ АРМЕНИЯ К ДОГОВОРУ О ЕВРАЗИЙСКОМ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОМ СОЮЗЕ ОТ 29 МАЯ 2014 ГОДА (Минск, 10 октября 2014 года)". customs-code.ru. Archived from the original on 25 December 2014. Retrieved 2 December 2015.
- ^ "Kyrgyzstan, Armenia officially enter Eurasian Economic Union". World Bulletin. 24 December 2014. Archived from the original on 26 December 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Signed agreement opens up new possibilities for Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, starting from 1st January 2015
- ^ "Putin said the accession of Kyrgyzstan to the EAEC" (in Russian). Life News. 23 December 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Kyrgyzstan is among the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEC). Kyrgyzstan will participate in the governing bodies of the EAEC since the start of the Union – from 1 January 2015.
- ^ "EAEC: stillborn union?" (in Russian). Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Eurasian Economic Union added December 23 Armenia and Kyrgyzstan.
- ^ Farchy, Jack (23 December 2014). "Eurasian unity under strain even as bloc expands". The Financial Times. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Kyrgyzstan on Tuesday a signed a treaty to join the Eurasian Economic Union, expanding the membership of Moscow-led project to five even as its unity is strained by the market turmoil gripping Russia.
- ^ "Eurasian Economic Union to Launch on January 1". The Trumpet. 24 December 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan agreed to a January 1 inauguration.
- ^ "Атамбаев утвердил присоединение Киргизии к ЕАЭС". www.interfax.ru. Retrieved 20 December 2023.
- ^ "Tajikistan Expresses Readiness to Become Customs Union (...)". gca.satrapia.com. Retrieved 20 December 2023.
- ^ "SONDAJ Cum văd locuitorii din Republica Moldova unirea cu România". adevarul.ro (in Romanian). 8 February 2022. Retrieved 20 December 2023.
- ^ "Uzbekistan Suspends Its Membership in CSTO". The Gazette of Central Asia. 29 June 2012. Retrieved 29 June 2012.
- ^ Kizilov, Yevhen (8 June 2017). "Рада зробила пріоритетом для України вступ до НАТО" [Verkhovna Rada made joining NATO a priority for Ukraine]. Ukrayinska Pravda (in Ukrainian). Retrieved 14 February 2018.
- ^ "Poroshenko: EU, NATO membership remains Ukraine's strategic goal, not prospect of 2018". UNIAN. 6 January 2018. Retrieved 14 February 2018.
- ^ "Regional organisations in the post-Soviet space" (PDF). Europarl1.europa.eu. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
- ^ "2025 World Press Freedom Index | Reporters Without Borders". Rsf.org. 30 January 2013. Retrieved 8 July 2025.
- ^ "Managed leadership succession in Kazakhstan: A model for gradual departure?". Fiia.fi (in Finnish). 16 March 2020. Retrieved 10 August 2021.
- ^ Higgins, Andrew (2 April 2018). "As Authoritarianism Spreads, Uzbekistan Goes the Other Way". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 10 August 2021.
- ^ "Kyrgyzstan: between democratisation and authoritarianism". Gis-reseau-asie.org. Archived from the original on 10 August 2021. Retrieved 10 August 2021.
- ^ agencies, Staff and (21 December 2006). "The personality cult of Turkmenbashi". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 August 2021.
- ^ Sattarov, Rafael. "Turkmen Leader's Personality Cult Goes Viral". Carnegie.ru. Retrieved 10 August 2021.
- ^ "Kazakhstan flirts with dynastic succession Dariga Nazarbayeva has led a charmed life. / Kazakhstan's Democratic Forces Forum". Archived from the original on 12 March 2005. Retrieved 5 April 2005.
- ^ "National Construction, Territorial Separatism and Post-Soviet Geopolitics: The Example of the Transdniester Moldovan Republic" (PDF). Colorado.edu. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
- ^ "Trans-Dniester profile". BBC News. 26 December 2011.
- ^ "Regions and territories: South Ossetia". BBC News. 25 April 2012.
- ^ "Regions and territories: Abkhazia". BBC News. 12 March 2012.
- ^ Chinn, Jeff; Roper, Steven (1998). "Territorial autonomy in Gagauzia". Nationalities Papers. 26 (1): 87–101. doi:10.1080/00905999808408552. S2CID 154359743.
But on 19 August 1990, the Gagauz elite, led by President Stepan Topal and Supreme Soviet Chairperson Mihail Kendighelean, quickly took the next step, declaring Gagauzia to be independent of Moldova and subject only to central Soviet authority
- ^ Neukirch, Claus (2002). "Autonomy And Conflict Transformation: The Case Of The Gagauz Territorial Autonomy In The Republic Of Moldova". In Gal, Kinga (ed.). Minority Governance in Europe (PDF). Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Initiative, Open Society Institute. pp. 105–123. ISBN 9639419400. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 October 2014. Retrieved 9 October 2014.
On 12 November 1989, a "Gagauz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" was proclaimed by an assembly in Comrat ... In reaction to the Moldovan declaration of sovereignty, on 19 August 1990 the Gagauz leadership proclaimed a "Gagauz Soviet Socialist Republic", which would be independent from Moldova, but part of the Soviet Union ... on 23 December 1994 the Moldovan Parliament passed the "Law on the Special Juridical Status of Gagauzia (Gagauz-Yeri)"
- ^ Zabarah, Dareg (2012). "Opportunity structures and group building processes: An institutional analysis of the secession processes in Pridnestrovie and Gagauzia between 1989 and 1991". Soviet and Communist Studies. 45 (1–2).
According to the first point of its declaration, the Gagauz Republic "is a sovereign, socialist, soviet and multinational state
- ^ Zakurdaeva, Kristina; Maglov, Mikhail (3 December 2019). "The Crimea Circumvention: How EU Firms Are Sidestepping Sanctions And Making Money On The Peninsula". Current Time TV. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
- ^ Carl Schreck (26 February 2019). "From 'Not Us' To 'Why Hide It?': How Russia Denied Its Crimea Invasion, Then Admitted It". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
- ^ Galeotti, Mark (2019). Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine. Elite 228. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. pp. 11–12. ISBN 9781472833440.
- ^ "Ukraine PM rejects Crimea referendum, vows to defend country". CBC News. 6 March 2014. Retrieved 6 August 2014.
- ^ "Regions and territories: Chechnya". BBC News. 22 November 2011.
- ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic will cease to exist from Jan 1 2024 – Nagorno-Karabakh authorities". Reuters. 28 September 2023. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 28 September 2023.
- ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh almost empty as most of population flees to Armenia". Radio France Internationale. 30 September 2023. Archived from the original on 2 October 2023. Retrieved 30 September 2023.
- ^ "Regions and territories: Nagorno-Karabakh". BBC News. 10 January 2012.
- ^ "Lachin Kurdish Republic is declared". KurdishMedia. 30 November 2000. Archived from the original on 4 October 2013. Retrieved 5 May 2025.
- ^ "Azerbaijan in a stir over political prisoner". BBC News. 6 February 2003. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
- ^ Robert Greenall, Russians left behind in Central Asia, BBC News, 23 November 2005.
- ^ Naumkin, Vitaly (November 1992). "Islam in the States of the Former USSR". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 524: 131–142. doi:10.1177/0002716292524001011. S2CID 145812443.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Bowers, Stephen (1993). "Soviet and Post-Soviet Environmental Problems" (PDF). Faculty Publications and Presentations (Liberty University). S2CID 41347149. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 December 2018.
