Near abroad
From Russia's point of view, the other 14 former republics of the Soviet Union are referred to as near abroad ( Russian ближнее зарубежье / blischneje sarubeschje) , in particular to underline the historical, cultural or economic ties between these states or their dependence on Russia. The EU describes the European successor states of the Soviet Union - since it sees hegemony claims expressed in the Russian term - as a “common neighborhood”.
Historical background
The Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire was a "polyethnic empire". The relationship between the Russian center and the different peoples of the Estonians , Lithuanians , Ukrainians , Armenians , Tatars, etc. was shaped by the tension between the political and military dominance of Russia and its relative socio-economic backwardness . The blanket transfer of the terms colonialism and imperialism to Russia and the Soviet Union, which is particularly common in American research, obscures more than it explains.
Some of the states that became independent from Moscow with the collapse of the Soviet Union were already under Russian rule at the time of the Russian Empire . In Eastern Europe , the Grand Duchy of Moscow, dominant in every respect, played an important role in the development of neighboring peoples . The close ties can be seen in many ways: close demographic ties due to internal migration , resettlement and mixed marriages. In addition, there are economic, political and cultural connections, since the Eastern European level is characterized by a lack of natural borders and thus represents a uniform settlement area.
Policy of the Russian Federation towards the "Near Abroad"
The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) tried to institutionalize the close relationship between the independent republics now grown as a successor organization to the Soviet Union. However, due to the hegemonic role of the Russian Federation , this institution met with little approval. In the successor states , it was seen as an instrument with which the Russian Federation can continue to exert military, economic and political pressure through close relations.
Due to the close economic interdependence of the successor states of the Soviet Union, close trade relations between these states are still the rule, so that raw materials such as oil and gas, or food such as wine or fruit and vegetables, but also intermediate and finished products, are based on non-world market conditions by barter transactions between these countries. This creates dependencies that the Russian Federation knows how to exploit due to its dominant market position, for example in blockades of wine deliveries from the Republic of Moldova or a boycott of Georgian wine deliveries .
In addition, the Russian military maintains military units in some of the successor states. Sometimes this is done on a contractual basis, but sometimes without the consent of the country concerned to support secessionist de facto regimes , such as in the Republic of Moldova ( Transnistria ) and Georgia ( Abkhazia and South Ossetia ). In March 2014 , Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine (on which, among other things, Sevastopol , the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet , is located) and soon afterwards also fired eastern Ukraine .
Russian troops in the Middle Abroad
In June 1993, President Boris Yeltsin outlined two possibilities for solving the problem of Russian troops in the 'Near Abroad': Either they would be withdrawn completely from the former Soviet republics or their status would be changed to that of personnel from a Russian military base. The new Russian military doctrine was adopted by the Security Council of the Russian Federation on November 2, 1993, giving legal status to the establishment of military bases abroad.
This doctrine stipulated that "the security interests of Russia and other CIS countries may require the stationing of troops and military equipment outside the territory of the Russian Federation ". In addition, the law for the defense of the Russian Federation of December 24, 1992 provided that Russian military units could be stationed outside the Russian borders with the approval of parliament. International diplomats and the military leadership saw this policy in accordance with the Treaty on Collective Security of May 15, 1992 and other agreements between the Russian Federation and the CIS member states .
literature
- Kappeler, Andreas: Russia as a multi-ethnic empire. Origin, history, decay. Munich 2001.
- Kappeler, Andreas: Russian history. Munich 2005.
- Graf, Kilian: The Transnistria Conflict: Product of late Soviet distribution struggles and disintegration conflict of the imploded Soviet Union. Hamburg, Disserta-Verlag, 2010, ISBN 978-3-942109-30-7
- Gribincea, Mihai: Challenging Moscow's Doctrine on Military Bases, in: Transition Vol. 1, October 20, 1995. pp. 4-8.
- Crow, Suzanne: Russian Peacekeeping: Defense, Diplomacy, or Imperialism, in: RFE / RL Research Report Vol. 1, Issue 37, September 18, 1992. pp. 37-40.
- Crow, Suzanne: The Theory and Practice of Peacekeeping in the Former USSR, in: RFE / RL Research Report Vol. 1, Issue 37, September 18, 1992. pp. 31-36.
- Schröder, Hans-Henning: An Army in Crisis: The Russian Armed Forces 1992-93. Risk factor or guarantor of political stability? Reports of the Federal Institute for Eastern Scientific and International Studies, issue 45 1993.
Web links
- Language columnist William Safire on the etymology of the term The Near Abroad in the NYT on May 22, 1994 (English)
Individual evidence
- ↑ Near foreign countries and common neighborhood using the example of Ukraine Archived copy ( memento of the original from October 21, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ Kappeler, Andreas: Russia as a multi-ethnic empire. Origin, history, decay. Munich 2001. p. 9.
- ↑ Kappeler, Andreas: Russia as a multi-ethnic empire. Origin, history, decay. Munich 2001. p. 14.
- ^ The Price of the Economic War , Die Zeit, August 29, 2014
