De-sovereignisation as an instrument of Russia's coercive diplomacy in the context of post-Soviet de facto states. A comparative study of Moldova and

去主权是俄罗斯在后苏联事实国家背景下的强制性外交的一种工具。摩尔多瓦和乌克兰的比较研究(2014-2021年)本项目考察摩尔多瓦和乌克兰由于俄罗斯在普里德内斯特罗维亚的摩尔多瓦共和国(PMR)以及顿涅茨克和卢甘斯克人民共和国(DNR/LNR)分离领土上的活动而发生的去主权进程。去主权是指一个国家有选择地促进国家和民族建设活动，干扰另一个国家对其部分领土和人口行使控制和权力的能力的过程。通过加强事实国家(即拥有事实主权但缺乏国际法律承认的领土实体)的主权和国家地位的各种属性，俄罗斯自动削弱了各自母国的主权和国家地位，从而使它们更容易受到其影响。特别是，这篇论文解决了以下研究问题：俄罗斯在支持后苏联事实国家生存能力方面的作用如何影响重新融入母国的前景？与PMR相比，俄罗斯参与DNR/LNR的情况如何？为了指导实证研究，本论文依赖于强制外交理论的精炼版本，该理论意味着使用(语言和非语言)威胁和激励来促使目标国家的行为改变，从而对胁迫方有利。因此，本项目着眼于俄罗斯国家和非国家行为者如何在PMR和DNR/LNR中促进国家和民族建设活动，目的是向各自的母国施压，迫使其顺应俄罗斯不断变化的要求，推进其保持对该地区影响力的总体目标。简而言之，这篇论文认为，俄罗斯利用后苏联时代的边界作为讨价还价的筹码，以自己的条件获得让步。本研究的前提是观念和利益是互补的，而不是相互排斥的影响决策的因素。考虑到这一点，它考察了摩尔多瓦和乌克兰的去主权活动如何同样受到俄罗斯精英对国家利益的理解以及他们关于主权是大国独有属性的信念的影响，这反过来又强化了邻国只有名义主权的假设。至关重要的是，该项目首次对这类活动进行了比较研究，涉及五个领域：1)政治外交；2)经济金融；3)军事安全；4)教育文化；5)社会法律。与此同时，这项研究与将事实上国家的政治和军事领导人视为被剥夺独立机构的俄罗斯代理人的传统方式保持了距离。相反，它质疑地方国家和民族建设举措在多大程度上与俄罗斯的统治精英协调一致，并审查这些举措是否会给俄罗斯带来政策困境。人们一直倾向于强调俄罗斯军事入侵邻国的原因，很少对此类入侵在当地造成的长期后果进行实证分析。相比之下，该项目承认俄罗斯支持的事实上的国家的复杂和“混乱”的现实，并以明显的相似之处为起点，从比较的角度审视独特的当地事态发展以及随之而来的重返社会前景的挑战。这项研究以个案研究分析为基础，利用了国家文件和事实上的当局和俄罗斯领导层发表的公开声明、当地报纸新闻稿、国家控制的媒体的视频以及对被研究国家的官员和专家的半结构化访谈等资料。

De-sovereignisation as an instrument of Russia's coercive diplomacy in the context of post-Soviet de facto states. A comparative study of Moldova and Ukraine (2014-2021)This project examines the de-sovereignisation processes occurring in Moldova and Ukraine as a result of Russian-instigated activities in the breakaway territories of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR) and the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples' Republics (DNR/LNR). De-sovereignisation is defined as the process(es) whereby a state selectively facilitates state- and nation-building activities that interfere with another state's ability to exercise control and authority over portions of its territory and population. By strengthening various attributes of sovereignty and statehood in de facto states (i.e. territorial entities having de facto sovereignty yet lacking international legal recognition), Russia automatically weakens those of their respective parent states, thereby making them more vulnerable to its influence. In particular, this thesis addresses the following research questions: How does Russia's role in supporting the viability of post-Soviet de facto states affect reintegration prospects into their parent states? How does Russia's involvement in the DNR/LNR compare to that in the PMR? To guide empirical research, this thesis relies on a refined version of coercive diplomacy theory, which implies the use of (verbal and non-verbal) threats and incentives to instigate behavioural change in a target state to the coercer's advantage. Thus, this project looks at how Russian state and non-state actors have been instrumentally promoting state- and nation-building activities in the PMR and the DNR/LNR with the aim to pressurise their respective parent states into complying with Russia's shifting demands advancing its overarching objective to maintain influence over the region. In short, this thesis argues that Russia uses post-Soviet borders as a bargaining chip to obtain concessions on its own terms. This study is based on the premise that ideas and interests are complementary, not mutually exclusive factors influencing decision-making. With this in mind, it examines how de-sovereignisation activities in Moldova and Ukraine are equally informed by Russian elites' understanding of state interests and their beliefs about sovereignty as an exclusive attribute of great powers, which in turn reinforce the assumption that neighbouring states have only nominal sovereignty. Critically, this project provides the first comparative study of such activities, operationalised into five domains: 1) political-diplomatic; 2) economic-financial; 3) military-security; 4) educational-cultural; 5) socio-legal. At the same time, this study distances itself from the conventional way of treating political and military leaders in de facto states as mere Russian proxies deprived of independent agency. Rather, it interrogates the extent to which local state- and nation-building initiatives are coordinated with Russia's ruling elite and examines whether these may generate policy dilemmas for Russia. There has been a tendency to emphasise the causes of Russia's military incursions into neighbouring countries, with little empirical analysis of the long-term consequences of such incursions on the ground. By contrast, this project acknowledges the complex and 'messy' realities of Russia-backed de facto states and uses apparent similarities as a starting point to examine in comparative terms idiosyncratic local developments and the ensuing challenges for reintegration prospects. This study relies on case-study analysis and draws on sources such as state documents and public statements issued by the de facto authorities and the Russian leadership, local newspaper releases, videos from state-controlled media outlets as well as semi-structured interviews with officials and experts from the countries under study.