The relationship between the Russian Federation and the 14 non-Russian successor states is unequal, with Russia the dominant power. This power imbalance is a hold-over from the Soviet era in which the RSFSR was first among equals. Empires, like the Soviet one, are specific types of political systems that differed from modern states. The centralized, multi-ethnic and non-democratic character of empires explains the continued dominance of the Russian Federation. It also explains the absence of alternative economic arrangements and political contacts between the former republics. The Soviet system was structured so as to establish Russian control over non-Russian republics. The political structure was centralized so that all decisions, including investment, production, and distribution decisions were made in Moscow. Economic planning dictated a complex network of production and distribution that rendered the former republics dependent on Russia in a variety of ways. Soviet patterns of government administration and economic management are still evident in all the former republics. Continued dependency on Russia has compromised the state-building efforts of the former republics. Political rhetoric trumpeting new foreign investment, the expansion of diplomatic relations, the signing of trade agreements, and the imminent entrance into international organizations masks the fact that none of these new contacts have been able to replace the old Soviet production and distribution networks. Scholars and students involved with comparative politics and Russian (post-Communist) Studies will find the work of particular value.

Asks whether there are lessons to be drawn for contemporary multi-ethnic societies from the experience of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in its last decades. Also asks if ideas about the state/nation relationship from that period of Austrian Social Democracy can have applicability today.

The Soviet Union is often characterised as nominally a federation, but really an empire, liable to break up when individual federal units, which were allegedly really subordinate colonial units, sought independence. This book questions this interpretation, revisiting the theory of federation, and discussing actual examples of federations such as the United States, arguing that many federal unions, including the United States, are really centralised polities. It also discusses the nature of empires, nations and how they relate to nation states and empires, and the right of secession, highlighting the importance of the fact that this was written in to the Soviet constitution. It examines the attitude of successive Soviet leaders towards nationalities, and the changing attitudes of nationalists towards the Soviet Union. Overall, it demonstrates that the Soviet attitude to nationalities and federal units was complicated, wrestling, in a similar way to many other states, with difficult questions of how ethno-cultural justice can best be delivered in a political unit which is bigger than the national state.

International scholars review decades of postwar reconstruction in international comparison from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, demonstrating how foreign domestic policy cannot be separated.

Unquestionably a watershed year in world history, 1917 not only saw the Russian Revolution and the US entry into World War I, it also marked a foundational moment in determining global political structures for the remaining twentieth century. Yet while contemporaries were cognizant of these global connections, historiography has been largely limited to analysis of the nation-state. A century later, this book discusses the transnational dimension of the numerous upheavals, rebellions, and violent reactions on a global level that began with 1917. Experts from different continents contribute findings that go beyond the well-known European and transatlantic narratives, making for a uniquely global study of this crucial period in history.

Die Autorinnen und Autoren dieses Bandes haben eine Reihe von Reden von Spitzenpolitikern zur europäischen Integration aus einer großen Zeitspanne (1946-2020) analysiert, wobei sie jede Rede in ihren zeitgeschichtlichen Kontext gestellt und in den biographischen Hintergrund des Redners eingeordnet haben. Die vergleichende Analyse zeigt, dass es notwendig ist, wieder zu entdecken, dass das Ideal des europäischen Einigungswerks genauso spannend sein kann wie andere nationale geschichtliche Kontroversen. Angesichts eines grassierenden Euroskeptizismus kann eine historische Einordnung und Kontextualisierung der Rolle der Kommunikation der europäischen Integration ein nützliches Instrumentarium sein, um die Bedeutung der europäischen Einigung und ihrer Werte zu erklären und zu verstehen. Mit Beiträgen von Dr. Andrea Becherucci, Prof. Frédéric Bozo, Prof. Elena Calandri, Prof. Andrea Catanzaro, Prof. Sante Cruciani, Dr. Deborah Cuccia, Prof. Elena Dundovich, Prof. Laura Fasanaro, Dr. Eva Garau, Prof. Dr. Michael Gehler, Prof. Piero Graglia, Prof. Giorgio Grimaldi, Prof. Gilles Grin, Prof. Maria Eleonora Guasconi, Prof. Giuliana Laschi, Prof. Guido Levi, Prof. Antonio Moreno Juste, Prof. Mara Morini, Prof. Marinella Neri Gualdesi, Dr. Jean-Marie Palayret, Prof. Simone Paoli, Prof. Daniele Pasquinucci, Prof. Laura Piccardo, Prof. Francesco Pierini, Prof. Ilaria Poggiolini, Prof. Daniela Preda, Prof. Sabine Russ-Sattar, Prof. Carlos Sanz Diaz, Prof. Jan Van der Harst, Prof. Antonio Varsori und Laura Wolf.

The book suggests that the US-Russia post-9/11 partnership did not endure because much of America's policy is shaped by an ambition to remain the world's only superpower. The book analyzes the negative role played by Russophobia and advocates a different approach to Russia in the post-Cold War world.