Our team of experts has identified three key areas—Democratization, Decolonization, and Demographic Challenges—that have shaped the post-Soviet experience, particularly for Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, and Ukraine, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. These issues lie at the heart of many current crises and points of escalation in the region. They bridge national concerns with broader, transnational dynamics, and our eyewitnesses each represent one of these critical categories.
Democratizaton
In the early 1990s, the fight for democratization became a central aspiration for civil society activists and ordinary citizens alike. In Belarus, this movement was quickly surpressed after a brief “window of freedom” following the 1994 elections, forcing activists to either flee the country or retreat into niche roles. Meanwhile, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia gradually embraced democratization, especially during pivotal moments such as the Maidan, Rose, and Velvet Revolutions. Today, however, these nations face significant setbacks in their democratic progress, primarily due to Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, its interference in domestic affairs, and the rise of anti-democratic trends from within.
Decolonization
Decolonization is at the heart of many of today’s crises and ongoing processes in these countries. The colonial sense of entitlement remains a core driver of Russia’s war against Ukraine. At the same time, nationalist movements dating back to the 1970s have been the nucleus of civic engagement, leading to national independence and democratization. This tendency is a common thread across most post-Soviet states, where the movement toward democratization has often gone hand in hand with the creation of independent nation-states. The struggle for sovereignty and national identity is most evident in Armenia and Georgia, where their historical relationship with the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union continues to shape their modern challenges. While these nations have made significant strides toward political independence, their post-Soviet trajectory is still marked by a persistent battle for cultural and political autonomy. For many, this challenge involves not only rejecting the remnants of Soviet control but also reasserting their cultural, historical, and linguistic identity in the face of both external and internal pressures. The path to true independence, free from imperial influence, remains fraught with obstacles, particularly given Russia’s enduring dominance in the region.
Demographic challenges
Demographic challenges have also been a significant factor for these countries, shaping both their internal dynamics and their relationships with the outside world. Many post-Soviet nations face declining populations due to low birth rates, high emigration, and the lingering impacts of economic instability and poverty. This trend is especially pronounced in Ukraine, where the ongoing war has caused massive displacement, leaving the country with a reduced workforce and a fractured sense of national unity. In Armenia and Belarus, similar issues persist, with large numbers of citizens seeking better opportunities abroad, particularly after the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh for Armenia. Demographic challenges intersect with political, economic, and social crises, leaving significant portions of the population in poverty. For many, the 1990s represent a period of trauma, especially in the Caucasus region, where people endured years of hunger and a lack of basic resources like heating. As a result, these challenges continue to drive civic and social engagement, with activists striving to find solutions and create better futures for the most vulnerable populations.
Transformative Changes in Armenia
In the past three decades, Armenia has undergone a noticeable transformation, marked by significant shifts in its political, social, and demographic landscape. From the fall of the Soviet Union to the revolutionary changes of the 2020s, the country has navigated complex challenges, striving to define its identity as an independent nation-state and a functioning democracy in a complex geopolitical and security situation. These shifts can be examined in many different ways, but we opt for looking at it through the lenses of democracy, decolonization, and demography.
The establishment of democracy in Armenia was a complex process, with a mix of political instability, power struggles, and a weak institutional foundation. The transition was characterized by the formation of a democratic framework and institutions, emergence of a multi-party system, free press and civil society organizations, increased citizen participation in public and political life. Yet, Armenia’s political landscape eventually became dominated by rigged elections, oligarchs and political elites, which resulted in a system often criticized for corruption and authoritarian tendencies. Since 1996, there was civic unrest and protest after every major election, culminating in 2008, when mass rallies erupted after the presidential elections, and the Government used force against the protestors on March 1, 2008, which resulted in a death of at least 10 people. In the 2020s, however, Armenia witnessed a significant shift with the Velvet Revolution of 2018, which was a direct response to frustrations with the entrenched elite and the perceived failure of the political system to address citizens’ needs.
