• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Andrei Kolesnikov"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Inside Russia"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Ukraine"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Why the Kremlin Is Shutting Down the Novorossiya Project

Putin has realized that the expansionist project overextended itself; it is now too dangerous to continue beating the war drum. Or perhaps the Russian president simply lost interest in Novorossiya. He has a different game to play now—that of Russia’s “pivot to the East.”

Link Copied
By Andrei Kolesnikov
Published on May 29, 2015
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

On May 20, the leaders of the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics (LNR and DNR) announced the abandonment of the Novorossiya project, a hypothetical confederation of states in southeastern Ukraine stretching from Kharkiv to Odessa. DNR Foreign Minister Alexander Kofman said that the idea hadn’t attracted enough support outside the separatist territories. Oleg Tsaryov, the speaker of Novorossiya’s “Unitary Parliament” and a frequent guest on Russian television, offered a different explanation: “The work of Novorossiya  [official] structures has been frozen because it does not conform to the [Minsk II] peace agreement signed in the presence of the Normandy Four countries [Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and France, on February 12].”

 It is no coincidence that the closure comes just days after Secretary of State John Kerry met with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Sochi, and Assistant  Secretary of State Victoria Nuland met with her counterparts in Moscow, marking the highest-level meetings between U.S. and Russian officials in Russia since the beginning of the crisis in Ukraine. Although representatives from the Russian Foreign Ministry insisted that they would not cut a deal with the Americans, the two sides seem to have come to some kind of agreement.

The Novorossiya project would not have been shuttered had Moscow not overtly pressured separatist leaders. A week before the closure, the ultra-right Russian ideologue Alexander Dugin suggested in his weekly column for the “Novorossiya Information Agency” that a “Crimea for Novorossiya” deal was about to be negotiated. According to this agreement, he suggested, the separatists would comply with the Minsk II agreements and attempt to strengthen the DNR’s and LNR’s autonomy within the borders of Ukraine. Dugin was not alone in his prediction: others have long suggested that such an exchange was possible.

The abrupt abandonment of the Novorossiya project was accompanied by more surprises from the Russian authorities. First, RBC.ru, a Russian newspaper, reported that the date of next year’s parliamentary elections might be brought forward, perhaps  to September 2016 instead of December 2016.   The presumed goal of moving the election would be to lower voter turnout and attention by holding the vote right after the busy summer holidays, thereby creating a parliament that is more favorable to the Kremlin.

Second, the State Duma expeditiously passed and Putin signed a law banning “undesirable” foreign non-government organizations.  The new law, which evidently covers commercial entities, creates the legal basis to close any foreign entity, including businesses.  This move displays a willingness to curtail economic ties with the West, scare away Western investment, and continue the authorities’ self-destructive counter-sanctions regime against Western businesses.

These draconian measures seem to be the Kremlin’s way of compensating some bellicose members of the Russian elite for agreeing to shut down the Novorossiya project, a move that effectively closes the door on their dreams of restoring the Russian empire.

Thus, Moscow seems to have come to the realization that Ukraine has been lost. The West will not let Russia seize the Donbas; thousands of people have died in vain.

If the project is indeed shut down, the Kremlin effectively has admitted defeat, no matter how it tries to spin it. Russian radicals and the ultra-right will see the abandonment of Novorossiya as a victory for the “Atlantic forces” within the country’s elite, which they have dubbed the “sixth column.” These radicals will have only the Commander-in-Chief to blame.

Perhaps Putin has realized that the expansionist project overextended itself; it is now too dangerous to continue beating the war drum. Or perhaps the Russian president simply lost interest in Novorossiya. He has a different game to play now—that of Russia’s “pivot to the East.” He has already made this a priority, as evidenced by his lively discussion with Chinese President Xi Jinping during the May 9 Victory Day parade. This game is, like the Novorossiya one, rife with imitations and illusions, and its stakes—strategic and otherwise—are extremely high. Still, the “empire” seems poised to expand eastward or, at the very least, turn its attention to the East and away from eastern Ukraine.

About the Author

Andrei Kolesnikov

Former Senior Fellow, Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

Kolesnikov was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    How the Putin Regime Subverted the Soviet Legacy

      Andrei Kolesnikov

  • Commentary
    Putin’s New Social Justice

      Andrei Kolesnikov

Andrei Kolesnikov
Former Senior Fellow, Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Andrei Kolesnikov
Political ReformSecurityForeign PolicyRussiaEastern EuropeUkraine

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • apan's 8,900-ton Maritime Self-Defense Force supply ship Oosumi leaves Muroran port escorted by the 4,550-ton destroyer Murasame bound for Kuwait February 20, 2004 in Muroran, Japan.
    Article
    Japan’s Security Policy Is Still Caught Between the Alliance and Domestic Reality

    Japan’s response to U.S. pressure over Hormuz highlights a broader dilemma: How to preserve the alliance while remaining bound by legal limits, public opinion, and an Asia-centered security agenda. Tokyo gained diplomatic space through an alliance-embracing strategy, but only under conditions that may not endure.

      • Ryo Sahashi

      Ryo Sahashi

  • Article
    Kenya’s Health Deal Is a Stress Test for the America First Global Health Strategy

    U.S. agreements must contend with national data protection laws to make durable foreign policy instruments.

      • A Black woman with long hair wears a black blazer

      Jane Munga, Rose Mosero

  • Trump seated and gesturing while speaking
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Iran War Is Making America Less Safe

    A conflict launched in the name of American security is producing the opposite effect.

      • Sarah Yerkes

      Sarah Yerkes

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?

    Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?

    The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.

      Bashir Kitachaev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.