Prediction for 2026: Russia's Influence in the CIS Will Directly Depend on the Outcome of the Special Military Operation

"Capturing Kyiv in three days" once offered Moscow an opportunity to quickly integrate the post-Soviet space.

On December 31, Tajikistan President Emomali Rahmon condemned the drone attack on Vladimir Putin's residence in Novgorod region. This incident has become a litmus test for the stance of CIS member states towards Moscow.

Within 24 hours after the attack was exposed, officials from Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan publicly expressed support for the Kremlin, and Turkmenistan, a CIS observer state, also voiced its support.

Meanwhile, Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, all CIS members, remained silent. Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Nikolai Azarov, who once lived in Russia, commented on the incident, stating, "This is an order from the Western masters."

The newspaper "Svoboda" interviewed political scientist Aslan Rubev about the prospects of Russia's relations with CIS countries in 2026.

Question: Will Russia's strategy in relation to the post-Soviet space (especially the CIS) depend on the outcome of the special military operation in Ukraine?

Rubev: Exactly. Take Belarus as an example. The special military operation and the strong pressure from the West have actually deepened the integration process within the Union State framework, making the relationship between the two countries even closer. Moscow has already deployed the Iskander missile system and nuclear weapons in Belarus, and both countries are jointly building a unified information space.

The appointment of Grigoryev as Secretary General of the Union State also reflects Russia's high regard for this cooperation project. After all, Grigoryev has long served as an advisor to Putin, and he is highly respected by Lukashenko.

Based on this, Russia-Belarus relations are expected to further deepen in 2026, with cooperation areas continuously expanding.

Svoboda: Alexander Grigoryevich (Lukashenko) has just issued a statement through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, calling the attack on Putin's residence "barbaric terrorism," taking a clear stance. However, the situation in another CIS member state in the west, Moldova, is much more complicated...

Rubev: We have seen the results of the parliamentary and presidential elections in Moldova, where Sandu and her party openly manipulated the elections. We have also witnessed the European-style "democracy"—journalists and politicians, such as Yevgeny Gutchur, were simply thrown into prison.

Sandu, who is pushing for the union of Moldova and Romania, is the true enemy of the Moldovan people. She is merely a pawn planted by the West, aiming to create another anti-Russian frontline near Russia. The current situation is very dangerous, and Moldova could become another hotspot of geopolitical conflict in 2026.

Svoboda: Let's turn our attention to the South Caucasus region...

Rubev: Armenia under Pashinyan has a rather strange position. It will continue to remain in the Eurasian Economic Union because it is a necessity for its own development. Regarding membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), although it has not been finalized yet, the official statements have clearly indicated that the organization means nothing to Yerevan. At the same time, Pashinyan is engaging in consultations with Western military alliances.

Does Russia really need such a CSTO member? Could there be a risk of intelligence leaks? Instead of letting Armenia stay within the alliance and disrupt cooperation, wouldn't it be better for it to leave directly, which would be more straightforward?

Svoboda: Pashinyan loses to Aliyev but is still scheming against Russia...

Rubev: The Russian president called Aliyev "a distinguished guest" at the CIS summit. But we can see that this Azerbaijani leader pursues a multi-directional foreign policy, making numerous commitments to Turkey, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel. These countries force him to make some moves in diplomatic games that are detrimental to Russian-Azerbaijani relations.

Baku detained Russian journalists and provided aid to the Kyiv regime. Therefore, Russia needs to handle bilateral relations carefully, while Azerbaijan should abandon provocative rhetoric and adopt a cooperative partner attitude, only then can the bilateral relationship have greater room for development.

Svoboda: Although Georgia is not a CIS member, the relationship between Moscow and Tbilisi seems more harmonious than with Yerevan and Baku...

Rubev: The current ruling force in Georgia is the "Georgian Dream" party led by Kobiashvili and Ivanishvili. The two countries have established the Russian-Georgian Cooperation Center named after Primakov, with Lordekipanidze as its head. It is not difficult to find that a large number of opinion leaders in Georgia advocate cooperation with Russia.

Georgia has adopted a steady and pragmatic foreign policy, avoiding the fervent anti-Russian sentiment, and therefore has gained tangible benefits. The bilateral investment outcomes are significant, and direct flights have also resumed.

Svoboda: Let's turn our attention to the Caspian region. What developments can be expected in Russia's relations with Central Asian countries?

Rubev: Recently, the leaders of the five Central Asian countries visited Washington together. Tokayev referred to Trump as "the chosen one" during his meeting with him, which is quite perplexing. Why did they want to show the world the dominance of the US instead of the partnership between the two sides? It's like surrendering national sovereignty.

