The paper is devoted to the study of memory regimes in the post-Soviet states. The author refers to the classification of memory regimes into antagonistic, cosmopolitan and agonistic ones and aims to analyze the reason of domination of the antagonistic mode of memory in the FSU countries. The study reveales a correlation between the regime of memory and the specifity of nation-building proccess, as well as the type of political regime. Formation of an agonistic regime after 1991 was hindered, firstly, by the type of post-Soviet political regimes, a significant part of which can be defined as an autocracy. The second reason is the processes of nation-building, which were understood mostly as a movement towards a homogeneous ethno-nation, not a culturally diverse civic nation. In this situation, the possibility of struggle between mnemonic actors, which constitute the basis of agonistic memory, turns out to be significantly limited. A necessary condition for moving towards an agonistic model of memory is the combination of an inclusive model of the nation and democratic politics, which turns out to be very problematic in post-Soviet realities.

The paper is devoted to the study of memory regimes in the post-Soviet states. The author refers to the classification of memory regimes into antagonistic, cosmopolitan and agonistic ones and aims to analyze the reason of domination of the antagonistic mode of memory in the FSU countries. The study reveales a correlation between the regime of memory and the specifity of nation-building proccess, as well as the type of political regime. Formation of an agonistic regime after 1991 was hindered, firstly, by the type of post-Soviet political regimes, a significant part of which can be defined as an autocracy. The second reason is the processes of nation-building, which were understood mostly as a movement towards a homogeneous ethno-nation, not a culturally diverse civic nation. In this situation, the possibility of struggle between mnemonic actors, which constitute the basis of agonistic memory, turns out to be significantly limited. A necessary condition for moving towards an agonistic model of memory is the combination of an inclusive model of the nation and democratic politics, which turns out to be very problematic in post-Soviet realities.