The outgoing year witnessed many events that tested the existing models of statehood. While some of them are just taking shape, others have existed for a fairly long time and are beset with a host of problems and contradictions.

       The past year demonstrated the potential of some states and the fragility of others. We live in a most interesting time, when we can see noticeable changes in the institution of the state just over a single year. During more stable periods such transformations last for years if not decades, whereas today we are witnessing their sharp acceleration. Their cumulative effect may well trigger quantitative changes in the image of the modern state.

       The Middle East has become the brightest example of such transformation. The secular state continues to suffer from a very serious crisis, which has been provoked by different factors – outside interference, demographic dynamics and the failure of political institutions to promptly adapt to socio-economic changes. As a result, an alternative model of an extremely cruel terrorist state rooted in radical versions of Islam came to the fore. The Islamic State (IS, ISIS), a terrorist organization banned in Russia, exploded in popularity due to the availability of so many flammable issues and contradictions.

       It is perfectly logical that many countries began to view ISIS as a threat, especially due to the number of high profile terrorist acts. However, 2015 revealed serious problems in the formation of an international coalition of states against ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Russia’s sudden and largely successful intervention in the situation in Syria encouraged a continued search for possible configurations of the said coalition but its prospects are dim, especially in view of current Russian-Turkish tensions. Indicatively, many contradictions are rooted in the issue of statehood – namely, the future model of a political settlement in Syria. Obviously, the Middle East will become the main battleground for different approaches to this issue in the near future.

       Ukraine became another example of statehood in crisis. The past year saw the transition from acute aggravation of civil war to incomplete attempts to freeze the ongoing conflict. The prospects of the Minsk Agreements ending in success are becoming more and more elusive. Reintegration with Donbass is being delayed for indefinitely.

       However, the predictions of a fast collapse of Ukrainian statehood did not come true, either. The country is being shaken by political scandals, and the Brownian processes of elections, and parliamentary and public debates. Many of these debates are far from what Western democracies are used to but, paradoxically, the integrity of Ukrainian statehood stands behind this chaos. The effect of “delegated responsibility” spares political leaders many risks, while external financial and political support, limited as it is, still helps them to keep afloat. The model that is taking shape in Ukraine combines democratic institutions with an inefficient state and hugely undermined sovereignty. Importantly, the sovereignty has been damaged both by the conflict in the East and Ukraine’s dependence on external players.

       The Greek debt crisis also revealed interesting trends. On the one hand, it showed the growing political might of the Brussels bureaucracy and on the other, the ephemeral character of the sovereignty of the EU’s weakest members. The EU’s supranational power is growing stronger, thereby seriously reducing individual member states’ opportunities to maneuver. As long as the EU membership continues to be a source of growth, this will not be a big problem. But what will happen when the demands of Brussels begin to contradict national interests? The concept of justice through legal equality boils down to the real correlation between the rights of the EU and its individual members. In perspective, this is a serious challenge to the entire European project, especially considering the varying levels of development of its old and new members.

       In step with the EU dynamics, the legal arrangement of the Eurasian Economic Union also became a noteworthy event. It is hardly appropriate to compare these two projects. The EU has long turned into a political organization, whereas the EAEU is positioning itself as an exclusively economic alliance. Nonetheless, each of the latter’s members delegates some of its powers to supranational bodies. This level of integration had been reached for the first time in a quarter century, since the Soviet Union’s collapse. The EAEU’s survival and international recognition will depend on its ability to suppress the temptation to politicize the union in the near future and take into account the mistakes of other integration projects.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.