Бакалавриат 2026/2027

Политические процессы в Восточной Европе

Статус: Курс по выбору (Политология и мировая политика)

Кто читает: Департамент политологии и международных отношений

Где читается: Санкт-Петербургская школа социальных наук

Когда читается: 4-й курс, 1, 2 модуль

Охват аудитории: для своего кампуса

Преподаватели: Максимовцова Ксения Викторовна

Язык: английский

Кредиты: 4

Контактные часы: 60

Course Syllabus

Abstract

This course covers political development in the six partnership countries. These include: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. This trace how these countries develop, taking into an account their geographical location in between European Union and Russia, be way specific attention to the role of Russia has been playing in stirring these developments. The course aims to provide students with an understanding of key issues in political and societal developments in the six countries of the Eastern Partnership Programme. It covers a number of political and societal issues such as Russian/Soviet legacies; post-colonial/post-Soviet identities; state building; ethnicity, language policy, nation building and nationalism; (ethnic) conflict and violence; multiple forms of civil society and ambiguous impact of (external) development/democracy promotion efforts.

Learning Objectives

• Students are able to evaluate, model and forecast social and political processes at the global, international, national, regional, and local levels using methodology of empirical and theoretical research

Expected Learning Outcomes

• Students are able to apply the concepts of state building and state fragility; ethnicity, language and language policy, nationhood, nation building and nationalism, and (ethnic) conflict to analysis of the countries of the Eastern Partnership Programme
• Students are able to demonstrate critical thinking on variations in and drivers of political, economic, social, and cultural transformations in the six countries of the Eastern Partnership Programme
• Students are able to evaluate and predict policy outcomes of the EU in relation to the countries of the Eastern Partnership Programme
• Students are able to evaluate policy outcomes of the Eastern Partnership Programme
• Students are able to evaluate policy outcomes of the Eastern Partnership Programme for Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Belarus
• Students are able to evaluate, model and forecast social and political processes in modern Armenia and the evaluate the impact of the Eastern Partnership Programme on Armenia's foreign and domestic policy.
• Students are able to evaluate, model and forecast social and political processes in modern Belarus and the evaluate the impact of the Eastern Partnership Programme on Belarusian foreign and domestic policy.
• Students are able to evaluate, model and forecast social and political processes in modern Georgia and the evaluate the impact of the Eastern Partnership Programme on Georgia's foreign and domestic policy.
• Students are able to evaluate, model and forecast social and political processes in modern Moldova and the evaluate the impact of the Eastern Partnership Programme on Moldova's foreign and domestic policy.
• Students are able to evaluate, model and forecast social and political processes in modern Ukraine and the evaluate the impact of the Eastern Partnership Programme on Ukraine's foreign and domestic policy.
• Students are able to find similarities and differences in the trajectories of the development of the six countries of the Eastern Partnership Programme
• Students are able to reflect on the role of Russia in foreign and internal policies of the countries of the Eastern Partnership Programme
• Students demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the main societal and political developments in modern Ukraine.
• Students demonstrate knowledge of the key societal, political, and economic processes in the six countries of the Eastern Partnership Programme
• Students demonstrate the knowledge of the scholarly literature on post-Soviet nation-building, nationalism, and are able to apply different theoretical approaches to the analysis of the influence of Russia on the countries of the Eastern Partnership Programme
• Students know key issues in political and societal developments in modern Azerbaijan.
• Students know the main goals and the history of Eastern Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Partnership Programme

Course Contents

• Eastern Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Partnership Programme: Mission, Main Goals, and Expected Policy Outcomes
• An uneasy triangle: EU's Neighbourhood Policy, Post-Soviet States, and Russia
• Eastern Partnership Programme and Ukraine.
• Eastern Partnership Programme and Belarus.
• Eastern Partnership Programme and Moldova.
• Eastern Partnership Programme and Georgia.
• Eastern Partnership Programme and Azerbaijan.
• Eastern Partnership Programme and Armenia.
• Structured Discussion about the Impact of the Eastern Partnership Programme on the Six Post-Soviet Countries.

