Conference Agenda

The exploration of economic values among Belarusians, both within the country and across its diaspora, has become increasingly pertinent in the context of Europe’s evolving geopolitical landscape. The East-West divide, long shaped by historical, political, and economic factors, finds new dimensions in the migratory flows and socio-economic transformations occurring in Belarus. Examining the economic priorities and preferences of Belarusians offers a nuanced perspective on how geopolitical pressures influence individual and collective economic behaviors.

This study aims to assess how migration affects the income dynamics of Belarusians and the extent to which emigration contributes to the depletion of national economic potential. Understanding the socio-economic success of emigrants in host countries provides critical insights into how East-West divides manifest in lived economic experiences. Furthermore, this analysis can inform strategies for mitigating the adverse effects of emigration, such as brain drain and workforce shortages, while also addressing the challenges of reintegrating returnees.

In the broader geopolitical context, the economic behavior of Belarusians serves as a microcosm for understanding the push and pull factors driving migration between Europe’s East and West. By interrogating stereotypes and exploring the interplay of socio-economic motivations, this research highlights the importance of cross-border connections and their impact on regional stability and integration.

The findings have implications not only for Belarus but also for European policymakers, as they navigate the complexities of migration and regional cohesion. Addressing the economic realities of Belarusians at home and abroad could foster more inclusive approaches to bridging the East-West divide. Ultimately, this work underscores the necessity of rethinking regional strategies to accommodate shifting economic and geopolitical dynamics in contemporary Europe.

The Caucasian isthmus is a historically significant mesoregion situated at the confluence of overlapping imperial influences that have shaped its trajectory over centuries. The enduring nature of these influences has prompted profound transformations in the region’s geo-cultural identity, socio-economic relations, and demographic composition, characterized by fluid allegiances to the imperial centers. Following Alfred Rieber’s characterization of contested imperial fringes, Georgia emerges as a salient case within this context, functioning as a ‘complex frontier’ where Russia, Turkey, and Iran have historically vied for dominance and control. In the wake of the Cold War, Western power centers have entered the arena as significant extra-regional actors, striving to assert their influence in the former imperial borderlands. The Eastern Partnership (EaP) initiative of the European Union, which initially included six former Soviet republics along with Georgia, has played a crucial role in this endeavor, seeking to dissociate the country from its historical imperial legacy. However, it has inadvertently contributed to Russia’s military assertiveness and aggressive policies directed at the entire post-Soviet Europe included within the EaP framework. Against this backdrop, the paper focuses on Georgia’s recent internal political crisis, which has been exacerbated by political elites’ ambitions to articulate subjectivity in independently shaping the nation’s foreign policy trajectory, currently leaning towards accommodating the aggressive great power to the North as part of a broader pivot to the East. However, this pivot has faced strong public dissent advocating for continued commitment to European integration. The paper will argue that such a discrepancy between elites’ accommodating stance and popular resistance signifies incompleteness in geo-cultural identity formation and the persistent liminality in Georgia’s foreign policy behavior. By examining Georgia’s geo-cultural and geopolitical in-betweenness, the paper will employ the concept of liminality – a theoretical framework initially articulated in social anthropology by Arnold van Gennep and Victor Turner, later extended to the field of International Relations. This concept provides a valuable framework for understanding the challenges small states face as they seek to define their place in the changing international order. By examining Georgia’s liminality, this paper aims to illuminate the broader dynamics of imperial borderlands and the lasting effects of imperial legacies on contemporary geopolitics in the Caucasian isthmus.

This paper examines how post-communist museums in Central Europe (Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic) use exhibitions to reframe the communist past through the lens of the "post-communist exotic." This concept, developed from postcolonial theories of exoticism, suggests that these museums transform the communist era into both a spectacle and a site for critical reflection, oscillating between familiarity and strangeness. Drawing from museum and memory studies, this research explores how these exhibitions shape national and transnational identities by negotiating the complex legacy of communism in Europe.

By analyzing how museums present the communist past on national, European, and global scales, this paper investigates how these institutions mediate contested histories and contribute to the construction of collective memory. At the national level, museums align communist memory with narratives of resilience and identity; at the European level, they incorporate Holocaust memory to position post-communist societies within a broader pan-European framework; and on the global scale, they often present the communist era as an exoticized spectacle for international tourists.

In light of Europe’s changing geopolitical landscape, this paper argues that these representations play a crucial role in reshaping identity and trust within Central European societies and their place in the wider European community. Through a comparative analysis of museums in Budapest, Warsaw, and Prague, this paper contributes to the ongoing rethinking of Europe’s East-West divide, revealing how historical narratives are mobilized to respond to both local and global pressures.