- ^ a b Thomas, Valerie M.; Orlova, Anna O. (2001). "Soviet and Post-Soviet Environmental Management: Lessons from a Case Study on Lead Pollution". Ambio. 30 (2): 104–111. Bibcode:2001Ambio..30..104T. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-30.2.104. JSTOR 4315114. PMID 11374307. S2CID 27761136.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Pavlínek, Petr; Pickles, John (2004). "Environmental Pasts/Environmental Futures in Post-Socialist Europe". Environmental Politics. 13 (1): 237–265. Bibcode:2004EnvPo..13..237P. doi:10.1080/09644010410001685227. S2CID 155024373.
- ^ Wernstedt, Kris (July 2002). "Environmental Protection in the Russian Federation: Lessons and Opportunities". Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 45 (4): 493–516. Bibcode:2002JEPM...45..493W. doi:10.1080/09640560220143521. ISSN 0964-0568. S2CID 154142478.
- ^ a b c Coumel, Laurent; Elie, Marc (1 January 2013). "A Belated and Tragic Ecological Revolution: Nature, Disasters, and Green Activists in the Soviet Union and the Post-Soviet States, 1960s–2010s*". The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review. 40 (2): 157–165. doi:10.1163/18763324-04002005. ISSN 1075-1262.
- ^ Schierhorn, Florian; Müller, Daniel; Beringer, Tim; Prishchepov, Alexander V.; Kuemmerle, Tobias; Balmann, Alfons (1 December 2013). "Post-Soviet cropland abandonment and carbon sequestration in European Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus". Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 27 (4): 1175–1185. Bibcode:2013GBioC..27.1175S. doi:10.1002/2013GB004654. ISSN 1944-9224. S2CID 53637765.
- ^ a b c Pavlínek, Petr; Pickles, John (1999). "Environmental Change and Post-Communist Transformations in the Czech Republic and Slovakia". Post-Soviet Geography and Economics. 40 (5): 354–382. doi:10.1080/10889388.1999.10641120.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Carmin, Joann; Fagan, Adam (2010). "Environmental mobilisation and organisations in post-socialist Europe and the former Soviet Union". Environmental Politics. 19 (5): 689–707. Bibcode:2010EnvPo..19..689C. doi:10.1080/09644016.2010.508300. S2CID 144224257.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Henry, Laura A.; Douhovnikoff, Vladimir (November 2008). "Environmental Issues in Russia". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 33 (1): 437–460. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.33.051007.082437. ISSN 1543-5938.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Nazarov, Nikolai; Cook, Hadrian F.; Woodgate, Graham (September 2001). "Environmental issues in the post-communist Ukraine". Journal of Environmental Management. 63 (1): 71–86. Bibcode:2001JEnvM..63...71N. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0460. ISSN 0301-4797. PMID 11591031.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Smith, David R. (June 1995). "Environmental Security and Shared Water Resources in Post-Soviet Central Asia". Post-Soviet Geography. 36 (6): 351–370. doi:10.1080/10605851.1995.10640997. ISSN 1060-5851.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Salay, Jürgen; Fenhann, Jörgen; Jaanimägi, Karl; Kristoferson, Lars (1 November 1993). "Energy and Environment in the Baltic States". Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 18 (1): 169–216. doi:10.1146/annurev.eg.18.110193.001125. ISSN 1056-3466.
- ^ a b c d e Lazdinis, Imantas; Angelstam, Per; Lazdinis, Marius (1 July 2007). "Maintenance of Forest Biodiversity in a Post-Soviet Governance Model: Perceptions by Local Actors in Lithuania". Environmental Management. 40 (1): 20–33. Bibcode:2007EnMan..40...20L. doi:10.1007/s00267-005-0387-8. ISSN 1432-1009. PMID 17464529. S2CID 21279014.
- ^ See: Kaprans, M. (2009) Then and now: Comparing the Soviet and Post-Soviet experience in Latvian autobiographies Archived 14 September 2010 at the Wayback MachineKeywords 2.
- ^ "End of Communism Cheered but Now with More Reservations". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. 2 November 2009. Archived from the original on 19 May 2018. Retrieved 14 May 2018.
- ^ "Confidence in Democracy and Capitalism Wanes in Former Soviet Union". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. 5 December 2011. Archived from the original on 20 May 2018. Retrieved 14 May 2018.
- ^ The language question, the results of recent research in 2012, RATING (25 May 2012)
- ^ "The Collapse of the USSR". levada.ru. Yuri Levada Analytical Center. 14 January 2019. Retrieved 24 June 2023.
- ^ "Ностальгия по СССР". levada.ru. 19 December 2018.
- ^ Maza, Christina (19 December 2018). "Russia vs. Ukraine: More Russians Want the Soviet Union and Communism Back Amid Continued Tensions". Newsweek. Retrieved 21 December 2018.
- ^ "Most Russians Say Soviet Union 'Took Care of Ordinary People' – Poll". The Moscow Times. 24 June 2019. Retrieved 5 July 2019.
- ^ Papava, V. (2008). "On The Role of The 'Caucasian Tandem' in GUAM". Central Asia and the Caucasus. S2CID 55012247.
- ^ "Promoting Geopolitical Pluralism in the CIS: GUAM and Western Foreign Policy" (PDF). Taraskuzio.com. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
Further reading
[edit]- "Geopolitical and Economic Significance of Central Eurasia: Indian Perspective". Kundu, Nivedita Das. Indian Foreign Affairs Journal; New Delhi Vol. 5, Iss. 3, (Jul–Sep 2010): 324–337.
External links
[edit]- Candid photos of the Eastern Bloc September–December 1991, in the last months of the USSR
- New Directions Post-Independence from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
- Post-Soviet Russia and its Neighbor States from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
- Discovering The Centuries-Old State Tradition, professor Pål Kolstø, University of Oslo
- Former Soviet war zones – The hazards of a long, hard freeze, The Economist, 19 August 2004
- 4 enclaves' post-Soviet fate in limbo, The Seattle Times, 20 August 2006
- Are Independence Referendums First Step Toward Kremlin's 'Historical Revanchism'?, Radio Free Europe, 15 September 2006
Post-Soviet states
View on GrokipediaOrigins and Independence
Terminology and Definition
The post-Soviet states refer to the fifteen sovereign nations that emerged from the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991, succeeding its constituent union republics. These states are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.[8] The USSR, established in 1922, comprised these republics under a federal socialist structure until its formal end on December 26, 1991, when the Supreme Soviet voted to dissolve the union following the resignation of President Mikhail Gorbachev on December 25.[9] The terminology "post-Soviet states" or "former Soviet republics" highlights their common origin from the Soviet system, encompassing shared legacies in governance, economy, language, and demographics, such as widespread use of the Russian language and Cyrillic script in many. Russia is designated the USSR's legal successor state, inheriting its permanent UN Security Council seat and nuclear arsenal, while the others gained full independence, with varying degrees of integration into international bodies like the United Nations, where all were admitted as new members by March 1992.[10] However, the term "post-Soviet" is contested, particularly by the Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—which argue it inaccurately frames their Soviet era as a natural predecessor rather than an illegal occupation stemming from the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, emphasizing instead their interwar independence and rapid post-1991 realignment toward European institutions.[11] Critics, including scholars from these nations, contend the label perpetuates a colonial or Russia-centric narrative, overlooking distinct national histories and trajectories, such as the Baltics' accession to NATO and the EU in 2004 versus the more varied paths of Central Asian or Caucasian states.[12] Despite such debates, the designation remains standard in geopolitical analysis for denoting this cohort of states navigating transitions from communist rule.[13]Dissolution of the Soviet Union
The dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted from entrenched economic inefficiencies under central planning, which produced chronic shortages and low productivity growth rates averaging under 2% annually in the 1980s, compounded by military overextension including the decade-long Afghan war that cost an estimated 15,000 Soviet lives and billions in rubles.[14][15] Mikhail Gorbachev's 1985 ascension to General Secretary introduced perestroika for economic restructuring and glasnost for political openness, intending to revitalize the system but instead exposing systemic corruption and fueling republican autonomy demands as glasnost permitted public criticism and nationalist mobilization.[15] By 1990, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia had declared independence, followed by declarations of sovereignty from other republics asserting primacy of republican laws over union ones, eroding central control.[16] A March 17, 1991, union-wide referendum on preserving a renewed federation garnered 76.4% approval among participating voters, but six republics boycotted and turnout varied, failing to halt disintegrative momentum amid worsening hyperinflation exceeding 200% and food rationing.[17] The decisive catalyst occurred August 19-21, 1991, when a committee of hard-line Communist officials, including KGB chief Vladimir Kryuchkov and Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov, attempted a coup against Gorbachev, placing him under house arrest in Crimea and declaring a state of emergency to block a new union treaty devolving powers to republics.[18][15] The coup collapsed after three days due to mass protests in Moscow, non-cooperation by military units, and defiance from Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who rallied opposition from atop a tank outside the Russian parliament building, leading to the plotters' arrest and Gorbachev's restoration but with irreparably diminished authority.[19] Post-coup, the Communist Party was banned in Russia, and republics rapidly pursued full independence, with Ukraine approving secession via referendum on December 1, 1991, by 90% vote.[20] On December 8, 1991, Yeltsin, Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk, and Belarusian leader Stanislav Shushkevich met at Belovezha Forest in Belarus, signing accords declaring the USSR defunct as a geopolitical reality and subject of international law, while creating the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) for coordinated economic and security policies without supranational authority.[21] The accords emphasized mutual recognition of borders and non-use of force, aiming to mitigate chaos from sudden fragmentation.[21] The Belavezha framework expanded December 21, 1991, in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, where leaders of eleven republics—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan—signed a protocol affirming the USSR's cessation and CIS establishment, with provisions for joint control of nuclear arsenals and foreign debt sharing.[22] Georgia initially abstained due to civil unrest but acceded in 1993.[22] On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president, transferring executive powers to Yeltsin, and the Soviet flag was lowered over the Kremlin, symbolizing the union's end; Russia assumed the USSR's United Nations Security Council seat and international treaty obligations as the continuator state.[15][20] This process yielded fifteen sovereign states, marking the abrupt termination of a superpower that had endured since 1922, with immediate consequences including economic contraction averaging 15-20% GDP drop in 1991-1992 across successor states.[15]Declarations of Sovereignty and Independence
The declarations of sovereignty and independence among the Soviet republics, often termed the "parade of sovereignties," commenced in late 1988 as a response to Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of glasnost and perestroika, which encouraged political openness and economic restructuring, thereby weakening central authority in Moscow.[23] These declarations initially asserted the primacy of republican laws and constitutions over Soviet Union-wide legislation, without immediately seeking secession, but progressively evolved into demands for full autonomy and independence. By asserting sovereignty, republics sought to control their economic resources, legislative processes, and foreign relations, reflecting underlying ethnic, economic, and historical grievances against centralized Communist rule.[24] Estonia led the process with its Declaration of Sovereignty on November 16, 1988, marking the first top-level republic to challenge Moscow's dominance explicitly. Lithuania followed with a sovereignty declaration on May 26, 1989, and Latvia on July 28, 1989, amid growing nationalist movements in the Baltic region, fueled by memories of forced incorporation in 1940. These early steps culminated in Lithuania's bold declaration of restored independence on March 11, 1990, by its newly elected parliament, the first Soviet republic to do so outright, prompting Soviet economic blockades and military tensions but ultimately galvanizing further republican assertions. Latvia declared independence on May 4, 1990, and Estonia formalized its independence restoration on March 30, 1990, though full international recognition awaited later events.[25][26] Russia's Declaration of State Sovereignty on June 12, 1990, under Boris Yeltsin, represented a pivotal escalation, as the largest republic's move undermined the Union's cohesion and inspired others; by mid-1990, all 15 republics had issued similar sovereignty declarations, prioritizing local governance over federal dictates.[27][24] Ukraine adopted its Declaration of State Sovereignty on July 16, 1990, emphasizing territorial integrity and economic independence. The attempted hardline coup in Moscow on August 19-21, 1991, discredited the central government and triggered a cascade of independence declarations: Ukraine on August 24, Belarus on August 25, and most others by early September, with Soviet recognition following reluctantly.[28][29]| Republic | Sovereignty Declaration Date | Independence Declaration Date |
|---|---|---|
| Estonia | November 16, 1988 | March 30, 1990 (restoration) |
| Lithuania | May 26, 1989 | March 11, 1990 |
| Latvia | July 28, 1989 | May 4, 1990 |
| Russia | June 12, 1990 | December 25, 1991 (effective) |
| Ukraine | July 16, 1990 | August 24, 1991 |
Political Landscape
Regime Types and Transitions
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the 15 post-Soviet republics transitioned from one-party communist rule to nominally independent governance structures, adopting new constitutions and holding founding elections between 1991 and 1995.[31] Most established presidential or semi-presidential systems with strong executive powers, reflecting elite preferences for centralized authority amid economic chaos and security threats, though parliamentary models emerged in some cases like Kyrgyzstan initially.[32] These early transitions involved multi-party competitions and power-sharing pacts, but institutional weaknesses, Soviet-era elite continuity, and external influences—particularly Russian pressure and limited Western leverage—shaped divergent paths, with only the Baltic states achieving sustained democratic consolidation by the early 2000s.[33] By the mid-2000s, regime types had polarized: the Baltic republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) consolidated liberal democracies through EU and NATO accession reforms, enforcing rule of law, free media, and competitive elections, bolstered by ethnic majorities' rejection of Soviet legacies and economic incentives for integration.[34] In contrast, Central Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) and Belarus rapidly consolidated authoritarian regimes under long-serving leaders who leveraged clan networks, resource rents, and suppression of opposition to entrench personalist rule, often retaining Soviet administrative structures.[35] Russia under Vladimir Putin from 2000 onward shifted from Yeltsin's fragmented semi-democracy to "managed" authoritarianism via constitutional tweaks, media monopolization, and regional centralization, justified as stabilizing chaos but eroding checks on executive power.[36] Hybrid or transitional regimes persisted in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, marked by electoral volatility, color revolutions (e.g., Georgia's Rose Revolution in 2003, Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004), and partial reforms, though prone to backsliding due to oligarchic influence and geopolitical tug-of-war.[37] As of 2024, Freedom House's Nations in Transit assessments classify the post-Soviet states into consolidated democracies (Baltics), transitional/hybrid regimes (Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine), and consolidated authoritarian regimes (the rest), based on scores aggregating national democratic governance across electoral processes, civil society, media independence, and corruption. These ratings reflect empirical indicators like election fairness and judicial autonomy, revealing persistent authoritarian dominance: only three states score above 5.0 (out of 7), while nine score below 1.3, underscoring failures in institutionalizing pluralism despite initial liberalization waves.[38]| Country | Democracy Score (2024) | Regime Type |
|---|---|---|
| Estonia | 6.00 | Consolidated Democracy |
| Latvia | 5.79 | Consolidated Democracy |
| Lithuania | 5.71 | Consolidated Democracy |
| Ukraine | 3.43 | Transitional/Hybrid |
| Moldova | 3.14 | Transitional/Hybrid |
| Armenia | 3.07 | Transitional/Hybrid |
| Georgia | 3.04 | Transitional/Hybrid |
| Kyrgyzstan | 1.64 | Consolidated Authoritarian |
| Uzbekistan | 1.18 | Consolidated Authoritarian |
| Kazakhstan | 1.29 | Consolidated Authoritarian |
| Belarus | 1.11 | Consolidated Authoritarian |
| Azerbaijan | 1.07 | Consolidated Authoritarian |
| Russia | 1.07 | Consolidated Authoritarian |
| Tajikistan | 1.04 | Consolidated Authoritarian |
| Turkmenistan | 1.00 | Consolidated Authoritarian |
Authoritarianism vs. Democratization Efforts