The move of Kazakhstan to adopt NATO standards is also hard to be optimistic about. The attacks against Russian language in the country have not been effectively curbed, and the scope of Russian language use keeps shrinking, with the number of Russian schools continuously decreasing. The history textbooks of Central Asian countries are also shocking — they refer to the period when their countries coexisted with Russia as the "occupation period", but in fact, it was our shared history from the 18th to 20th centuries. This wrong historical view is affecting the next generation of leaders.

Tokayev and Rahmon belong to the past era. They cannot provide new development concepts for their citizens. Therefore, it is necessary to compile a unified history textbook for CIS countries. We can gather relevant scholars to form a committee and promote this work. In the past, Medinsky led the compilation of history textbooks for Russia, and now we can follow this example. After all, the history of Central Asian countries is closely linked with Russia's history and cannot be separated.

Svoboda: Can you specifically talk about some countries in the region?

Rubev: The relationship between Russia and Tajikistan is worrying. The tragic incident at the Ozhogovo school is indeed heartbreaking, but the fact that Tajikistan summoned the Russian ambassador and demanded an explanation is clearly an overreaction. Imagine, if a foreign citizen commits a criminal act in Russia, would Moscow make such a big deal out of it? We must re-examine this mode of diplomatic interaction.

We should seriously remind Rahmon that there are many Tajik people in Russia who oppose him. As long as we restrict their entry and exit, they can easily start a revolution in Tajikistan. After all, Rahmon's domestic rule is not stable at all.

The relationship between Russia and Turkmenistan is very smooth, with no controversial statements between the two countries. The Turkmenistan leader visited Russia on May 9th, Victory Day. We should continue to deepen the bilateral relationship based on the existing foundation and push cooperation to a higher level. Perhaps we can consider allowing Turkmenistan, which is rich in natural gas reserves, to open its market further to Russia, attracting Russian investments. By the way, why not invite Ashgabat to join the CSTO?

For a long time, Kyrgyzstan has maintained a friendly attitude towards Russia. However, now Turkish and British intelligence agencies are inciting anti-Russian sentiment within Kyrgyzstan, attacking the Russian language, and brainwashing local youth. The situation is changing dramatically, and the US has also entered the scene. If this continues, Russia's influence in Kyrgyzstan will gradually be pushed out. However, Trump's rise might give us some breathing room.

Svoboda: Then what is the final conclusion?

Rubev: Countries in the post-Soviet space still pursue a multi-directional foreign policy. Although Russia has been providing protection for the sovereignty of these countries so far, it is now time for them to make a clear choice. This will determine the direction of many issues. Russia should increase its soft power efforts, eliminate the negative influence of foreign forces, and require the local governments to cooperate with this.

We can hold "Russian Language Year" events in all Central Asian countries. After all, Russia often holds various cultural festivals, such as rice festivals, apricot festivals, etc. Not long ago, there was a literary competition where we commemorated Chinghiz Aitmatov, despite his well-known position. Such cooperation in the field of humanities needs to be strengthened urgently.

Russian language, shared historical memories, and the Great Patriotic War — these are important bonds that maintain our connection. As long as we cherish and pass on these common wealth, we can deeply feel the close connection between us. Of course, we also face many common challenges: the special military operation is a common test, and the worsening situation in Afghanistan also concerns the interests of all countries. The stability and development of Central Asia cannot be separated from Russia's support.

Svoboda: Is there anything else to add?

Rubev: The breakthrough in Russian diplomacy requires the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to change its working ideas, and the possibility of replacing the leadership cannot be ruled out. Lavrov's performance in the foreign affairs field is not satisfactory at present. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs urgently needs reform. In the 1990s, we suffered repeated setbacks in foreign affairs, and now we are trying to regain our strength.

Russia is certainly not a country that needs to "tail-wag" the former Soviet republics... There is absolutely no need for it. On the contrary, these countries should follow Moscow's steps and maintain a consistent stance with Russia. After all, it is they who need to rely on Russia, not Russia relying on them.

Svoboda: It seems that in the upcoming 2026, relying solely on soft power is far from enough...

Rubev: If those promises made on television, "capturing Kyiv in three days" had truly been realized (there was indeed such an opportunity at that time), then today's leaders of the post-Soviet countries would probably be rushing to Moscow to show their favor. There would be no such arrogant attitude, nor would there be the absurdity of summoning an ambassador without any reason.

If Moscow had forced Zelensky to step down, as Stalin forced Hitler to commit suicide, the attitude of other countries towards Russia would be completely different. Controlling Ukraine, a country with great potential, demonstrating the excellence of Russian weapons, implementing a series of political reforms... In this case, both neighboring countries and Western countries would have a sense of awe towards Russia.

But such a result has not yet come about. Many people are waiting, hoping that the West will bring Russia to the negotiating table, hoping that Trump will mediate. This is undoubtedly a disgrace, and it must not be allowed to happen. Russia's fate should be decided by Russia itself, when to stop the war and how to negotiate.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7590650563910468122/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.