Assessment Elements

• Final exam
  The final exam will be made in the form of a test, which contains questions with one correct answer as well as open-ended questions where students will need to answer them thoroughly. Students are not allowed to use Chat GPT or any other AI tools during the exam. All replies will be thoroughly scruitinized. If the usage of AI tools is confirmed, it will results in an unsatisfactory grade ("0"). To be exempted from the exam, the student needs to score at least 8 for all other elements of control (class participation, quizzes and presentations). All other students will pass the exam. In the case of the 1st and 2nd retakes (with the commission), the retake is possible in the same form. Examples of the questions can be found here: Please indicate the correct dates: 1). the year when the Twitter Revolution take place in Moldova; 2). the date when the Eastern Partnership Program was officially launched; 3). the date when Moldova received visa-free access to the EU. A). 2008, 2009, 2017 B). 2009, 2009, 2014 C). 2008, 2010, 2017 According to Rogers Brubaker, what are the key characteristics of a nationalizing state? A). Membership and expression of ethnic differences B). State of ownership by a particular ethnocultural group and compensatory project C). Russian speakers and international organizations
• Quizzes/tests
  Mini quizzes contain 10 questions to be answered in 10 minutes. The questions are MCQ with one correct answer to be picked among several. These questions are based on the class materials (lectures and mandatory readings for the class) for each topic. The overall grade for this component is made up as average grade for 7 quizzes offered during the course. The retake is possible in the same form (both for the 1st and 2nd retake). The grade is calculated as number of points obtained for correct answers divided by the total points possible to obtain and translated into percentage. The percentages are then translated into the ten-point grade using the following table: The grade is calculated as number of points obtained for correct answers divided by the total points possible to obtain and translated into percentage. The percentages are then translated into the ten-point grade using the following table. 0% – 0 >0-14% – 1 >15-30% – 2 >35-48% – 3 >49-59% – 4 >60-69% – 5 >70-79% – 6 >80-89% – 7 >90-94% – 8 >95-97% – 9 >98-100% – 10
• Group presentations
  Group presentations should be prepared by a small group of students (up to 4-5 students per group). Students should propose for approval by the instructor: 1) composition of their groups; 2) topics for their presentations based on the topics/readings for the tutorials; 3) outlines of their presentations. These presentations will function as basis for further class discussion. Therefore, presenters are supposed to cover mandatory and optional readings and, preferably, use other non-assigned sources for their analysis on the chosen topic in order to make a genuinely original contribution. The retake is possible in the form of an individual presentation. Assessment criteria: «Excellent» (10) A well-structured, analytical presentation of project work which literally knocks the instructor’s socks off by its beauty, coherence and the quality of information. Shows strong evidence and broad background knowledge. In a group presentation all members contribute equally and each contribution builds on the previous one clearly. «Excellent» (9) A well-structured, analytical presentation of project work. Shows strong evidence and broad background knowledge. In a group presentation all members contribute equally and each contribution builds on the previous one clearly. Answers to follow-up questions reveal a good range and depth of knowledge within what is covered in the presentation and show confidence in discussion. «Excellent» (8) A well-structured, analytical presentation of project work. Shows strong evidence and broad background knowledge. In a group presentation all members contribute, but maybe not quite as equally and seamlessly. Answers to follow-up questions reveal a good range of knowledge. «Good» (7) Clearly organized analysis, showing evidence of a good overall knowledge of the topic. The presenter of the project work highlights key points and responds to follow up questions appropriately. There is evidence that the group has met to discuss the topic and is presenting the results of that discussion, in an order previously agreed. «Good» (6) Some analysis is presented, showing evidence of the general knowledge of the topic with occasional detailed highlights. The presenters respond to follow up questions with gaps. There might not be enough group work invested in making it a group presentation, and the performance of group members is uneven. «Satisfactory» (5) Takes a rather basic approach to the topic, using broadly appropriate material but lacking focus. The presentation is not very well structured. Knowledge of the topic is limited. Most of the work seems to be done by one or two students and the individual contributions do not add up. «Satisfactory» (4) Takes a very basic approach to the topic, the material used is of low quality, presentation lacks focus. The presentation of project work is largely unstructured, and some points are irrelevant to the topic. No specialist knowledge of the topic is presented, and there may be evidence of basic misunderstanding. Most of the work seems to be done by one or two students and the individual contributions do not add up. «Fail» (3) Fails to demonstrate any appropriate knowledge. There is a PowerPoint (or similar) presentation to go with the talk, but it is of a poor quality. The follow-up Q&A session reveals lack of understanding of the topic. «Fail» (2) Fails to demonstrate any appropriate knowledge. There is no PowerPoint (or similar) presentation to go with the talk. To the rest of the group the talk may even be misleading. The follow-up Q&A session reveals complete lack of understanding of the topic. «Fail» (1) Fails to demonstrate any appropriate knowledge. There is no PowerPoint (or similar) presentation to go with the talk. The follow-up Q&A session reveals complete lack of understanding of the topic. The material presented is in fact false. «Fail» (0) The presentation is not presented, or is abysmally poor in its substance and presentation.
• Active participation in class discussions
  Students are expected to provide interesting and meaningful comments during the class discussion. In this element, not only the activity matters, but also the meaning of the comments. Being only active does not guarantee the highest grade; the instructor evaluates the content and breadth of the comments provided by students. Students class performance is assessed during the seminars’ discussion and follow-up questions after each lecture. Students are expected to reflect on the course’s content as well as readings for the class. The retake of this control element is not possible. Assessment criteria: «Excellent» (9-10) A student demonstrates an excellent knowledge of the study material as well as of the advanced material not covered by the course, and the knowledge in adjacent fields. «Excellent» (8) A student demonstrates an excellent knowledge of the study material, the answer is complete, rare minor mistakes may occur. «Good» (6–7) Shows a fairly good evidence of preparatory research and broad background knowledge. Good oral expression, but some logical or factual mistakes can be identified. «Satisfactory» (4–5) Satisfactory overall, showing a fair knowledge of the topic, a reasonable standard of expression. Some hesitation in answering follow-up questions and/or gives incomplete, partly irrelevant, or incorrect answers. «Fail» (0–3) Limited evidence of relevant knowledge and an attempt to address the topic. Unable to offer relevant information or opinion in answer to follow-up questions.