The post-Soviet states have displayed stark divergence in political trajectories since 1991, with a minority achieving sustained democratization and the majority consolidating authoritarian or hybrid regimes characterized by electoral manipulation, media control, and suppression of opposition. Empirical assessments, such as Freedom House's Nations in Transit reports, classify only the Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—as consolidated democracies, attributing their success to rapid institutional reforms, rejection of Soviet-era elites, and accession to the European Union and NATO in 2004, which anchored rule-of-law standards and reduced risks of reversal.[5] These countries scored above 80/100 in Freedom in the World 2024, reflecting competitive elections and robust civil liberties, in contrast to the regional average decline in democratic indicators. In the South Caucasus and Eastern Europe, democratization efforts via "color revolutions" yielded initial gains but faced persistent backsliding due to elite capture, external interference, and weak institutionalization. Georgia's Rose Revolution in November 2003 ousted President Eduard Shevardnadze amid electoral fraud allegations, ushering in reforms under Mikheil Saakashvili that improved corruption perceptions and economic liberalization, yet the Georgian Dream party's dominance since 2012 has eroded judicial independence and media pluralism, with 2024 protests against a "foreign agents" law highlighting authoritarian tendencies.[41][42] Ukraine's Orange Revolution in late 2004 and Euromaidan uprising in 2013–2014 similarly challenged rigged elections and pro-Russian leadership, leading to decentralization and anti-corruption bodies like the National Anti-Corruption Bureau in 2015, but oligarchic influence and wartime centralization since Russia's 2022 invasion have stalled full consolidation, positioning it as a hybrid regime per V-Dem indices.[43][44] Kyrgyzstan experienced the Tulip Revolution in 2005 and further upheavals in 2010 and 2020, fostering multiparty competition but resulting in chronic instability and President Sadyr Japarov's 2021 constitutional changes that centralized power, reverting toward authoritarianism.[45] Authoritarian consolidation dominates in Russia, Belarus, and Central Asia, where leaders leveraged economic resources, security apparatuses, and narratives of post-Soviet chaos to entrench personalist rule. Russia's shift under Vladimir Putin from 2000 onward dismantled Yeltsin's nascent pluralism through "managed democracy," including the 2004 abolition of gubernatorial elections and crackdowns post-2011 protests, yielding a consolidated authoritarian regime score of 1.07/7 in Nations in Transit 2024.[46] Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko since 1994 has maintained Europe's harshest dictatorship, with 2020 election fraud sparking mass protests suppressed via over 35,000 arrests. Central Asian states—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan (post-2020), Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—form a bloc of consolidated authoritarianism, as per 2024 analyses, with dynastic successions (e.g., Kazakhstan's Nazarbayev to Tokayev in 2019) and resource rents enabling regime stability amid minimal opposition space.[47][38] Moldova remains a hybrid outlier, with pro-European shifts in 2021 elections countering oligarchic influence but vulnerable to Transnistria disputes and Russian sway.| Country/Region | Key Democratization Milestone | Primary Authoritarian Features | Regime Classification (Nations in Transit 2024) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baltic States | EU/NATO accession (2004) | N/A (sustained pluralism) | Consolidated Democracy |
| Georgia | Rose Revolution (2003) | Media capture, judicial interference | Transitional/Hybrid Regime |
| Ukraine | Euromaidan (2014) | Oligarch dominance, wartime powers | Transitional/Hybrid Regime |
| Central Asia | Limited (e.g., Kyrgyzstan 2020 protests) | Personalist rule, security repression | Consolidated Authoritarian |
| Russia/Belarus | None sustained | Election manipulation, opposition bans | Consolidated Authoritarian |
Leadership and Power Structures
Following independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, most post-Soviet states adopted constitutions establishing powerful presidencies, with eleven non-Baltic republics—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan—installing presidents elected by universal suffrage by 1994.[51] These systems concentrated authority in the executive, enabling presidents to appoint prime ministers, dissolve parliaments under certain conditions, and influence legislation, often amid institutional weakness and economic turmoil that favored centralized decision-making.[52] The Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—deviated by adopting parliamentary republics, where presidents hold largely ceremonial roles and real executive power resides with prime ministers accountable to unicameral parliaments.[53] In Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, power structures evolved into "despotic leviathans" with high state capacity dominated by the executive and low societal checks, exemplified by Vladimir Putin's tenure since 1999, during which constitutional reforms in 2020 reset term limits to allow rule until 2036, alongside control over security apparatus (siloviki) and the United Russia party.[53][46] Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko, in power since 1994, features similar personalization, with 2022 constitutional changes enhancing presidential decree powers while weakening parliament. Freedom House's 2024 Nations in Transit report, drawing on metrics like electoral process integrity and media independence, classifies these alongside Tajikistan and Turkmenistan as consolidated authoritarian regimes, where leaders like Emomali Rahmon (Tajikistan, since 1994) and the Berdimuhamedow family (Turkmenistan, since 2006) maintain rule through electoral manipulation and repression, though the report's U.S.-funded perspective has faced criticism for overlooking preferences for stability in resource-dependent societies.[38][54] Central Asian states beyond Kazakhstan exhibit "paper leviathans" with ostensibly low state capacity but personalized presidential dominance, often transitioning via family or elite pacts: Uzbekistan under Shavkat Mirziyoyev since 2016 following Islam Karimov's 27-year rule; Kyrgyzstan's unstable rotations, including five presidents since 1991 amid protests; and familial successions like Ilham Aliyev inheriting Azerbaijan's presidency from Heydar Aliyev in 2003.[53][55] In hybrid cases like Ukraine (semi-presidential since 1996, with Volodymyr Zelenskyy elected in 2019 amid oligarch influence) and Georgia (shifting to parliamentary in 2013 after Mikheil Saakashvili's 2004-2013 tenure), executive power remains contested by parliaments and civil society, leading to revolutions in 2004, 2014, and Armenia's 2018 velvet revolution that ended Serzh Sarksyan's bid for prolonged rule. Moldova, parliamentary since 2016 after hybrid phases, features coalition governments with limited presidential authority.[51] Across these, Soviet-era nomenklatura networks and resource rents facilitated authoritarian consolidation in seven states by suppressing opposition, per empirical indicators of flawed elections (e.g., OSCE reports citing irregularities in 95% of post-2000 presidential votes in Central Asia).[56][47]Economic Developments
Shift from Central Planning to Markets
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left its successor states with centrally planned economies characterized by state ownership of production, administered prices, and suppressed inflation, necessitating reforms to introduce market mechanisms such as price liberalization, privatization, and trade openness.[57] These transitions typically unfolded in the early 1990s amid the collapse of inter-republic trade and supply chains, resulting in a "transformational recession" across the region, with aggregate GDP falling by about 50% on average by the mid-1990s due to the breakdown of inefficient state directives rather than reforms alone.[58] Key challenges included hyperinflation from pent-up demand, enterprise insolvency, and the absence of private property rights, which delayed restructuring.[59] Russia pursued "shock therapy" starting January 2, 1992, under Acting Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, liberalizing most prices overnight, cutting subsidies, and initiating small-scale privatization alongside voucher-based distribution of large enterprises to citizens.[60] This approach curbed monetary overhang and fiscal deficits—reducing the budget deficit from 20% of GDP in 1991 to under 10% by 1992—but triggered annual inflation exceeding 2,500% in 1992 and a GDP contraction of roughly 40% from 1991 to 1998, exacerbated by incomplete implementation, nomenklatura resistance, and the 1998 ruble crisis.[61][62] Critics attribute much of the decline to pre-existing distortions like resource misallocation, while proponents note that partial reforms fostered oligarchic capture via "loans-for-shares" auctions in 1995–1996, concentrating assets in few hands without broad institutional safeguards.