Evolving Borders and Memory: Post-Soviet Territory and Modern Russia
The dissolution of the Soviet Union remains a defining moment for modern Russia. Beyond the social and economic turmoil, much of the vast territory that had formed the country for centuries slipped away. The Kremlin’s claim to these lands feeds into its narrative when it justifies actions in Ukraine, including the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 moves in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. The impulse to reclaim historical borders still lingers in the minds of Russia’s leaders, even as the world has moved into a new era of geopolitics.
Yet this approach opens a risky double-edged path. Neighboring states could feel empowered, under Moscow’s logic, to argue for territories that once belonged to them or their ancestors. Finland, Mongolia, Turkey, Japan, China, and other neighbors might marshal historical or ethnic claims to press for territorial restoration. The justification of protecting brother peoples, a refrain used by Moscow in 2022 regarding Donbas, could be echoed by others seeking a return to past boundaries.
Oleg Ignatov, a Russia analyst at the think tank Crysis Group, notes that any annexation represents a fundamental breach of international law, the global order, and the UN Charter. The 2014 and 2022 Ukrainian regional changes are not recognized by most of the international community, with only a few allied states offering support to Russia. Such widespread non-recognition serves as the strongest deterrent against future moves on territories within the broad region or beyond. Ignatov argues that war in Ukraine is unlikely to affect distant enclaves like the Kuriles or Kaliningrad, unless a broader conflict erupts between Russia and NATO, an outcome he believes would be undesirable for all sides.
Echoes of World War II shape much of this discussion. The legacy of Germany in the current zone of Kaliningrad is mostly architectural and historical, yet the region’s past as Königsberg runs deep. It was long a German base against Baltic pagans and, in the prewar era, an assertion of regional power. A Baltic Republican party once pushed for independence, though it was dissolved in 2005. In a distant echo of Donbas-style referendums, a Czech poll once teased a pretend bid to reclaim the enclave as a joke rather than a serious political move.
Far across the globe, the Kurile Islands remain a flashpoint. They were Japanese territory until 1945, and the Soviet Union retained sovereignty over the archipelago following the postwar peace process. Tokyo continues to press for the return of some islands and argues that the peace treaty signed after the war ceded lands once held by Japan. This dispute underscores how historical claims can persist long after battles end.
A separate thread in the narrative is the history of tension over borders. Crimea, long a strategic piece of the Russian geopolitical puzzle, was celebrated by Moscow as a milestone, yet it stands as a complex test case. The majority of researchers emphasize that the move is not accepted by most of the international community. Some Turkish nationalist circles envision a broader union of Turkic peoples, a concept that could feed calls for territorial adjustments. However, current leadership in Ankara maintains that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, signaling limits to how far historical sentiment can drive modern policy.
Other potential claims receive careful scrutiny. Mongolia, a historical power in Asia, is commonly seen as a smaller player in a landscape shaped by Russia and China. Yet Ulan Bator could mobilize arguments tied to minority protections among Mongol groups. Civil society groups, such as Free Buryatia, have pointed to mortality differentials among mobilized minority units in the Ukrainian front, highlighting the human costs of prolonged conflict and the fragile dynamics surrounding ethnic representation in modern warfare.
Nordic neighbors could look to Karelia and other borderlands as possible sources of tension. Meanwhile, perhaps less visible but equally significant, the Manchurian region sits at the intersection of Chinese and Russian influence, home to groups that have shaped regional history. While this cross-border mosaic remains stable for now, the shadow of historical border debates persists. There is no universal appetite among these states to expand at Russia’s expense, but the possibility of renewed territorial ambitions remains a recurring theme in political discourse. In recent years, even Russian leaders have experimented with hypothetical maps that imagine broader redrawing of borders, underscoring how memory, strategy, and power intertwine in international politics.
Across these threads, one clear observation stands out: territorial questions in Europe and adjacent regions are deeply tied to history, identity, and power. The international community continues to anchor its response in multilateral norms and legal frameworks that prioritize sovereignty and peaceful resolution. The lessons of the past reinforce a cautious approach to any movement that seeks to redraw borders—an approach that prefers dialogue, sanctions, and diplomacy over unilateral action. The future of regional borders will likely hinge on restraint, cooperation, and the steadfast commitment of nations to the rule of law and to the protection of civilian lives in times of crisis.