The construction works of the Ignalina nuclear power plant as well as the town of Visaginas for plant employees (former Sniečkus) were started in Lithuania in the 1970s. As informants still remember, most construction crews of the town and the plant came from other parts of the former Soviet Union. The majority of Visaginas' inhabitants are Russians (Lietuvos statistikos departamentas 2002: 166). The plant is the major employer of Visaginas' population (Kavaliauskas 1999: 314-315). The first reactor of the nuclear power plant stopped operations in 2004, the second in 2009 (on the history of the plant and the town of Visaginas see Kavaliauskas 1999; Kavaliauskas 2003). This paper discusses how Visaginas' inhabitants interpret the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power plant and how people cope with unemployment, as well as social and economic difficulties. The author discusses whether deindustrialization in Visaginas, Lithuania, differs from similar processes in other socio-cultural contexts. Most data come from the fieldwork conducted by the author in 2000-2004 in Visaginas: more than 50 in-depth interviews conducted with inhabitants of Visaginas and empirical material gained by participant observation. The author worked as a volunteer at a local NGO and participated at some private and public events (for more see Sliavaite 2005). It is argued that the town of Visaginas and the nuclear power plant are important categories in identity construction for the inhabitants of Visaginas. The biographies of many of the town's population and the history of the town are closely interconnected (for more see Sliavaite 2005, see also people's memories in Kavaliauskas 2003). The plant itself was sometimes referred to by the informants as kormilica (in Russian, a food provider). The plant and the town were perceived by the informants as one interdependent unit and, therefore, the plant closure was usually perceived as negatively affecting not just the lives of its employees and their families, but the general Visaginas population as well. The anthropological studies of East and Central Europe are of key importance in discussing the ethnographic material from Visaginas and a number of parallels were pointed out when comparing Visaginas' material with other investigations conducted in the post-Soviet space (Ashwin 1999; Humphrey 1996/7; Kideckel 2002; Kideckel 2008; Klumbyte 2004; Klumbyte 2006a; Klumbyte 2006b; Klumbyte 2008; Nilsen [Nielsen] 2004; Verdery 1996, etc.). The researchers argue of a specific patronizing relation between soviet enterprise and its employees (Verdery 1996; Ashwin 1999; Nilsen [Nielsen] 2004; etc.). I argue that the Ignalina nuclear power plant, even in the post-Soviet period, could be characterized as preserving certain features characteristic of a Soviet enterprise as suggested by anthropologists. Even while under a threat of closure, the plant was still an "island" (terminology after Nilsen [Nielsen] 2004) of social and economic stability. Consequently, people on this "island" (terminology after Nilsen [Nielsen] 2004) did not have an opportunity to gain certain skills, experience, or the flexibility necessary for them to adapt to the post-Soviet social and economic transformations that have occurred in Lithuania. Visaginas' inhabitants in 2000-2004 expressed uncertainty about the future, argued of social insecurity. Similar feelings were reported by a number of researchers who studied economic decline, deindustrialisation in the post-Soviet space (see Ashwin 1999; Buyandelgeriyn 2007; Kideckel 2002; Kideckel 2008; Klumbytė 2006a, etc.) As we have seen, individuals, households, and the civic sector employ different strategies to resist present and future social and economic difficulties and the theoretical model developed by Albert O.Hirschman (Hirschman 1972) was applied in analysing them. As is demonstrated, in Visaginas, the strategies range from "exit" to "voice" (terminology after Hirschman 1972). Emigration is a clear sign of "exit" (terminology after Hirschman 1972). "Voice" (terminology after Hirschman 1972) is expresed by such activities as development of projects of economic re-orientation, participation and articulation of local people's opinion at various national and international meetings, etc. One more strategy, referred to as "waiting" (term used by Crapanzano 1986), could be suggested in order to understand the particular aspects of the local context. "Waiting" refers to the behavior when informants wait for final decision regarding plant closure and / or allocate the responsibility for one's future to "others" - authorities, government, etc. Discussing the case of the Ignalina nuclear power plant, we have to bear in mind that any industrial plant was heavily loaded by ideology during Soviet times (Ashwin 1999; Hohnen 2001; Kideckel 2002; Kideckel 2008; Klumbytė 2006a, etc.). The Ignalina nuclear power plant was a provider of jobs, services, and served as a gatekeeper to certain resources under the Soviet regime, as well as a symbol of development of Soviet society. The decline of such a structure affects not just the economic and social situation of local people, but their life-worlds and worldviews. However, as was pointed out by K. Newman (Newman 1988), a successful enterprise in Western societies could also be percieved as a guarantee of social and economic stability, supplying people's lives with meaning, as a kind of patron of local community (see Newman's 1988 analysis of the Singer plant decline). The question whether there are any substantial differences between de-industrialization in the post-Soviet space and closure of any capitalist enterprise and people's attitudes towards it, still remains without a clear answer and needs further investigations and cross-cultural comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]