[63] In the Baltic states, reforms emphasized rapid stabilization and openness to attract foreign investment and prepare for European integration. Estonia established a currency board in June 1992, pegging the kroon to the Deutsche Mark at a fixed rate backed by foreign reserves, which enforced fiscal discipline and curbed inflation from over 1,000% in 1992 to single digits by 1995.[64] Latvia and Lithuania followed with pegged exchange rates and aggressive privatization—Estonia completing most by 1995 through auctions and restitution—leading to quicker recoveries: Estonia's GDP bottomed in 1995 before growing over 5% annually thereafter, outperforming gradual reformers due to flat taxes, trade liberalization, and rule-of-law enhancements.[65] Central Asian states largely favored gradualism to mitigate social unrest, sequencing reforms with retained state controls over key sectors like energy and agriculture; Uzbekistan, for example, delayed price liberalization until 2000 and restricted privatization, experiencing the shallowest GDP drop (around 20% by 1995) among post-Soviet republics but slower subsequent growth tied to commodity dependence.[66][67] Kazakhstan combined elements, liberalizing prices early but nationalizing assets later under Nazarbayev, with GDP falling 40% initially before oil-driven rebound. In Ukraine, incrementalism prevailed amid elite capture, with privatization dominated by insider deals in the mid-1990s yielding widespread corruption and oligarchic dominance, contributing to GDP halving by 1999 and persistent stagnation until external pressures post-2014.[68] Empirical analyses of transition outcomes reveal that states implementing comprehensive, early reforms—measured by indices of liberalization, privatization, and enterprise restructuring—achieved higher GDP per capita and social indicators by the 2010s compared to gradualists like Belarus or Turkmenistan, where state dominance preserved short-term stability at the cost of innovation and efficiency.[69] By the early 2000s, private ownership underpinned over 70% of GDP region-wide, laying market foundations, though legacies of weak institutions and resource rents hindered convergence with Western economies in many cases.[39]Reform Strategies and Outcomes
Post-Soviet states pursued diverse economic reform strategies following independence in 1991, primarily contrasting rapid "shock therapy"—encompassing swift price liberalization, macroeconomic stabilization, and mass privatization—with more incremental gradualism that retained significant state control over key sectors. Shock therapy, influenced by Western advisors like Jeffrey Sachs, aimed to dismantle central planning quickly to avert hyperinflation and foster market signals, as implemented in Russia via Yeltsin's January 1992 price decontrols, which initially spiked inflation to over 2,500% annually but curbed shortages.[70] Gradualism, by contrast, prioritized sequenced changes to mitigate social disruption, as seen in Uzbekistan's cautious approach under Islam Karimov, delaying full privatization until the 2010s while maintaining state dominance in cotton and energy. Empirical evidence indicates that shock therapy correlated with faster long-term stabilization in institutionally prepared states, though it amplified short-term output collapses across the region, with aggregate GDP falling 40-50% by 1998 due to disrupted trade, enterprise failures, and weak property rights enforcement.[71][72] The Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—exemplified successful shock therapy implementation, introducing independent currencies (e.g., Estonia's kroon pegged to the Deutsche Mark in June 1992), tight fiscal policies, and rapid small-scale privatization by 1994, achieving inflation control below 10% within two years and EU accession in 2004 that enforced rule-of-law reforms. These measures yielded robust recoveries, with Estonia's GDP growing at an average 5-7% annually from 1995-2008, converging to 75% of EU average per capita income by 2020, bolstered by foreign direct investment and export reorientation to the West rather than CIS dependencies.[73][74] In contrast, Russia's shock therapy under Yeltsin led to a 45% GDP contraction by 1998, exacerbated by voucher privatization (1992-1994) that concentrated assets among oligarchs via "loans-for-shares" schemes, fostering corruption and industrial decline amid the 1998 ruble crisis. Subsequent stabilization under Putin from 2000 leveraged oil revenues for 7% average growth until 2008, yet persistent state intervention and sanctions have limited diversification, with GDP per capita stagnating below pre-1990 peaks adjusted for purchasing power in non-energy sectors.[75][70] Ukraine's gradualist path, eschewing rapid privatization for elite capture via opaque "non-payment" schemes in the 1990s, resulted in one of the region's deepest depressions, with GDP plummeting over 60% by 1999 and hyperinflation peaking at 10,000% in 1993, compounded by energy subsidies and industrial decay. Partial reforms post-Orange Revolution (2004) and Euromaidan (2014) improved banking stability but yielded modest 2-3% growth pre-2022 invasion, hampered by oligarch influence and corruption indices ranking Ukraine below regional peers. Belarus under Lukashenko rejected liberalization for command-style gradualism, preserving state ownership in 80% of industry by 2020 and relying on Russian subsidies, which sustained 5-6% growth in the 2000s via re-exports but masked inefficiencies, culminating in 2020-2022 contractions of 4-10% amid sanctions and debt.[68][76][77] In Central Asia, resource endowments shaped outcomes: Kazakhstan's hybrid strategy—aggressive stabilization post-1991 alongside gradual privatization—drove oil-led expansion, with GDP multiplying sixfold from 1995-2014 via foreign investment in Tengiz fields, though diversification lagged, exposing vulnerabilities like the 2014-2016 slowdown. Uzbekistan's slower reforms preserved state monopolies, yielding 5-8% growth from 2000-2020 through cotton exports and remittances, but at the cost of repressed entrepreneurship and lower productivity gains compared to Kazakhstan. Poorer states like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan combined partial liberalization with aid dependency, achieving 4-5% average growth post-2000 but remaining below 1990 income levels per capita, underscoring how gradualism without institutional safeguards prolonged transition traps. Overall, rapid reformers integrated into global markets fared better in human development metrics, while gradualists exhibited higher inequality and fiscal rigidity, with cross-country regressions linking early liberalization to 1-2% higher annual growth differentials by the 2010s.[78][67][79]| Country Group | Strategy | GDP Change (1991-1998, approx.) | Long-Term Growth Driver |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baltic States | Shock Therapy | -30% to -40% | EU Integration, Exports[74] |
| Russia | Shock Therapy | -45% | Oil Revenues[70] |
| Ukraine | Gradualism | -60% | Stalled Reforms[68] |
| Belarus | State-Controlled | -35% | Russian Subsidies[77] |
| Kazakhstan | Hybrid | -40% | Resource Extraction[67] |
Resource Dependencies and Disparities
Post-Soviet states vary significantly in their reliance on natural resources, with hydrocarbon and mineral exporters such as Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan deriving substantial portions of their economies from these sectors, while nations like the Baltic republics and Moldova exhibit lower dependence and greater diversification into services, manufacturing, and EU-integrated trade. This uneven endowment has fueled economic disparities, as resource-rich countries grapple with volatility from commodity price fluctuations, symptoms of the resource curse including rent-seeking behaviors and weakened institutions, and limited incentives for structural reforms. Empirical studies indicate that high natural resource dependence correlates with slower long-term growth in these transitions economies due to inefficient management and corruption.[80][81] In 2021, total natural resource rents as a percentage of GDP highlighted these dependencies: Azerbaijan at 29.9%, Kazakhstan at 26.8%, and Russia at 18.5%, primarily from oil and gas extraction.[82] For Kazakhstan, oil rents alone have historically driven export revenues, with hydrocarbons comprising over 60% of total exports in recent years, exposing the economy to global energy market shocks.[83] Azerbaijan experienced an oil boom post-1990s, with rents peaking amid high prices, yet diversification remains limited, perpetuating vulnerability.[84] Turkmenistan, despite holding vast natural gas reserves—fourth globally—relies on gas exports for nearly all foreign exchange, leading to economic isolation and domestic hardships like hyperinflation reported in 2019 amid low prices and suspended Russian transit.[85][86]| Country | Natural Resource Rents (% of GDP, 2021) | Primary Resources |
|---|---|---|
| Azerbaijan | 29.9 | Oil, natural gas |
