Pskov at the Crossroads of Russia’s Trans-border Relations with Estonia and Latvia: Between Provinciality and Marginality ANDREY MAKARYCHEV THE CURRENT RUSSIAN–ESTONIAN AND RUSSIAN–LATVIAN borders have, histori- cally speaking, been quite volatile, unstable and changing. Thinking in terms of the life cycles of borders, one may assume that these borders are still in their infancy. For the time being, they are heavily influenced by a variety of factors of both domestic and international origin that may be differently conceptualised. My intention in this article is to analyse the state of the trans-border relationship between Russia, on the one hand, and Latvia and Estonia, on the other, seen in terms of interplay between central and non-central actors. Two basic concepts—those of marginality and provinciality—will be used as points of departure and also compared with each other. Each of these concepts develops its own narrative and a discursive strategy. In some instances these narratives may smoothly complement each other; yet in other occurrences they conflict in a manner that fuels ‘a battle of the story’. The concept of marginality, as developed by Parker, focuses on the questions trans- border relations raise for the understanding of political space in general and the construction of Europe in particular. Conceptually, peripheries are presented as underdeveloped, inconveniently positioned and exposed to external dangers, and they are comprehended as subordinated territories. Alternatively, margins as rather autonomous spaces are able, under certain circumstances, to develop strategies of their own. Marginality, in Parker’s vision, is equated with new opportunities and openings for regional actors. Thus territories located at the intersection of different polities and identities (‘cross-roads actors’) are capable of comprehending how to make better use of their resources in terms of marginality through inclusive cooperation with adjacent territories. Margins are important components of different policy constellations because they usually have room to manoeuvre and a meaningful degree of freedom in exploiting their location. Politically, margins are reluctant to accept that the core speaks for them; moreover, they may participate in defining the nature of the core itself. 1 The concept of margins may serve as a good theoretical platform to study the trans- national roles played by non-central actors, since, in order to qualify as a ‘margin’, the region has to exist in two-way relations with at least two cores. In the meantime, the EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 57, No. 3, May 2005, 481 – 500 ISSN 0966-8136 print; ISSN 1465-3427 online/05/030481-20 # 2005 University of Glasgow DOI: 10.1080/09668130500073514