As we saw in chapter 3, the popular discourse in these post-Soviet places is preoccupied with modernization, retraditionalization, and resistance to dissolution (in both literal and figurative terms). And as discussed in chapter 4, much the same holds for national identity policy. The official platforms developed in all three countries make it possible, at least in the abstract, to engage in identity construction at the national and local levels through a combination of strategic innovation and “invented” and resurrected traditions. Ideally, such identity constructs must then be convincingly articulated and enacted, so that young people internalize and reproduce them through their own actions. But what does this imply for the process of youth identity construction? In particular, through what modalities do those who implement policy seek to mold the attitudes and conduct of young people? To what extent does this involve interaction among them, in what contexts, and to what particular ends? As the following discussion shows, in each city a complex course of action unfolds whereby the state, acting through its formal auspices, attempts to establish national youth identity while at the same time devolving extensive responsibilities to actors at lower levels of authority. The latter actors, in turn, attempt to foster essentially the same norms and practices both independently and in conjunction with one another as well as the state. The result is not only a striking affinity of values, but also a confluence of organized efforts.