| Kazakhstan | 26.8 | Oil, uranium, minerals |
| Russia | 18.5 | Oil, natural gas, coal |
| Armenia | 7.1 | Minerals |
Regional Organizations and Alignments
Russian-Dominated Frameworks
The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), established on December 8, 1991, through the Belovezha Accords signed by the leaders of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, initially aimed to coordinate post-Soviet cooperation in areas such as economics, defense, and foreign policy while preserving the sovereignty of member states.[92] Eight additional republics joined shortly after, forming a loose association of nine founding members by early 1992; current full members include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, with Turkmenistan holding associate status since 2005 and Ukraine having formally terminated its participation in 2018.[93] Russia's predominant economic and military influence within the CIS has drawn criticism for fostering dependency among smaller members, with decisions often reflecting Moscow's priorities, such as maintaining Russian as a lingua franca and facilitating troop deployments in member states.[94] The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), rooted in the 1992 Tashkent Collective Security Treaty and formalized as an organization in 2002, functions as a Russian-led military alliance comprising Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan, focused on collective defense against external threats and internal stability operations.[95] Its charter emphasizes joint exercises, rapid response forces, and peacekeeping, but operations have highlighted Russia's command role, as seen in the 2022 deployment of approximately 2,000-3,000 troops primarily from Russia to quell unrest in Kazakhstan at the request of President Tokayev.[96] [97] Tensions have emerged, particularly with Armenia's freeze on participation in 2023 amid Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts, underscoring asymmetries where Russia provides the bulk of funding (over 50% of the budget) and military capabilities, limiting the alliance's effectiveness as a peer counterpart to NATO.[98] The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), formalized by treaty on May 29, 2014, and operational from January 1, 2015, integrates Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan into a customs union with shared tariffs, free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor, intended to boost trade volumes which reached $78.6 billion internally in 2023.[99] [100] Russia accounts for about 87% of the union's GDP and dominates decision-making through the Eurasian Economic Commission headquartered in Moscow, often advancing its interests unilaterally, such as in energy pricing disputes with Belarus and Kazakhstan.[101] [102] While promoting economic convergence, the EAEU has faced challenges from sanctions on Russia post-2022, which indirectly affect members, and resistance from states wary of ceding sovereignty, with intra-union trade growth stagnating at around 3-5% annually amid divergent national reforms.[103] The Union State between Russia and Belarus, established by treaty on December 8, 1999, represents the deepest bilateral integration in the post-Soviet space, encompassing harmonized economic policies, a shared customs regime since 2011, and coordinated foreign and defense strategies, including Belarus's hosting of Russian tactical nuclear weapons from 2023.[104] [105] Progress has accelerated since 2020, with 28 union programs ratified by 2024 covering digital economies and social security, but Belarus has resisted full political merger, maintaining separate currencies (despite ruble pegging) and vetoing supranational institutions to preserve autonomy.[106] Russia's leverage, derived from subsidizing Belarusian energy at below-market rates (up to 60% discounts historically), has enabled incremental absorption, though economic interdependence—Russia supplies 90% of Belarus's oil and gas—exposes Minsk to Moscow's strategic priorities.[107]Western-Oriented Integrations
The Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—achieved full integration into Western institutions following independence in 1991, joining NATO on March 29, 2004, to enhance collective defense amid perceived Russian threats.[108] These countries simultaneously acceded to the European Union on May 1, 2004, adopting the euro as their currency by 2011 (Estonia), 2014 (Latvia), and 2015 (Lithuania), which facilitated economic convergence and rule-of-law reforms. This integration marked a decisive break from Soviet-era dependencies, with GDP per capita in the Baltics rising from under $5,000 in 2000 to over $20,000 by 2023 in purchasing power parity terms, driven by foreign investment and market liberalization.[109] Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova have pursued Western alignments through association agreements under the EU's Eastern Partnership, signed in 2014 for Ukraine and Georgia, and provisionally applied from 2016 for Moldova, emphasizing trade liberalization and political reforms. Ukraine received EU candidate status on June 23, 2022, with accession negotiations commencing in June 2024, amid ongoing Russian aggression that has accelerated public support for integration as a security imperative.[110] Georgia was granted EU membership perspective in June 2022 but faces stalled progress due to domestic political shifts favoring Russia-oriented policies, including a 2024 foreign agents law criticized by the EU for undermining democratic standards. Moldova attained candidate status alongside Ukraine in June 2022, with EU trade comprising 54% of its total in 2024, though Transnistria's Russian-backed separatism complicates full alignment.[111] NATO has affirmed future membership for Ukraine and Georgia since the 2008 Bucharest Summit, without a Membership Action Plan due to territorial disputes and Russian veto threats, while Moldova maintains partnership status without formal aspirations.[108] These efforts reflect causal drivers of geography and historical antagonism toward Russian influence, with integration yielding tangible benefits like visa-free EU travel since 2014-2017, yet facing empirical hurdles from corruption indices—Ukraine scoring 36/100 on Transparency International's 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index—and uneven reform implementation.[112] No other post-Soviet states have achieved comparable Western institutional ties, underscoring the Baltics' outlier success rooted in early, resolute de-Sovietization.[108]Alternative and Emerging Partnerships
Post-Soviet states in Central Asia and the Caucasus have increasingly pursued multi-vector foreign policies, fostering partnerships with non-Western actors such as China and Turkey to balance traditional Russian influence and reduce economic dependencies.[113] These efforts emphasize infrastructure development, trade diversification, and cultural affinities, particularly among Turkic-speaking republics. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, as regional leaders, have actively multiplied ties with Beijing and Ankara while maintaining strategic autonomy.[113] China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has emerged as a cornerstone of alternative partnerships, channeling substantial investments into Central Asian infrastructure and energy sectors. In the first half of 2025, Central Asia attracted $25 billion in BRI-related construction contracts and investments, marking a record half-year figure amid global economic challenges.[114] Kazakhstan, in particular, saw heightened Chinese engagement in metals and mining, with BRI projects enhancing connectivity to Europe and diversifying export routes.[115] These initiatives, including railways and pipelines, have bolstered trade volumes but raised concerns over debt sustainability and resource extraction dependencies.[116] Turkey has leveraged ethnic and linguistic ties to expand its footprint in the Caucasus and Central Asia, positioning itself as a counterweight through the Organization of Turkic States. Ankara's influence grew post-2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where it provided military support to Azerbaijan, leading to enhanced defense cooperation and energy deals.[117] In Central Asia, Turkey promotes cultural diplomacy, military training, and trade, with investments in education and media fostering soft power among Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.[118] By 2024, these efforts had shifted regional dynamics, reducing Moscow's dominance in Turkic-majority states.[119] India has sought to deepen connectivity with Central Asia via projects like the Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), aiming to secure energy supplies and bypass Pakistan. Bilateral trade with the region rose from $1.4 billion in 2018 to $2.7 billion by 2020, with further growth driven by a $1 billion line of credit for infrastructure.[120][121] However, India's engagements remain secondary to those of China and Turkey, constrained by geographic barriers and slower project execution.[122] These partnerships reflect pragmatic diversification, prioritizing economic pragmatism over ideological alignments.Conflicts and Territorial Disputes
