backing the ussr 2.0demarcated borders among the former Soviet republics and unrec-
ognised self- proclaimed states within them (such as Transnistria/
Moldova or Abkhazia/Georgia). Thus, the question about where
the borders of Russia should be actually tapped into real- world
preferences that varied meaningfully among respondents. This
ensured variation on theory- relevant dependent variables. It is not
surprising that previous studies of intergroup relations could not
assess the role of the state in the same way. In Western Europe
and North America, where most of this research has been con-
ducted, states have been institutionally and territorially stable
at least since the Second World War. Replicating the NEORUSS
question on Russia’s territory preference would entail unthink-
able, unrealistic questions, such as whether respondents in France
may want the borders of their country to include the entire empire
of Charlemagne, or whether Austrians would want to restore the
borders of the Hapsburg Empire. And whatever variations such
questions may produce, they would mean little in terms of one’s
ethnic group identity or status, since few (if any) respondents
would actually believe that restoration of these empires could be
feasible. Not so in Russia, with its indeterminate and explicitly or
implicitly contested borders.
Thus, social identity becomes a significant motivation for ethnic
minorities when identity applies to the state. The key idea here
is state identity. It becomes critically important in shaping inter-
group relations when state identity is uncertain or debated or
re- imagined or desired to be changed – that is, when state identity
is dynamic. Since the state must be sovereign in international rela-
tions and sovereignty means the exercise of legitimate coercive
power within a defined territory, state identity must, by default,
be territorial identity. And this, in turn, means that territory is
also a proxy for the understanding of how this coercive power
should be exercised – how it is to be policed, what the rules of
policing are and, hence, what kind of government governs the
territory. However, in the context of dynamic state identity, imag-
ining specifically what these government institutions may be and
projecting their effects is probably too complex an endeavour for
the average person (and survey respondents). They most likely
derive their preferences from cognitive and emotional shortcuts.