The statehood of Eurasia’s de facto states: an empirical model of engagement by great powers and patrons

Abstract

The article designs an empirical model to compare the level of engagement of de facto states in Eurasia by three great powers and non-great power patron states. The authors build diagrams based on three variables – military, political, and economic – whose indicators are determined by an expert survey. Russia engages the most de facto states and to the greatest degree, while the US falls behind since engaging the de facto states is not a key national security concern. However, neither holds a universal principle of engaging de facto states – each case is treated based on broader political and national security considerations. China, wary of domestic separatism, has no military ties with the de facto states and limited economic and political engagement. Taiwan scores the highest among the de facto states with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Abkhazia falling behind by a large margin. The Peoples’ Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk and Transnistria score the lowest. The study reveals, the degree of engagement matters more than the number of the UN member states formally recognizing a de facto state.

Patron-Client Relations in the Post-Soviet Area in the 21st Century—The Case Study of Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

“…De facto states have a limited capacity to establish external relations. When analyzing the preconditions that would enable them to engage in relations with other states, it should be noted that a strong economy, the support of a powerful patron, and respect for human rights create such a potential (Tokarev, Margoev, and Prikhodchenko 2021). In view of this, the issue of de facto states should not be reduced simply to the possibilities of establishing diplomatic relations or observing democratic standards (some of which are satisfactorily implemented).…”

“…Attention should be focused on the source of success of secession and the involvement of the patron, which is not identical in all cases. In this context, it is important to analyze the significance of patron-client relations in three spheres: political, economic, and security (Tokarev, Margoev, and Prikhodchenko 2021).…”