The Concept of Independence in International Relations, A Case Study of Russian Policy towards CIS Countries

Introduction: In the contemporary era, independent states, whose most obvious feature is Westphalian sovereignty, form the core of the international system. These states are characterized by the principle of non-interference in their internal affairs and a formal equality with other states, regardless of size, power, or wealth. This state concept, which has its roots in the 1648 “Peace of Westphalia” continues to shape international relations by emphasizing the legal and political independence of states. As a result, states continue to see themselves as the main actors in this system, interacting on the basis of mutual recognition and formal equality. However, the realities of the international system, especially in the Post-Cold War era, show that the practical application of sovereignty is often far from this theoretical ideal. Our goal in this article is to critically evaluate the concept of independence as manifested in Moscow's foreign policy toward Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the creation of the CIS was intended to provide a framework for cooperation for the newly independent states while maintaining some degree of connection with Russia. However, the nature of this relationship has raised important questions about the actual extent of sovereignty that these countries enjoy. This study examines how Russia's foreign policy has maintained a delicate balance between its strategic interests and the autonomy of these countries, assessing whether Moscow genuinely respects their independence or seeks to maintain its sphere of influence in the region. A key aspect of this analysis is the historical context that has shaped the relationship between Russia and the CIS countries. The legacy of the Soviet Union, along with Russia's perception of itself as a regional hegemon, continues to influence its approach to these nations. Many of the CIS countries, while formally independent, have inherited deep political, economic, and security ties with Moscow. Over the years, Russia has used these connections to exert influence, raising concerns about whether these countries can fully exercise their sovereignty without interference. This historical background is crucial for understanding the dynamics of modern Russian foreign policy toward the CIS and the enduring tensions surrounding the concept of independence.
The consequences of Moscow’s policies for regional stability and international relations are another important area of ​​investigation. Russia’s approach to the CIS has often caused tensions with both the CIS countries and foreign powers, especially the west. By maintaining a sphere of influence, Moscow has contributed to conflicts and frozen disputes in regions like Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, where aspirations for greater autonomy and closer ties with the West conflict with Russian interests. This study will examine how Russia’s foreign policy affects not only the domestic dynamics of the CIS member states but also broader geopolitical relations, including the role of international organizations such as the European Union and NATO.
This research seeks to determine the extent to which Russian foreign policy aligns with or undermines the autonomy of CIS member states. While Moscow often presents itself as respecting the independence of these countries, its actions often suggest otherwise. By critically examining these policies and their effects, the study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between Russia and the CIS, providing insights into the broader issue of state sovereignty in a world where power dynamics are increasingly interdependent. This assessment will provide a clearer picture of whether Russia's engagement with the CIS promotes true independence or perpetuates a new form of dependence that challenges the traditional concept of state sovereignty.
Research question: How have the phenomena of globalization, the end of the Cold War, and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc affected the key determinants of national independence in international relations in general, and Russia's foreign policy towards the countries that separated from the Soviet Union in particular?
Research hypothesis: The Hypothesis of the article is no view or theory that supports the concept of state independence or the theory of independence in the foreign policy of a state. The findings of this research show that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's perception of the independence of the newly independent states was not fully compatible with the classical and standard concept of sovereignty.
Methodology: This study is essentially a qualitative one in nature, utilizing an exploratory method. The process of gathering data is based on documents and library resources, including articles, books, research papers, and reports.
Results and discussion: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's perception and understanding of the independence of the newly established post-Soviet states diverged from the conventional concept of full sovereignty defined by international norms. Rather than recognizing these states as entirely autonomous entities with complete control over their internal and external affairs, Russia maintained a more nuanced and often limited interpretation of their independence. This view was characterized by an implicit expectation of continued influence on the political, economic, and security decisions of these countries, which reflects a deviation from the classical understanding of sovereignty, which emphasizes non-intervention and the full exercise of state authority. In other words, Russia viewed the independence of these states through a lens that allowed for its continuous regional domination and intervention.
Conclusion: Moscow's interpretation of the independence of these newly established post-Soviet states was significantly restrictive, effectively denying them the full exercise of sovereignty over their political and strategic trajectories. Instead of recognizing their right to make independent decisions, Russia has asked these countries to make a tacit commitment to prioritize and align their interests with Russia in a range of critical areas, including political governance, security policies, and economic development.