Ethnic Separatism and Frozen Conflicts
Ethnic separatism emerged prominently in several post-Soviet states following the USSR's dissolution in 1991, driven by pre-existing ethnic tensions, Soviet-era demographic engineering, and fears among minorities of marginalization under newly independent national governments dominated by titular ethnic groups. In regions with significant Russian-speaking or non-titular populations, such as Transnistria in Moldova, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, local elites declared independence amid violence, often with external support from Russia, leading to de facto entities that persist without international recognition except from a handful of states aligned with Moscow. These disputes, characterized by ceasefires without comprehensive peace treaties, have resulted in over 50,000 deaths across conflicts since 1988 and displaced hundreds of thousands, while enabling geopolitical leverage, particularly for Russia, which maintains military presence in most cases to prevent NATO or EU integration of host states.[123][124] In Moldova, the Transnistria region—predominantly Russian-speaking and industrialized during Soviet times—declared sovereignty in September 1990 amid Moldova's push for Romanian-language policies and independence, escalating into armed conflict from November 1991 to July 1992, with approximately 1,000 fatalities and Russian forces from the 14th Army intervening decisively on the separatist side. A ceasefire brokered by Russia established a Joint Control Commission and peacekeeping forces, including 1,500 Russian troops, freezing the status quo where Transnistria functions as a de facto state with its own currency, military, and governance, controlling about 12% of Moldova's territory and a population of roughly 450,000 as of 2025. Tensions persist, including a severe gas crisis in January 2025 triggered by halted Russian supplies via Ukraine, underscoring Transnistria's economic dependence on Moscow, yet no major hostilities have resumed, maintaining the impasse despite Moldova's EU aspirations.[125][126][127] Georgia faced dual separatist wars in Abkhazia and South Ossetia starting in 1991, rooted in ethnic Ossetian and Abkhaz assertions of autonomy against Tbilisi's centralizing policies post-independence; the South Ossetia conflict (1991–1992) killed around 1,000 and displaced 100,000, while Abkhazia's war (1992–1993) resulted in 8,000 to 25,000 deaths, widespread ethnic cleansing of Georgians (over 200,000 fled), and separatist control of 20% of Georgia's land. Ceasefires in both, monitored by Russian-led peacekeepers, held until Georgia's 2008 attempt to reassert control over South Ossetia sparked a five-day Russo-Georgian War, after which Russia recognized both as independent on August 26, 2008, and established military bases there, effectively occupying the territories and blocking Georgia's NATO path. As of 2025, sporadic border incidents continue, but the conflicts remain frozen, with Abkhazia and South Ossetia reliant on Russian subsidies and citizenship programs that have Russified populations.[128][129][130] The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, involving an Armenian-majority enclave in Azerbaijan, intensified from 1988 with pogroms and mutual expulsions, culminating in a 1991–1994 war that killed 30,000, displaced 1 million, and left Armenian forces controlling the region plus seven adjacent districts until Azerbaijan's 2020 counteroffensive reclaimed significant areas. A 1994 ceasefire froze lines under the OSCE Minsk Group, but Azerbaijan's military modernization enabled a 44-day war in 2020 and a September 2023 offensive that dissolved the self-declared Artsakh Republic, prompting 100,000 ethnic Armenians to flee to Armenia by late 2023, ending the frozen status and reintegrating the territory under Baku's control, though border delimitations with Armenia remain unresolved.[131][132][133] Other instances of ethnic separatism, such as Chechnya's bid for independence in Russia (leading to wars in 1994–1996 and 1999–2009 with 50,000–100,000 deaths and eventual reintegration under pro-Moscow rule), or suppressed movements in Tatarstan and Central Asian states, highlight varying outcomes: successful suppression where central authority prevailed, versus enduring de facto states where external patronage, especially Russian, sustained irredentism. These conflicts collectively demonstrate how Soviet legacy borders, ignoring ethnic realities, fostered irredentist claims, with Russia's strategic interest in "frozen" disputes serving to veto Western alignments rather than purely ethnic solidarity.[123][134]Major Wars and Resolutions
The major wars in post-Soviet states primarily originated from ethnic separatisms, irredentist claims, and power vacuums following the USSR's dissolution, resulting in over 200,000 deaths across conflicts and persistent territorial fragmentations. Many arose in the early 1990s amid independence declarations, with Russia often intervening as a mediator or belligerent due to its military presence and ties to separatist groups. Resolutions have varied: some achieved integration or decisive military outcomes, while others remain frozen, enabling de facto entities sustained by external support, particularly Russian.[135][131] In the South Caucasus, the First Nagorno-Karabakh War (1991–1994) involved Armenian forces seizing the enclave and adjacent Azerbaijani territories, ending in a May 12, 1994, ceasefire brokered by Russia under the Bishkek Protocol, which froze the conflict without a final treaty and left an estimated 30,000 dead.[131] Tensions reignited in the 44-day Second Nagorno-Karabakh War starting September 27, 2020, where Azerbaijani advances, bolstered by Turkish-supplied drones, recaptured significant areas; a November 9, 2020, Russia-mediated truce deployed Russian peacekeepers but failed to prevent escalation.[131] On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan launched a one-day offensive, prompting the dissolution of the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on January 1, 2024, and the exodus of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians, effectively resolving the conflict in Azerbaijan's favor without international recognition of prior Armenian control.[136] Georgia faced separatist wars in Abkhazia (1992–1993) and South Ossetia (1991–1992), where Russian-backed militias repelled Georgian offensives, leading to ceasefires that entrenched frozen conflicts with Russian "peacekeepers" stationed in both.[137] The August 2008 Russo-Georgian War began with Georgia's assault on South Ossetia on August 7–8, prompting Russian invasion of Georgian territory; a French-brokered six-point ceasefire on August 12 halted fighting, but Russia recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent on August 26, 2008, and established permanent bases, leaving the disputes unresolved with Georgia refusing reintegration talks.[138][137] Moldova's Transnistria War (March–July 1992) pitted government troops against Russian-supported separatists, culminating in over 1,000 deaths and a July 21, 1992, ceasefire that preserved Transnistria's de facto autonomy; Russian forces (about 1,500 troops) remain under a 1999 OSCE agreement, but no political settlement has materialized amid failed reintegration negotiations.[139][140] Central Asia's principal conflict, Tajikistan's civil war (1992–1997), opposed pro-government communists to United Tajik Opposition Islamists and regionalists, killing 50,000–100,000 and displacing over 1 million; UN- and Russia-mediated talks yielded the June 27, 1997, General Agreement on Peace and National Accord, allocating 30% of government posts to opposition, amnesties, and refugee returns, enabling relative stability under President Emomali Rahmon.[141][142] Russia's internal Chechen wars defined its post-Soviet counterinsurgency: the First (December 1994–August 1996) ended in Russian defeat after Grozny's fall and high casualties (tens of thousands), with the Khasavyurt Accord granting de facto independence.[143] The Second (1999–2009), triggered by Dagestani incursions and domestic bombings, restored federal control via brutal operations, a 2003 constitutional referendum, and pro-Moscow rule under Ramzan Kadyrov, quelling organized separatism by 2009 despite ongoing low-level violence.[143] The Russo-Ukrainian War commenced in 2014 with Russia's March annexation of Crimea post-referendum and backing of Donbas separatists (Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics), sparking fighting that killed over 14,000 by 2022 under failed Minsk protocols.[144] Russia's February 24, 2022, full-scale invasion seized additional territory, but Ukrainian resistance, aided by Western arms, stalled advances; as of October 2025, Russia controls roughly 20% of Ukraine, including Crimea and parts of Donbas, with no negotiated resolution amid protracted attrition.[144][145]Self-Declared Entities and Their Status
