Empire Unmade: Near Abroad, New Myths

Episode Narrative

In the twilight of the 20th century, a seismic shift occurred in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The Soviet Union, a sprawling entity that had held sway over the region for seventy years, collapsed in 1991. This moment of upheaval reshaped not only borders, but identities. As the dust settled, approximately twenty-five million ethnic Russians found themselves living outside the newly established Russian Federation. This demographic reality sparked a profound ideological and strategic response from Moscow. It was the birth of the "near abroad" doctrine, a concept steeped in the intentions of protecting Russian-speaking populations and asserting influence over former Soviet territories.

Within this swirling atmosphere of uncertainty and redefining nationalism, Russia's foreign policy took a distinct turn in the mid-1990s. The state began to emphasize the protection of its citizens and compatriots abroad. The interventions in places such as Transnistria and Abkhazia were justified under the banners of humanitarian aid and national security. What was painted as a shield for compatriots abroad began to forge a narrative of an expanding Russia, one that resonated deeply with sentiments of historical grandeur and shared language. Each operation was framed more as a necessity than an ambition, an endeavor to erase the stains of abandonment left in the wake of the Soviet collapse.

By 1994, this approach manifested into military action, particularly evident in Chechnya. The Russian government launched a military operation, portraying it as a restoration of constitutional order — a move to quell separatism within its own borders. However, this conflict soon uncovered deeper ideological rifts. It illuminated the tensions between the fervent nationalism of the Russians and the aspirations of non-Russian ethnic republics. Here, the struggle was more than a political dispute; it encapsulated the very essence of identity and belonging in a rapidly changing landscape.

As the new millennium approached, a new concept began to surface within Russian society — the "Russkii Mir," or "Russian World." This idea was vigorously championed not only by state authorities but also by leaders of the Orthodox Church. It promised a unifying ideology that transcended national borders, bringing together any and all who spoke Russian or identified culturally as Russian, irrespective of their citizenship. This vision was more than just a call to unity; it was a civilizational promise, a revival of cultural pride and identity that sought to bind the Russian diaspora into a coherent whole.

The geopolitical landscape continued to evolve dramatically. In 2008, Russia's military intervention in Georgia marked another critical juncture. Framed under the guise of protecting Russian citizens and peacekeepers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, this invasion signaled a newfound willingness to exert military force in the near abroad. It was a demonstration of Moscow's resolve, an assertion that the loss of the Soviet empire did not mean forfeiting its influence.

Then came the events of 2014, which would forever alter the narrative. Russia's annexation of Crimea became not just an act of territorial aggression but a resounding declaration of identity and historical claim. President Vladimir Putin stood before the world, proclaiming that "Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia." This assertion reverberated with patriotic fervor. It was a clarion call, invoking historical and cultural ties that many Russians believed had been severed unjustly. The act was infused with a potent mix of resentment and nostalgia, intertwining past grievances with present aspirations.

As Ukraine unfolded into turmoil, Moscow's influence began to spread into its eastern regions. The support for separatist movements was framed as a defense against a "fascist" regime in Kyiv. Russian state media blurred the lines of conflict, characterizing it as a battle for the souls of Russian-speaking populations. Military resources and propaganda merged seamlessly, constructing a narrative that positioned Russia as a savior rather than an aggressor.

By 2015, the ideological climate had shifted further. The rhetoric adopted by Russian state media took on a sharper tone, heralding a "clash of civilizations." Traditional Russian values were pitted against a perceived Western decadence, framing interventions not as imperial ambitions but as noble struggles against cultural erosion. The discourse transformed, reiterating a worldview that saw Russia as a guardian of morality amid a morally chaotic global landscape.

The evolution of this ideology found further reinforcement in 2016, with the Russian Orthodox Church declaring its vision of the "Russian World." While it aspired to inspire unity, it also sparked controversy among theologians, raising questions that revealed a society grappling with its own identity. The concept was not universally accepted, exposing fractures within Russia's own cultural discourse.

Then came 2017, a year marked by significant legislative changes, including the passage of laws permitting dual citizenship for residents in the separatist regions of eastern Ukraine. This action institutionalized the near-abroad doctrine and blurred the distinctions between citizenship and ethnicity. It cemented the Russian state’s posture of intervention, presenting a legal framework that facilitated its influence over territories it deemed historically and culturally connected.

As the country moved towards 2018, the very fabric of Russian state ideology took an even more explicit turn towards conservative nationalism. President Putin emphasized the need to protect "traditional values," situating Russia firmly against Western influence. This ideology entwined with a narrative that placed Russia in opposition to perceived foreign decadence. The ideological undercurrents were felt everywhere, from government policy to media narratives, shaping a cohesive vision of Russian identity.

The following years witnessed further consolidation of these values. With a constitutional referendum in 2020, social guarantees and conservative identity values were enshrined, reinforcing the regime’s ideological foundations. The changes established a more resilient structure for power, allowing Putin to extend his governance potentially until 2036, ensuring that the near-abroad doctrine would remain central to Russian statecraft.

In 2022, the world awoke to a new escalation — Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This move was articulated through grandiose justifications of "denazification" and "demilitarization," framed as measures to safeguard Russian-speaking populations. It was the culmination of two decades of ideological preparation. Each prior action was a stepping stone, each narrative a brick laid in the foundation of this indefatigable pursuit of influence.

Throughout the 2010s and into the 2020s, the role of Russian security services became increasingly pronounced. These agencies didn't merely act; they directed operations in the near abroad, drawing on a rich tapestry of Soviet-era tactics. The blend of conventional military strategies and hybrid operations indicated a nuanced approach to geopolitics, one that harkened back to old imperial ambitions while being wrapped in a modern veneer of statecraft.

As 2023 dawned, state propaganda breathed life into the concept of a "multipolar world." Russia sought to position itself as a counterweight to Western dominance, justifying interventions in the near abroad as essential to a broader geopolitical struggle. This narrative resonated domestically, reinforcing the nation’s resolve while attempting to legitimize its actions on the global stage.

By 2024, the emphasis on "traditional values" persisted, continuing to be projected both domestically and internationally. The Kremlin doubled down on narratives that framed these values as cornerstones of Russian civilization, attempting to solidify a national identity capable of weathering external pressures. Yet, while this construct presented a unified front, it belied a deeper complexity, reflecting the fractures and grievances simmering beneath the surface.

Throughout this transformative period, Russian state ideology intertwined nationalism, conservatism, and imperial nostalgia into a powerful narrative. The near-abroad doctrine emerged as not just a strategic maneuver but as a means of legitimizing power, seeking both domestic approval and international influence. Yet, creaks and cracks could be heard in this foundation, revealing an ever-evolving story.

The chapter of the near abroad continues to unfold, marked by military interventions, propaganda, and a blend of modern and historical narratives. Each action reverberates through the lives of millions, a poignant reminder of a journey still unresolved. How will this narrative of protection and nationalism play out in the larger tapestry of global relations? And as the world watches, what price will be paid to shape a new identity forged in the fires of past empires and enduring aspirations? The echoes of this history resonate with urgency, challenging us to reflect on the interplay of identity, power, and the costs of a nation striving to reclaim its narrative. Each tick of time brings fresh questions: In this reimagining of an empire, are we witnessing the dawn of a new age, or merely the shadow of an old one?