Decolonization in Armenia’s context is more nuanced than the typical understanding of breaking free from colonial powers. After centuries of foreign domination — whether Ottoman, Persian, or Russian — Armenia’s independence in 1991 was the peak of a long struggle for national sovereignty and political agency, as well as liberation from internal and external foreign domination. However, while Armenia was among the first post-Soviet countries to initiate a de-Sovietization process, the early 1990s also saw it becoming heavily dependent on Russia for military and economic support, especially due to the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and regional instability. This dynamic shaped the country’s foreign policy choices, especially in relation to its disputes with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, and in securing economic aid and military support from Russia. During this period, Armenia was often seen as politically bound to Russia, limiting its ability to diversify its international relations. The 2020s, however, have seen increasing calls for greater autonomy in domestic and foreign policy. The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War further exposed the limits of Russian support. The aftermath of the war, along with shifting regional dynamics, has prompted the country to reconsider its strategic alliances. Armenia’s calls for a stronger European orientation, has been indicative of its evolving stance toward decolonization, and a desire for a more autonomous identity on the international stage.
Demographically, Armenia’s population has seen significant shifts over the last 30 years. Main demographic challenge is the significant decline in population, mostly due to emigration and decreasing birth rate. The immediate post-Soviet era in the 1990s was marked by substantial emigration, driven by economic hardship, political instability, and the aftermath of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. A large portion of the Armenian population, particularly younger generation, sought better prospects in Russia, Europe, and the United States. According to the Census data, Armenia’s population declined from about 3.5 million in the early 1990s to 3 million by the early 2000s. According to UNFPA data, Armenia has a total fertility rate below replacement level at around1.6, and it is estimated that more than 15% of Armenian women of reproductive age are infertile.
Transformative Changes in Belarus
Like all post-Soviet countries, Belarus has gone through a path of difficult and large-scale transformation since 1991. But Belarus walked a unique path in recent history, including changes in political regimes and the system of public administration. Several key themes can be identified that determined the country’s development during this period: independence, political systems and national culture.
The most important characteristic of the era for Belarus is the country’s sovereignty and constructing the institutions of an independent state. It should be remembered that in the days of the BSSR (the “Belarusian Socialist Soviet Republic”), Belarus’ sovereignty was limited when it came to solving certain economic issues. The creation of a new state required mobilizing organizational and intellectual resources. It was necessary to introduce its own currency and armed forces. In one form or another, the creation of the institutions of a sovereign state continued despite the sometimes dramatic changes in the country’s political system.
After the collapse of the USSR, Belarus entered a new era as a parliamentary republic. A four-year phase of democratization of the country began, the so-called “window of democracy.” Legislative power was vested in the Supreme Council, whose chairman was the social democratic politician Stanislau Shushkevich. Executive power, including control over the security agencies, was in the hands of the Council of Ministers, headed by Viachaslau Kebich, who in part personified the power of the former communist nomenklatura. In 1994, a constitution was adopted that transformed Belarus into a parliamentary-presidential republic. These changes were lobbied by supporters of Kebich, whom they saw as the future president. But the presidential elections were overwhelmingly won by Aliaksandr Lukashenka, who led his campaign with slogans of integration with Russia and fighting corruption. In 1995, he initiated a referendum resulting in the establishment of Russian as a state language on par with Belarusian, and both the coat of arms and flag of the Soviet era were restored.
By 1996, the conflict between the president and parliament intensified and the country entered a political crisis. At the initiative of the president, a second referendum was held which granted the president enormous powers. Legally, Belarus became a presidential republic. But these constitutional changes were accompanied by restrictions on the freedom of the press and political rights. This resulted in the de facto establishment of an authoritarian, personalistic system of power in Belarus. The apogee of these processes were the events of 2020, when public discontent with the presidential election process was brutally suppressed by security forces.
But one should not think that life in Belarus all these years consisted only of political upheaval. This period was marked by the rise of Belarusian culture in the 1990s and censorship restrictions in the following years. Decolonization in Belarus did not take place in the full sense of the word, as Russian cultural influence remains extremely strong.
Another problem in Belarus’ thirty years of independence has been demographic. In 1991, the population was 10.19 million people. As of January 1, 2024, 9.155 million lived in Belarus, a reduction of nearly 10%. That said, it should be noted that all post-Soviet countries in the region suffered significant demographic loss.
Transformative Changes in Georgia: A 30-Year Perspective Through the Three “Ds”
Democracy: Navigating the Path of Political Change
The past three decades have been transformative for Georgia, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Following independence, Georgia faced challenges in establishing a stable democratic framework as the nation grappled with civil unrest, political instability, and the emergence of separatist conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Despite these obstacles, milestones such as the establishment of the 1995 constitution laid the groundwork for democratic governance.
