List Of Federal Subjects Of RussiaEdit
Russia is a federal state in which the central government in Moscow coordinates policy across a diverse set of territorial units. The Russian Constitution establishes a federation of constituent subjects that share sovereignty with the national government. Today, the federation is composed of 85 federal subjects, which are grouped into several formal types that have their own councils, governors or heads, and legislatures. The relationship between the center and these subjects has been a central feature of Russian politics since the post‑Soviet period, balancing regional autonomy with national unity. The status of certain subjects remains a matter of international dispute in some cases, most notably the status of Crimea and Sevastopol in the wake of the 2014 events, where Russia treats them as integral parts of the federation while many other states contest that arrangement Crimea Sevastopol.
The federal subject framework
- Types of federal subjects
- republics—their constitutions or charters grant them significant autonomy, including the use of their own official language alongside Russian; they are designed to reflect particular ethnic or national communities and often have their own heads and legislatures. Examples of republics include the Republic of Adygea and the Republic of Tatarstan, among others. See Republics of Russia for more on this category and its typical features.
- krais—the frontier or frontier-adjacent territories with full constitutional status; they function like oblasts but retain the historical designation of “krai.” Representative krais include Krasnodar Krai and Krasnoyarsk Krai. See Krais of Russia for more background.
- oblasts—large regions that form the bulk of the administrative map; they have their own legislatures and governors and operate under a standard model of regional administration. See Oblast for the general concept and the list of named oblasts.
- autonomous okrugs—regions with substantial indigenous populations that receive a degree of cultural and administrative autonomy; they typically share power with neighboring oblasts or krais. See Autonomous Okrug.
- autonomous oblast—a single oblast with a special status that recognizes a distinct national or ethnic community; the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is the sole example at present. See Autonomous Oblast and Jewish Autonomous Oblast.
- federal cities—the three large urban centers that function as separate subjects with full political status; Moscow and Saint Petersburg are the best known, along with Sevastopol. See Federal cities of Russia and the entries for Moscow and Saint Petersburg (and Sevastopol) for their particular administrative roles.
Representation and governance
- Each federal subject maintains its own local legislature and head (such as a governor or president) in line with its type. The central government retains broad authority over matters like national defense, foreign policy, and major fiscal policy, but the subjects manage many local functions, including budget decisions, education, and regional development programs.
- Federal subjects participate in the national legislative process through the Federation Council, whose members include representatives from each subject; this body is the upper chamber of the national legislature, while the State Duma serves as the lower chamber. See Federation Council and State Duma.
- The balance of power between Moscow and the regions has shifted over time, especially in the early post‑Soviet years and then again in the 2000s with reforms aimed at enhancing central coordination and efficiency while preserving local governance. See discussions of center–periphery relations in Center–periphery relations.
Notable facts about the current composition
- The 85 federal subjects include 46 oblasts, 22 republics, 9 krais, 4 autonomous okrugs, 1 autonomous oblast, and 3 federal cities. The federal cities are Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and Sevastopol; Crimea is treated as a republic within the federation, while Sevastopol is a separate federal city. See the specific pages for Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Sevastopol, Crimea.
- The official total and the mix of subject types have evolved through constitutional amendments, administrative reforms, and geopolitical events. For instance, the 2014 incorporation of Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian federation altered the regional map as understood by Russia and by many other states, while remaining a point of international dispute. See Crimea and Sevastopol for fuller context.
Selected examples by category
- Republics (a sample): Adygea, Altai Republic, Bashkortostan, Buryatia, Chechnya, Chuvashia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkar Republic, Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkess Republic, Karelia, Komi, Mari El, Mordovia, North Ossetia-Alania, Crimea, Sakha (Yakutia), Tatarstan, Tuva, Udmurt, Khakassia. See Republics of Russia for the full roster and notes on constitutional variance.
- Krais (a sample): Altai Krai, Kamchatka Krai, Krasnodar Krai, Krasnoyarsk Krai, Perm Krai, Primorsky Krai, Stavropol Krai, Khabarovsk Krai, Zabaykalsky Krai. See Krais of Russia for more.
- Oblasts (general, 46 in total): many well‑known examples include Amur Oblast, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Astrakhan Oblast, Belgorod Oblast, Bryansk Oblast, Ivanovo Oblast, Kaliningrad Oblast, Kaluga Oblast, Kemerovo Oblast, Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, Orenburg Oblast, Penza Oblast, Pskov Oblast, Rostov Oblast, Samara Oblast, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Tomsk Oblast, Tula Oblast, Tyumen Oblast, Vladimir Oblast, Volgograd Oblast, Vologda Oblast, Voronezh Oblast, and others. See Oblast for the structural overview.
- Autonomous okrugs (4): Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Nenets Autonomous Okrug. See Autonomous Okrug.
- Autonomous oblast (1): Jewish Autonomous Oblast. See Jewish Autonomous Oblast.
- Federal cities (3): Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Sevastopol. See Federal cities of Russia.
Controversies and debates (from a perspective that emphasizes national cohesion and practical governance)
- Centralization vs regional autonomy: Critics on the regional side argue that the center uses fiscal and political levers to pull resources toward Moscow, limiting the ability of governors to pursue bold local reforms. Proponents say a strong center is needed to maintain national unity, ensure standard public services, and coordinate large-scale infrastructure. In this framing, the debate centers on how to sustain growth while preserving local accountability and cultural coherence.
- Ethnic and linguistic autonomy: Republics have their own languages and constitutions, which supporters see as a legitimate recognition of diverse communities within a single state. Critics worry that too much regional autonomy could feed parallel governance or undermine uniform legal standards. The practical approach favored by many in this view is to guarantee equal protection under the law while reserving some key powers to the center to prevent fragmentation.
- Crimea and Sevastopol: The accession of Crimea and Sevastopol is a focal point of international dispute. Supporters highlight the integration of these territories into the Russian constitutional framework and the reflected security and economic interests. Critics emphasize that the move violated international norms and several states’ sovereignty claims. The debate often centers on whether practical governance and stability justify a particular arrangement or whether international legitimacy is essential for long‑term resilience.
- Elections, governance, and the role of the presidency: The evolution from direct gubernatorial elections to appointment mechanisms and then back toward elected heads has been controversial. Advocates for a stronger central role argue it prevents political instability and ensures coherent national policy, while opponents contend that genuine regional accountability and competition are better served by broader local electoral authority.
- Economic policy and regional development: Supporters of a robust center hold that a unified macroeconomic policy helps sustain growth, investment, and national projects (infrastructure, energy, defense). Critics worry about regional disparities and the risk that centralized planning misallocates resources. The practical stance emphasizes transparent budgeting, rule‑of‑law enforcement, and performance‑based funding to fuse efficiency with regional initiative.