N. Mezhevich’s research while affiliated with St Petersburg University and other places

The Baltic Sea region is one of the most developed transnational regions. It comprises the coastal areas of Russia, Germany, and Poland and the entire territories of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. New spatial forms of international economic cooperation develop in the region. The region is not homogeneous in terms of socioeconomic development, thus there are certain differences in the areas and the intensity of international cooperation. The article sets out to identify structural characteristics of the Baltic Sea region. This requires studying practices of transnational and transboundary cooperation and possibilities for their adoption in other regions of the world. An important characteristic of the Baltic Sea region is a considerable difference between its coastal territories, the fact that affects the development of multilateral relations. This article examines the most pronounced socioeconomic differences that should be taken into account when forecasting cooperation trends in t he region, including those between the Baltic territories of Russia and their international partners.

This article describes the characteristics of Eastern Europe as a political pro-ject. The author considers the genesis of Eastern Europe as a political region and identifies several periods in its history. The author analyses key features of sover-eignization- desovereignization of the region and examines geopolitical projects of Intermarium. It is shown that Eastern Europe as such is an objective reality, whose history has not ended. At the same time, the author advances and proves the thesis that various ‘Baltic/Black Sea’ cooperation models aimed at isolating Russia act against the interests of all participants of the political process. A number of meth¬ods, including the historical and structural functional analyses and the system ap¬proach are used in the study. The central hypothesis is that, as a political project, Intermarium reflects an important part of the systemic features of Eastern Europe as a political region. However, it is not identical to the region in terms of its geography or political regionalism. The anti-Russian sentiment of the Intermarium project is dominant. Yet, it is not immanent in this group of concepts. Reformatting the Inter¬marium concept in line with the new Moscow-Warsaw-Berlin cooperation model can be considered a feasible political task, which requires an adequate scientific solution. Moreover, Eastern Europe has reached the point of bifurcation. The region may become another new source of instability in Europe. Intermarium projects — a traditional object of research – have to be re-evaluated in the new political and eco¬nomic conditions. This article is a step in this direction.

During the last 25 years, the economy of the Baltic States has been developing in the conditions of sovereignty, both de facto and de jure. This period has been sufficient to identify regular patterns in the national economic models. Studies into the nature of the economic development of the Baltic States have a considerable practical and scientific significance. On the one hand, the three Baltic States are a part of the post-Soviet space. The nature, success or failures of their economies contribute to a more accurate assessment of Russia’s development. On the other hand, it is the second decade of the Baltic States’ EU membership, and the countries’ experience is very relevant. The article identifies and analyses key characteristics of the Baltic States’ economic model. The author puts forward a hypothesis on two stages of the economic transformation undergone by the Baltic States. The first stage is characterised by a combination of transformation and modernisation whereas the second - by transformation accompanied by a number of destructive trends in the economy. The current economic model demonstrates limited stability, partly due to deliberately severed economic ties with Russia.

Russia has a vested political interest in the Eastern Baltics; yet acting upon this interest is made either difficult or altogether impossible when it comes to the Baltic States. For 20 years, the Russian Federation has been actively promoting a model of mutually beneficial co-operation. The anti-Russian discourse of the Baltic States' political elites — driven by their own wish to maintain their political monopoly — halts most of co-operation efforts. It is time to accept that the previous model of co-operation with the Baltic States is now irrelevant, since these states now form the avant-garde of anti-Russian movement; whether they will — or, indeed, shall — be held accountable for that is another question that bears answering. for which they should certainly be held accountable. The author of this article believes that the current model is unprecedented and failing, so it is unwise to speak of its continuing long-term application. The aim of this study is to draw some conclusions on the 25 years of interg overnmental relations between Russia and the Baltic States. The author uses a number of cross-disciplinary methods and relies heavily on the method of historical analysis. It is concluded that there are reasons rendering mutual co-operation impossible — however beneficial such co-operation may seem. Conservation of the current political system will inevitably lead to economic stagnation in the Baltic States. If external pressures continue to rise and the relations with Russia continue to deteriorate, the destruction of economic and political systems of the neighboring states may become a reality.

At the present stage of social development in Europe and Russia, studies analyzing and evaluating ethnic and national borders are of increasing relevance. Over the last three decades, the state borders in the Baltic region have been stable, which is not the case in Europe in general. The author believes that the key reason behind the current crisis in Russia-EU relations is the conspicuous neglect of Russian interests in the neighboring countries that formed after the disintegration of the USSR. However, escalation of the conflict was historically and geographically predetermined. The political borders of post-Soviet states do not coincide with the ethnic ones and, therefore, the attempts to consolidate states through ethnic mobilization meet corresponding resistance from groups with a different identity. In the Baltic region, these processes have not reached the Ukrainian scale; however, there are prerequisites for ethno-political conflicts of this type. The post-Crimean political debate in the Baltic states has shown that that hardliners of a strict assimilation model of state identity prevail in Vilnius, Riga, and Tallinn. This study sets out to analyze the political consequences of the conflict between the existing models of ethnopolitical identification in the border areas of the Eastern Baltic region. The main result of the study is that it has proved the existence of a special type of identity characteristic of border regions of the Baltic countries. In the context of this identity, the classic postmodernist dilemma of “us and them” is insufficient for a proper scientific analysis, and even more so for a political forecast. The formation of a special “double” or “transitional” identity in the border areas can serve both as a tool for strengthening of states and intergovernmental relations and as a ground for large-scale conflicts with hardly predictable consequences.