Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper explores the political landscape of war-torn Ukraine, focusing on the country’s core domestic problems. The war in Ukraine has led to a significant deterioration of Ukraine’s political landscape. While victory on the battlefield is Ukraine’s utmost priority, escalating internal problems pose additional challenges. With Ukraine having obtained EU candidate status, these problems have moved to a new level on the EU’s membership agenda. The most urgent of these is endemic corruption, which has gained fresh momentum during the war and has put foreign aid at risk. As the costs of the war grow, international pressure on the Ukrainian authorities to show better results increases. Accountability and transparency should become the guiding principles of the reconstruction and recovery processes to maintain Western support and ensure effective postwar reconstruction.

This paper explores the main features of digital repression in Russia, especially in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The repression of digital activism is not a new phenomenon in Russia; however, it gained fresh momentum during the Russian-Ukrainian war. Security has been used as a pretext to expand the state’s authority at the cost of individuals’ rights and freedoms. To control political narratives, suppress online dissent and surveil regime critics, the government has significantly tightened the national legislation through its media regulator, Roskomnadzor. The aftermath of the war, harsh sanctions and increased anti-regime movements have also deepened Russia’s aspirations toward ‘digital sovereignty’. Meanwhile, regardless of a number of important initiatives in this direction, domestic digital space still remains an ambitious goal to be fulfilled. This paper concludes that, along with other devastating consequences, the war in Ukraine will provoke further digital repression in Russia aimed at achieving the Kremlin’s goal of “digital sovereignty”.

This paper explores the political landscape of post-war Armenia, focusing on both domestic and foreign policy implications of the devastating war of 2020. More specifically, it aims at explaining the aftermath of the 2020 war, with a special emphasis on Armenia’s growing dependence on Russia. Since September 2020, Armenia has plunged into a deep crisis. The Nagorno-Karabakh war had a series of implications, both for conflicting parties and a wider region. The ceasefire agreement which entailed huge territorial concessions took many by surprise and raised questions as to the transparency and accountability of the government. Although the Russian-brokered ceasefire ended the hostilities, yet it left many fundamental matters unanswered. Furthermore, the war has exacerbated the pre-existing divisions amongst the foremost political actors and the general public. Combined with the war and its aftermath, the COVID-19 pandemic has also invited challenges, which resulted in an increased human toll, slowdown of economy, and deepened public anger and mistrust of the authorities. The situation is compounded by Armenia’s deepening dependence on Russia, which has been largely treated as war-torn Armenia’s irreplaceable ally by the Armenian leadership.

This paper explores the challenges that Ukraine faces during the Russian invasion, focusing on the political and economic implications of the war. Apart from the humanitarian crisis, the war has produced political, economic, and social tribulations, which must be addressed. The more stubborn the Ukrainian resistance becomes, the more likely Russia will implement more aggressive tactics. Ukraine has already acknowledged its inability to join the transatlantic alliance, and recent peace talks with Russia have become more realistic and plausible for its future. Early planning of post-war recovery gained significance against this backdrop, as it proved to be successful when led by ‘indigenous drivers’. While this approach placed local actors, institutions, and resources at its center, it also recognized the crucial role of external aid. This paper argues that the war is a ‘resilience test’ for European solidarity and the EU’s crisis management competency. This paper inquires into the challenges of Ukraine’s post-war recovery and concludes that national consolidation, along with Western solidarity, is critical to addressing the ‘Russian problem’ of Ukraine.

The objective of this paper is to explore the political implications of the Covid-19 pandemic in the Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. Studies displayed that although these governments varied in their initial response to the pandemic, all three underwent a uniform experience as to its broader effect of amplified authoritarianism. The public health crisis was utilized as a pretext to consolidate autocratic power, suppress regime criticism, and restrict the political rights and freedoms of citizens. Of particular concern were implications on media and civil society organizational efforts, statuses of detainees, ethnic minority rights, and freedoms of assembly and speech. This paper is an in-depth case analysis that uses policy analysis and process tracing to examine the Central Asian countries’ response to Covid-19 and its effects on human rights and political freedoms in the named countries. It concludes that despite the changes in leadership and relative progress towards democratization, authoritarian patterns ensued and changed form during the pandemic period in these Central Asian countries.