Interim Assessment

• 2026/2027 2nd module
  0.25 * Group presentations + 0.25 * Final exam + 0.25 * Quizzes/tests + 0.25 * Active participation in class discussions

Bibliography

Recommended Core Bibliography

• A pivotal moment for the Eastern partnership: outlook for Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Belarus, Armenia, and Azerbaijan hearing before the Subcommittee of European Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 113th Congress, 1st Session, hearing held November 14, 2013. (2014).
• Armine Ishkanian. (2008). Democracy Building and Civil Society in Post-Soviet Armenia. Routledge.
• Cheskin, A., & Kachuyevski, A. (2019). The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Post-Soviet Space: Language, Politics and Identity. Europe-Asia Studies, 71(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2018.1529467
• Delcour, L. (2015). Between the Eastern Partnership and Eurasian Integration: Explaining Post-Soviet Countries’ Engagement in (Competing) Region-Building Projects. Problems of Post-Communism, 62(6), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2015.1057075
• Elizaveta Gaufman. (2017). Security Threats and Public Perception : Digital Russia and the Ukraine Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Fix, L. V. (DE-588)1138134058, (DE-627)895473925, (DE-576)475793315, aut. (2019). Out of the shadow? Georgia’s emerging strategies of engagement in the Eastern partnership : between external governance and partnership cooperation Liana Fix, Andrea Gawrich, Kornely Kakachia & Alla Leukavets.
• Guliyev, F. (2005). Post-Soviet Azerbaijan: Transition to Sultanistic Semiauthoritarianism? An Attempt at Conceptualization. Demokratizatsiya, 13(3), 393–435. https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.13.3.393-436
• Kazharski, A. V. (DE-588)1156954118, (DE-627)101989752X, (DE-576)502531320, aut. (2021). Belarus’ new political nation? 2020 anti-authoritarian protests as identity building Aliaksei Kazharski, Charles University, Czech Republik; Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia.
• Kuzio, T. V. (DE-588)120488523, (DE-627)080706746, (DE-576)170547426, aut. (2018). The sources of Russia’s great power politics Ukraine and the challenge to the European Order Taras Kuzio and Paul D’Anieri.
• Maksimovtsova, K. (2019). Language Conflicts in Contemporary Estonia, Latvia, and Ukraine : A Comparative Exploration of Discourses in Post-Soviet Russian-Language Digital Media. ibidem.
• Pal Kolsto. (2018). Political Construction Sites : Nation Building In Russia And The Post-soviet States. Routledge.
• Prina, F. (2015). Linguistic Justice, Soviet Legacies and Post-Soviet Realpolitik : The Ethnolinguistic Cleavage in Moldova. Ethnopolitics, 14(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2014.928097
• Sęk, A. aut. (2013). Kremlin’s heavy handed approach to its “near abroad”? The Russian perspective on the EU’s Eastern Partnership Anita Sęk.
• The Routledge handbook on the European neighbourhood policy edited by Tobias Schumacher, Andreas Marchetti and Thomas Demmelhuber. (2018).
• Tokluoglu, C. (2012). Perceptions of State and Leadership in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan (1991–2009). Middle Eastern Studies, 48(3), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2012.661370
• VAN MEURS, W. (2015). Moldova: Nested Cases of Belated Nation-Building. Revue d’Études Comparatives Est-Ouest, 46(1), 185–209. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0338059915001084
• Wilson, A. (2015). The Ukrainians : Unexpected Nation, Fourth Edition: Vol. Fourth edition. Yale University Press.

Recommended Additional Bibliography

• Sahakyan, M. (2021). The South Caucasus at the Crossroads: Great Powers and Regional Conflict. AsiaGlobal Online ; Https://Hal.Archives-Ouvertes.Fr/Hal-03209683 ; 2021.
• Trach, N. (2017). Language laws of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova: comparative aspect ; Мовне законодавство України, Грузії та Молдови: порівняльний аспект. Language: Classic - Modern - Postmodern.
• Turashvili, T. aut. (2015). Georgia after the Riga Eastern Partnership summit Teona Turashvili; Konrad Zasztowt.

Authors

• Maksimovtsova Kseniia Viktorovna