Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Abstract
sovereigntyindomesticandforeignpolicyandmaximizebenefitsfrominterna-
tionalcooperationresultin“multi-vector”policyofthestatesinquestion.
Mutualperceptionofthepost-Sovietsocietiesisformedtoalargeextentby
thepoliciesoftherulingelites:theirparamountgoalistocreateaconsolidated
nation-stateidentityinordertolegitimizedomesticpoliticalorder.Giventheir
commonSovietheritage,theimageofa“commonenemy”,basedonwell-root-
edstereotypes,mightserveasoneofthefoundationsforintegration,butinfact
itsroleismuchlesssignificantthanthedisintegrativeroleofconfrontational
“historicalpolitics”.
Atthesametime,theexistingconceptsofsupra-nationalidentities,like
Eurasianism,EastSlavicunity,Turkism,orEuratlanticismareofminorsignifi-
cancefortheintegrationanddisintegrationtendencies.
Oneofthemainobservationspresentedinthisbookisthattheclassicalno-
tionof“internationalintegration”employedbyWesternpoliticalscientistshasto
bere-formulatedwhenappliedtothepost-Sovietarea.Themainreasonisthat
thepost-Sovietstates-contrarytotheEuropeanUnionmembers-sharealong-
standingexperienceofcommonstatehood,partiallyasatotalitarianempire.
Moreover,theformerimperialcenterremainsapolitical,economicandmilitary
pivotofthewholearea.Therefore,post-Sovietintegrationhasbeendeveloping
againstthebackgroundofalongandarduousprocessoftransformingnon-sov-
ereignentitiesintosovereignstates,wherecommon(international)institutions
andrulesoftenplayaroleof“protectivemechanisms”,partiallyneutralizingthe
negativeconsequencesofthecollapseofaunitedandhighlycentralizedstate.
Highlyerraticdevelopmentofthepost-Sovietintegrationputsintoquestion
someofthebasicassumptionsmadebyscholarsexploringinternationalinte-
gration.Aliberalparadigmisnotapplicableinthenotionof“zero-sumgame”
thatisdominantamongthepost-Sovietstates.Mutualdistrustmakesitimpos-
sibletofollowthepactasuntservandaprincipleininter-staterelations.The
classicalspill-overeffectispracticallynonexistent:newstagesofintegration
aredeclaredindependentlyofthedegreetowhichtheformeroneshavebeen
implemented,while“low”and“high”politicsaretightlyintertwined.Atthe
sametime,existinginterdependenciesareoftentoostrongtoallowavoluntary
andmutuallybeneficialintegration.Thenatureofpost-Sovieteconomicmod-
elsdoesnotallowafairmarketplay,andthepotentialofsocialcommunica-
tion,inheritedfromtheUSSR,cannotbefullyrealized.Theroleofinstitutions
remainsstrictlylimited.Hencetheclassicalintergovernmentalapproachisthe
onemostsuitabletoanalyzethepost-Sovietintegrationconundrum.
Russia,asapotentialnreintegrator”ofthepost-Sovietarea,isunableto
workoutaviableparadigmenablingthecreationofstable,trustworthyand
efficienttieswiththeformerUSSRrepublics.Moscow’spolicyisrathertacti-
calinnature:itshegemonicambitionsarenotsupportedbyadequateresources
(includingattractivesymbolicassets)andforeignpolicytoolsarefrequently
usedonanadhocbasis.TheperceptionofRussiaanditsimperialambitionsby
itspartnersalsoplaysanegativeroleinthiscontext.
21