The 2003 Rose Revolution of 2003 was a crucial turning point in Georgia’s political landscape, highlighting the populace’s desire for democratic reforms and transparency. This peaceful uprising resulted in the ousting of President Eduard Shevardnadze and ushered in a new era of progressive leadership under Mikheil Saakashvili. His government prioritized anti-corruption measures, economic reforms, and closer ties with Western institutions. However, challenges remained, including entrenched political patronage and societal disparities that sparked discontent among various demographics. The commitment to democratic principles continues to shape Georgia’s political discourse as it aspires for greater integration with European and transatlantic structures.
Decolonization: Reclaiming National Identity
The journey of decolonization in Georgia has been intricately linked with the resurgence of national identity and the reclamation of cultural narratives suppressed during the Soviet era. Following independence, Georgia undertook efforts to distance itself from Soviet influence, promoting the Georgian language, traditions, and historical heritage.
In the 1990s, this process faced both revival and resistance. The struggle for identity was observable through the revitalization of Georgian culture and the arts, the establishment of national symbols, and an emphasis on the contributions of Georgia to world history. However, geopolitical tensions, particularly with Russia, complicated these efforts. The 2008 war with Russia over South Ossetia further intensified Georgia’s resolve to assert its independence and sovereignty, underscoring the ongoing struggle against neocolonial influences.
Demographics: Shifts and Transformations
Demographically, Georgia has undergone significant changes over the past 30 years, influenced by migration patterns, societal shifts, and economic developments. The early 1990s were characterized by large-scale emigration due to economic instability and political uncertainty. Many Georgians, particularly highly skilled professionals, left the country in search of better opportunities abroad, contributing to a “brain drain” that impacted the nation’s development.
In recent years, however, there has been a notable trend of returning emigrants, driven by improvements in living conditions, rising economic prospects, and a renewed sense of national pride. Additionally, the demographic landscape has been reshaped by internal migration from rural to urban areas as younger generations seek educational and employment opportunities in cities.
Demographic changes in Georgia have also led to a more diverse social fabric, showcasing the coexistence of various ethnic and cultural groups. This diversity enriches national identity, fostering a society that, while aware of its historical complexities, is determined to build a cohesive and democratic future.
Conclusion
The past three decades in Georgia have been marked by profound changes sparked by the interconnected processes of democratization, decolonization, and demographic transformation. As Georgia continues to navigate its path toward stable democracy while embracing its unique cultural identity, the resilience and aspirations of its people remain pivotal in shaping the nation’s future in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
Transformative Changes in Ukraine: A 30-Year Perspective Through the Three “Ds”
Migration Processes in Ukraine During the 1990s: A Period of Transition
Migration Processes in Ukraine During the 1990s: A Period of Transition, Historical Reckoning, and Emerging Challenges
The 1990s in Ukraine were a defining era of transition and upheaval following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This period was marked by profound economic transformations and the re-emergence of national consciousness, which together fueled significant migration movements both within and outside the country. The economic instability of the post-Soviet reality prompted a substantial internal migration from rural areas to urban centers. Ukrainians moved in search of better employment opportunities, posing challenges to city infrastructure and reshaping demographic patterns.
This era also witnessed the painful process of addressing historical wrongs, most notably through the resettlement of the Crimean Tatars. The Crimean Tatars, deported en masse by Stalin during World War II, began returning to Ukraine, seeking to reintegrate and reclaim their ancestral lands. This reintegration was fraught with challenges, as it required the delicate balancing of historical justice with contemporary economic and social dynamics.
Externally, the migration landscape was dominated by an outflow of Ukrainians to Western Europe and North America. Driven by economic duress, the lack of job prospects, and a burgeoning desire for political freedom, this wave included a significant “brain drain” of highly skilled professionals, such as scientists and academics, which further strained Ukraine’s developmental prospects.