This paper explores the reasoning and implications of the unrest in Kazakhstan unleashed in January of 2022. This crisis was the most severe form of violence that Kazakhstan has endured since gaining independence. It distorted Kazakhstan’s image as a stable country. While the crisis was limited to the territory of Kazakhstan and developed mainly from domestic problems, it undeniably acquired an important international element. Kazakhstan’s appeal to the CSTO presented a drastic change in Kazakhstan’s foreign policy and ensued in the shift in the balance of power in the greater Eurasian region. Although Russia played a relatively subtle role on the ground, Russia’s involvement was set to link the political future of Kazakhstan to Russia for an unspecified amount of time. The study concludes that Kazakhstan is faced with the challenges of undertaking significant reforms to lower the possibility of further instabilities while remaining true to its multi-vector foreign policy agenda amid Russian intrusion.

This paper explores Russia’s response to Covid-19, with a focus on its implications for political freedoms and human rights across the country. It investigates the relationship between the pandemic and reinforcing authoritarianism in Russia. This paper is an in-depth case analysis that uses policy analysis and process tracing to examine Russia’s response to Covid-19 and its effects on Russian domestic politics. The study concludes that the Russian authorities have considerably abused Covid-19-related restrictive measures, not least through curtailing the freedom of assembly and expression. In doing so the Russian authorities have conveniently shielded themselves from mass protests amid constitutional amendments and upcoming legislative elections. Nevertheless, while the authoritarian practices that the Kremlin resorted to during the pandemic are not much different from those of other authoritarian regimes, they proved insufficient in curbing anti-regime dissent. This study inquires into the political repercussions of crisis management in authoritarian regimes and concludes that their authoritarian reactions lead to further crackdowns on civil liberties and political freedoms.

This paper explores the state of minority rights in the three Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. These countries share a lot of similarities in terms of their post-Soviet authoritarian legacy and weakness of democratic institutions. The repressive political landscapes of the Central Asian states have taken their tolls on minority groups, leaving them discriminated against, mistreated, and severely disadvantaged. Minority rights violations range from ethnic and religious discrimination to state-sponsored homophobia. Even though the leadership changes have positively affected the state of human rights in the three countries, there is still a slow pace of reforms. Overall, domestic changes in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan have not yielded considerable results so far in terms of alleviating the plight of minority groups across these countries.

Constructivist-driven conventional wisdom posits that ideas and beliefs are pivotal to shaping foreign policy trajectories. Thus, the explanatory power ascribed to material forces falls back on ideas and cultural practices (Wendt, 1999). Whereas the case of Armenia, characterized by the co-existence of European foreign policy identity with Russia-led foreign policy preferences suggests that identity and beliefs may well be outweighed by material forces. This paper seeks to explain the evolution of how the European Union (EU) and Russia have been conceptualised within the foreign policy discourse of Armenia. The study relies on the critical discourse analysis of relevant speeches and statements of Armenia’s foreign policy-makers and, particularly, on those of the President. It scrutinizes the core notions and discursive structures, employed in the Armenian foreign policy discourse for justifying the choice of the Russia-led path. It suggests that Armenia’s deviation from the identity driven path towards the EU has been broadly justified in terms of the country’s economic and, particularly, security needs, which prompted to treat Russia as an indispensable ally. Yet, a closer scrutiny of external constraints indicates that Russian coercive policy left little room for Armenia to achieve a Russian-European balance.

This article explores the challenges and opportunities of the Europeanization processes taking place in post-Maidan Ukraine and post-Velvet Revolution Armenia. It argues that despite the constraining effects of “competing governance provider” Russia, the interests, perceptions and preferences of the domestic elites are critical to the implementation of the EU policies in Ukraine and Armenia. Thus, it offers a more dynamic structure- agency interplay approach to account for the dynamics of Europeanization in the EU-Russia contested neighbourhood. The article concludes that the domestic change in Ukraine has been positively correlated with its Europeanization, while Armenia has been showing positive signs of responsiveness towards the European policies since the 2018 “Velvet Revolution.” The article enquires into integration without membership dynamics between the EU and Eastern neighbours, as well as into the actorness of the EU in post-revolution state-building in Ukraine and Armenia.