The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (Transnistria) exercises de facto control over territory east of the Dniester River in Moldova, separated following ethnic clashes and a brief war in 1992, with Russian forces deployed as peacekeepers since then. It maintains separate governance, currency, and military but receives no formal diplomatic recognition from any United Nations member state, relying instead on Russian economic subsidies, natural gas supplies, and protection against Moldovan reintegration. As of 2025, Transnistria navigates recurrent energy shortages, including a gas supply agreement extended into the year via alternative routes, underscoring its precarious autonomy amid Moldova's pro-Western shift.[125][146] The Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia control territories in northwestern and northern Georgia, respectively, after separatist wars in the early 1990s that displaced ethnic Georgians and established Russian-backed administrations. Russia extended formal recognition to both on August 26, 2008, immediately following its military intervention in the Russo-Georgian War, framing the move as protection against Georgian aggression. Limited additional recognitions followed: Abkhazia by Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Syria; South Ossetia by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Nauru. The European Union, United States, and most states view these recognitions as violations of Georgia's sovereignty, with no UN membership or broad diplomatic ties, leaving the entities economically dependent on Russia through military basing agreements and trade.[147][148][149] In eastern Ukraine, the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic emerged from pro-Russian protests in 2014, declaring sovereignty amid fighting that killed over 14,000 by 2022. Russia recognized both as independent on February 21, 2022, citing humanitarian crises and alleged Ukrainian shelling, a step condemned by NATO and the UN as infringing Ukraine's territorial integrity under international accords like the 1991 Alma-Ata Protocol. Days later, amid Russia's invasion, the entities held referendums and were annexed by Russia as federal subjects on September 30, 2022, ending their brief self-declared phase but entrenching contested control over areas comprising about 35% of their claimed territories as of 2025.[150][151][152] The Republic of Artsakh, centered on the ethnic Armenian-majority Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, functioned as a de facto state from 1994 until Azerbaijan's September 2023 offensive, which prompted the exodus of nearly 120,000 Armenians and its formal dissolution on January 1, 2024. Previously reliant on Armenian support and lacking recognition beyond Yerevan, Artsakh's collapse resolved the long-frozen conflict in Baku's favor, with no return of displaced populations despite international calls, highlighting Azerbaijan's military resurgence and Russia's diminished regional leverage.[131][153][154]Social and Cultural Dynamics
Demographic Shifts and Migration
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 triggered profound demographic contractions in many post-Soviet states, characterized by negative natural population growth and net out-migration, resulting in overall population declines exceeding 20% in several European-oriented republics by 2023. Aggregate population across the 15 states reached approximately 298 million by 2021, a modest increase from 289.1 million in 1991, driven primarily by fertility-led expansions in Central Asia, while Slavic and Baltic states offset this with losses totaling tens of millions.[155][156] Latvia exemplified extreme shrinkage, with its population falling 29% since 1990 due to combined emigration and sub-replacement fertility.[157] Fertility rates plummeted region-wide in the 1990s amid economic upheaval, hyperinflation, and disrupted healthcare systems, dropping below the 2.1 replacement threshold in most states and persisting low into the 2020s. In Russia, the total fertility rate declined from 2.01 children per woman in 1989 to 1.16 by 1999, reflecting delayed family formation and rising childlessness; similar patterns afflicted Ukraine (1.6 by mid-1990s) and Belarus.[158][159] Mortality surges compounded this, with male life expectancy in Russia falling to 59 years by 2000 from alcohol poisoning, suicides, and cardiovascular crises linked to post-communist stress and substance abuse, though partial rebounds occurred post-2000s via policy interventions.[160] Central Asian republics bucked the trend with sustained higher fertility (e.g., Tajikistan's gains exceeding 50% population increase since 1991), fueled by cultural norms and less industrialized economies, though offset partially by labor outflows.[157] Migration flows reshaped demographics, initially dominated by ethnic repatriation: between 1990 and 2002, Russia absorbed over 10.9 million migrants from other post-Soviet states, including ethnic Russians fleeing instability in Central Asia and the Caucasus.[161] Post-2004 EU accession accelerated emigration from Baltic states, with Latvia's net outflow peaking at 35,000 annually during 2008-2011, culminating in roughly 20% of its pre-accession population residing abroad by 2019, primarily in the UK, Ireland, and Germany for economic opportunities.[162][163] Conversely, Russia emerged as a magnet for Central Asian labor migrants, hosting 4.9 million from the region by recent estimates—63% of total outflows—with Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan supplying over 90% of such workers for construction and services, flows surging 50% in 2022 amid Ukraine war mobilization demands.[164][165] Ukraine's demographics shifted dramatically post-2014 annexation of Crimea and escalation in 2022, with over 6 million refugees fleeing to Europe and internal displacements exceeding 4 million, exacerbating pre-existing declines from low fertility and earlier eastern outflows.[166] These patterns underscore causal links between institutional instability, economic disparities, and selective migration: skilled youth from westward-leaning states drain to higher-wage EU markets, while low-skilled laborers cycle to Russia, sustaining remittances (e.g., 20-30% of GDP in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) but hindering domestic human capital accumulation.[167]| Republic | Population 1991 (millions) | Population ~2023 (millions) | % Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Russia | 148.4 [168] | 144.0 [168] | -3% |
| Ukraine | ~52 [155] | ~41 (pre-2022) | -21% |
| Latvia | 2.66 | 1.88 | -29% [157] |
| Tajikistan | 5.1 | ~10 | +96% [157] |
Ethnic Composition and National Identities
The ethnic compositions of post-Soviet states largely reflect the Soviet Union's policy of delineating republics along titular ethnic lines, though with significant intermixing due to migrations, industrialization, and Russification efforts that elevated Russian populations in non-Russian republics to 10-30% by 1989. Post-independence, Russian shares declined sharply across most states—from approximately 25 million ethnic Russians outside Russia in 1991 to under 15 million by the 2010s, driven by repatriation to Russia amid economic instability, perceived discrimination, and affirmative policies favoring titular groups.[169] This emigration facilitated demographic consolidation around titular majorities, often exceeding 70%, while other minorities like Uzbeks in Kazakhstan or Tatars in Russia persisted at lower levels. In Russia itself, ethnic Russians comprised 71.7% in the 2021 census, with over 190 ethnic groups forming the remainder, underscoring its federal multi-ethnic structure despite cultural Russocentrism.[170] Regional variations highlight these dynamics. In the Baltic states, titular groups dominate but Russian minorities remain substantial legacies of Soviet-era settlement: Estonia's 2021 census recorded Estonians at 68.7% and Russians at 24.2%; Latvia's 2021 data showed Latvians at 62.7% and Russians at 24.5%; Lithuania, more homogeneous, had Lithuanians at 84.6% in 2021.[171][172] Central Asian states exhibit high titular majorities post-emigration, with Russians dropping below 5%: Kazakhstan's 2021 census listed Kazakhs at 70.4% and Russians at 15.5%; Uzbekistan's 2023 estimates indicate Uzbeks at 84.5% and Russians at 2.1%; similar patterns hold in Kyrgyzstan (Kyrgyz 73.5%, Russians 5.0% in 2022) and Tajikistan (Tajiks ~84%, Russians ~0.5%).[173][174] In the Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan have minimal Russian populations (under 1%), with Armenians at 98.1% and Azerbaijanis at 91.6% respectively per 2023 estimates, while Georgia's 2014 census showed Georgians at 86.8% and Russians at 0.7%. Ukraine's last full census in 2001 reported Ukrainians at 77.8% and Russians at 17.3%, though ongoing conflict has disrupted updates and likely reduced Russian concentrations in contested areas.[175]| Country | Titular Ethnic Group (%) | Russians (%) | Census Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kazakhstan | Kazakhs (70.4) | 15.5 | 2021 |
| Latvia | Latvians (62.7) | 24.5 | 2021 |
| Ukraine | Ukrainians (77.8) | 17.3 | 2001 |
| Uzbekistan | Uzbeks (84.5) | 2.1 | 2023 est. |