The full-scale invasion by Russian forces years later profoundly challenged Ukrainian society. Many Ukrainians fled the country, and many of those who remained felt a sense of betrayal towards those who left. After three years of conflict, discussions emerged as some women and children began returning to Ukraine. This return sparked debates about the responsibility and timing for others to come back, addressing a deep societal rift about loyalty, survival, and national unity. These discussions are anticipated to be a central task for the newly proposed Міністерство повернення українців (Ministry for the Return of Ukrainians), which will likely focus on facilitating and managing the reintegration of displaced citizens.
The 1990s set the stage for these complex migration dynamics, which continue to evolve in response to ongoing geopolitical challenges, striving to balance historical grievances, economic needs, and the overarching quest for national resilience and unity.
Democratization in Ukraine: Navigating Transition
Democratization in Ukraine During the 1990s and Beyond: Navigating Transition Amidst War
The 1990s marked a critical phase in Ukraine’s journey towards democratization following its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The decade was characterized by the establishment of new democratic institutions and a significant shift away from Soviet-era authoritarianism, highlighted by the adoption of the new Ukrainian Constitution in 1996. Despite these initial steps toward democratic governance, the transition was marred by persistent obstacles, including entrenched Soviet-era elites and widespread corruption that impeded deeper structural reforms.
As Ukraine moved into the 21st century, the democratic resolve of its citizens was further tested by the events leading to the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Euromaidan protests of 2013-2014. These movements were critical in demonstrating the population’s demand for genuine democratic reforms and alignment with European values, marking significant milestones in Ukraine’s democratic evolution. They underscored the power and resilience of a civil society determined to advocate for transparency and accountability in governance.
However, the onset of war with Russia in 2014 introduced new, profound challenges to Ukraine’s democratic landscape. The conflict not only threatened Ukraine’s territorial integrity but also posed severe constraints on democratic freedoms. The full-scale invasion in 2022 led to the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, which included measures such as conscription for men and restrictions on freedom of movement, deeply affecting normal democratic processes. These conditions raised complex questions about balancing national security needs with individual freedoms, a dilemma faced by many countries in times of war.
Moreover, the war placed significant strain on media freedom. The need for national unity and security often led to justifications for censoring certain types of reporting, which conflicted with the democratic ideal of a free and independent press. The war also led to the cancellation of scheduled elections in Ukraine, providing fertile ground for speculation about the state of democracy and the legitimacy of the government during such an extended period without a renewed electoral mandate. This tension highlighted the challenges of maintaining a transparent, informative public sphere during times of national crisis.
In this context, Ukraine’s struggle for democracy is not just about internal reform but also about survival and sovereignty in the face of external aggression. The ongoing conflict necessitates a nuanced approach to democracy that considers both the immediate security concerns and the long-term democratic values that the country continues to strive towards. The resilience of Ukraine’s democratic institutions during these times of war reflects the continued commitment to the democratic process, even under dire circumstances.
The war has thus reshaped the narrative of democratization in Ukraine, presenting a complex interplay between sustaining democratic integrity and addressing existential threats. It emphasizes the continued need for vigilance and adaptation in democratic practices to ensure they withstand and adapt to the pressures of external threats and internal challenges. This ongoing process will undoubtedly play a crucial role in defining Ukraine’s democratic identity in the years to come.
Decolonization in Ukraine: Shedding the Soviet Legacy
Ukraine’s decolonization efforts have been deeply intertwined with its quest for national identity and sovereignty. The dissolution of the Soviet Union provided an opportunity to reclaim cultural and historical narratives suppressed under decades of Soviet rule. This process involved the removal of Soviet symbols, the revival of the Ukrainian language, and the promotion of national heritage. A shift toward a market economy aimed to reduce economic dependence on Russia, though it faced challenges like industry restructuring and combating corruption. Despite these efforts, the process was complicated by internal divisions and external pressures, particularly from Russia, which sought to maintain influence in Ukraine. The struggle to fully achieve political and economic sovereignty continued to be a central theme in Ukraine’s post-independence history. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and the war in Eastern Ukraine have further intensified these efforts. Ukraine has taken proactive steps, such as enacting decommunization laws in 2015, which led to the renaming of streets and dismantling of monuments associated with Soviet and Russian imperial legacies. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 dramatically underscored the ongoing challenges of decolonization, as it represented a direct assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and efforts to solidify its identity as a nation distinct from Russian influence. These actions underscore Ukraine’s determination to assert its independence and resist external influences.