Nostalgia is an intrinsically human feeling. Who isn’t nostalgic about their childhood, their hometown, or about their college days? However, some other types of nostalgia are much more puzzling. For instance, annual polling by the Levada Center shows that over 50% of Russians bemoan the collapse of the Soviet Union (USSR), this reaching a historic high of 66% in 2018. This is by no means an exclusively Russian phenomenon: 66% of Armenians, 61% of Kyrgyz, 56% of Tajikistani, 42% of Moldovans, and significant proportions of all the other post-Soviet countries’ populations lament the fall of the USSR. Given that the totalitarian Soviet regime had constantly violated individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms, one wonders how so many remain nostalgic about this bygone era.
Sociological explanations for nostalgia vary from reminiscing about the USSR’s global superpower status to the loss of financial and political stability. The path to democratization and liberalization has by no means been smooth for most post-Soviet countries.
First, most of these newly-created states’ attempts to create democratic institutions followed a “one-step forward, but two-steps back” pattern. While the non-violent protests known as the “Color Revolutions” were indeed successful in overthrowing the autocratic regimes in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, the first three years of these post-Soviet countries were marked by corruption, political instability, and populism. The Moldovan $1 billion bank fraud (the equivalent of 12% of its GDP at the time), the politically charged criminal prosecutions of the ex-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, and the Nagorno-Karabakh war between Armenia and Azerbaijan are just a few of examples highlighting the challenges encountered by the post-Soviet countries.
Second, the rapid transition from a Soviet-type planned economy to neoliberal capitalism has imposed a high financial burden on the population of these fifteen newly independent post-Soviet states. This period brought a sharp decline of living standards, a reduction in social benefits, and a rise in unemployment and poverty rates. The frustration of ordinary citizens only grew, as they witnessed the creation of an oligarchic elite that was getting richer while everyone else was becoming poorer. Under these circumstances, nostalgia for the Soviet Union is a direct consequence of people’s disappointment with their countries’ political and economic performance.
Although these complaints are legitimate, it is important to keep in mind the dangerous ramifications of this nostalgia: it resulted in the creation of (often corrupt) national political elites that advocate for maintaining strong ties with Russia, which has historically been the center of the USSR. Moldova’s ex-President Vladimir Dodon won the second round of the 2016 presidential elections with 52.11%, after campaigning on a pro-Russian platform which included promises to break Moldova’s trade agreement with the EU and join the Eurasian Economic Union. Belarus and Kazakhstan, followed by Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, are already part of this Putin-dominated economic union. Alexander Lukashenko, who has been serving as Belarus’s President since the establishment of the office in 1994, is now supporting Russia’s war efforts in Ukraine.
Therefore, with Russia pursuing an aggressive expansionist foreign policy, it is time for Soviet nostalgics to realize the implications of their nostalgia: it results in a dangerous and unwise geopolitical orientation. Since Russia has shown its willingness to commit war crimes and, more generally, to use violence to maintain and expand its sphere of influence, these countries have no excuse not to move on. Regardless of the familiarity associated with the past, these countries’ governments must break the toxic bond with Russia and commit to building their own future.
In fact, this “wave of change” has already started: Ukraine led the way in applying for EU membership in the wake of Russia’s invasion, and Moldova and Georgia did not hesitate to follow in Ukraine’s footsteps. However, a change in the mentality of post-Soviet countries’ citizens is just the first step. In order for these states’ attempts to distance themselves from Russia to be successful, the West must actively intervene in supporting their geopolitical reorientation. This moral responsibility stems from the West’s commitment to international legal standards, which are constantly violated by Russia. For the past thirty years, Russia has been deploying so-called “peacekeeping” military troops in the post-Soviet space, such as in Transnistria (Moldova) and South Ossetia and Abkhazia (Georgia). Russia’s attempts to undermine the sovereignty of the post-Soviet countries culminated in its invasion of Ukraine at the end of February 2022.
Therefore, if their commitment to international law is genuine, the EU and the US cannot simply watch from the sidelines as post-Soviet countries desperately try to put their past behind them. The West can show its support by helping these countries limit their economic reliance on Russia through trade liberalization and offering alternatives to Russian energy. Post-Soviet countries’ ability to break free from Russia’s hold is conditional on them reaching a level of socio-economic development that would detract from the appeal of Russia’s financial support. Furthermore, a strong, coordinated response from the West against any sort of Russian influence in the region would send a powerful message to the Kremlin: Russia does not have a “right to a sphere of privileged interests in the post-Soviet space” and an infringement of these countries’ self-determination will not go unpunished.
A frequent counterargument invoked by adepts of a more passive approach is the fear that any proactive action taken by the West will trigger a backlash, potentially even provoking Russia to the point of nuclear warfare. On the contrary, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows that Putin will pursue an expansionist foreign policy regardless of the West’s stance. As the events from the past few weeks indicate, Putin does not need an actual reason to start a war. It is even possible to argue that the West’s skepticism to support post-Soviet states might be perceived by Putin as a sign of weakness and an impetus for further aggression.
Leaving the past behind is no easy task. This task is especially burdensome for post-Soviet countries given their military and economic reliance on Russia. Therefore, in order to move forward, the citizens of these states must believe that they can forge their own path instead of settling for a subordinate position in Russia’s sphere of influence. However, it is also the West’s responsibility to keep that hope alive, by helping the post-Soviet countries build their own future: a democratic and economically prosperous one.
