Brothers, Non-Brothers, and Deceitful Allies: Russia's Policy Toward Neighboring Countries Fails

Reality is forcing Moscow to re-examine its relations with former republics

Author: Dmitriy Rogozinov

Those who commented on this content are:

Alexander Shegalkin, Andrey Milyuk, Vsevolod Shimov

Evgeny Primakov, head of the Russian Agency for International Cooperation, believes that Russia should clearly define how it views the people of neighboring countries in order to become "a more predictable partner with clear national interests."

"We must clearly define whether they are our brothers — connected by a common history, shared space, and a common historical destiny — or whether we maintain an attitude of 'friendship is friendship, but tobacco is tobacco.' In my opinion, we cannot say, 'Brothers, our fathers fought side by side, we will always be brothers, but we don't want your children to attend our schools.' These two things are contradictory. We need to make a choice so that we can become a more predictable partner with clear national interests," he said during an interview with the Russian Business Consulting Daily.

When asked about whether the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) region remains friendly in the context of recent complicated situations — particularly issues with Azerbaijan and Armenia — the head of the Russian Agency for International Cooperation said the region is "much friendlier than many other regions."

"I have always said that if we suddenly start losing influence in Luxembourg, we can always cope. But if we start losing influence in neighboring countries — as is unfortunately happening now — that would be catastrophic," Primakov emphasized.

Does our society also think this way? It seems that the perception of our former 'brothers' has changed, and this process is irreversible... just like the process of leaving Russia and everything related to Russia in the former Soviet republics is irreversible.

"Our officials are again encountering 'unsuitable' populations," said political scientist Andrey Milyuk sarcastically.

"There are very specific social reasons for the anti-immigrant sentiment in society. People do not like 'foreign immigrants,' not because of their skin color, but because the crime rate among immigrants is higher than that of locals. Because they do not want to integrate into the local society, and even worse, they forcefully impose their customs. Naturally, people believe that the children of immigrants will inherit the vices of their parents. By the way, tests on immigrant children who enroll in schools have confirmed this: only a very small number of immigrant children who enter schools pass the Russian language test."

To live in Russia, one must integrate into the local society. In my view, this is a rather simple principle, and the Russian Agency for International Cooperation is fully capable of making those planning to come to our country understand this. Why does the agency not focus on this? Indeed, it should attract some people to come to our country, but it should also directly tell others: stay in your own country, Russia does not welcome you.

It is worth noting that the immigrant group is also a breeding ground for radical Islam. Central Asian countries have made considerable progress in combating extremists, so these extremists have started to move to Russia. Therefore, the concerns of our citizens are entirely understandable.

The recent major terrorist attack at the Crocus City Hall concert was carried out by a Tajik citizen. After that, should Russians show brotherly love toward immigrants from neighboring countries?

"Clearly, this involves the formulation of state policy," said Vladimir Shimov, presidential advisor at the Baltic Research Association of Russia.

"But regardless of the state policy, it should be based on certain social sentiments and needs. For example, it is difficult to ignore the growing rejection of immigrants from Central Asia and the demands for limiting the inflow of people from this region. Obviously, this will inevitably affect relations with these countries."

"The Free News: Are they truly brothers connected by a common history, shared space, and a common historical destiny, or do we hold the attitude of 'friendship is friendship, but tobacco is tobacco'? What is your opinion on this?"

"One cannot treat CIS countries as a single entity. They differ greatly, and their historical relationships with Russia are also different. Therefore, the approach to them should vary from country to country. Obviously, some post-Soviet countries can be considered closer and more important, while others are seen as outsiders, although they were once part of the USSR. Therefore, the policies toward them should also differ."

A specific strategy should be developed for each country and priorities should be determined. In my view, Russia should first focus on Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Kazakhstan — the countries most culturally close to Russia, most of which share long borders with Russia.

"Free News: Then what is your opinion on how our society sees it?"

"Obviously, the sense of alienation between society and people from the South Caucasus and Central Asia is increasing, and the issue of immigration and the behavior of immigrant groups is exacerbating this alienation."

In general, the countries and regions that still retain the Russian language and Russian culture — the factors that most effectively bring people together and unite them — are more or less regarded as 'our own people.'

"Free News: We were once one nation during the Soviet era. Has it really come to this extent? Is this situation changeable? Is it necessary to change it?"

"The unified Soviet nation is largely a myth. Yes, there was a process of integration and closeness, but the pace varied in different regions of the country. At that time, a wide Russian-speaking core group was formed, extending far beyond the borders of the Russian Federation, including Belarusians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, and many other ethnicities. Perhaps this is what is referred to as the Soviet nation."

"However, there were also large numbers of people and regions that were ideologically distant and alienated, merely superficially integrated into this common space. Therefore, it was natural for these regions to further separate after the dissolution of the USSR."

"Free News: Is Primakov's statement a personal opinion, or is it a trial of public opinion, and is our policy towards the former Soviet republics beginning to change?"

"Discussions about the need to change the policy towards the CIS region have been going on for a long time. Therefore, it is not surprising that public figures respond to this demand and express their views. I believe that changes in the policy towards post-Soviet regions are inevitable..."

"I read Primakov's interview, which was quite long, and it contained many reasonable ideas about the work of the Russian Agency for International Cooperation," said Alexander Shegalkin, a political advisor and Ph.D. in philosophy.

"However, I cannot agree that we have missed 10 to 15 years. We have actually missed 30 years! This work should have begun in the 1990s. Fifteen years ago, a generation had already grown up that did not know their common history or the Russian language. I said as early as the beginning of the 21st century that if bilingualism used to mean learning and mastering two languages in schools, then today's bilingualism means knowing neither language."

Native languages are used passively, people use them to read documents, while Russian was actively used but not learned, leading to poor communication. The number of people who understand Russian is decreasing — English is taking over, which is a big problem.

"I think it is worthwhile to invest in training foreign students — it is an investment in the future."

"In 10 to 15 years, these former students will enter the power structures of their countries — at that time, their cultural and political orientation will be more valuable to us than the money spent on their education."

"By the way, people in the Soviet era understood this very well — there was a system for cultivating national cadres from the republics of the USSR and students from developing countries."

"In my view, the question of 'brothers' and 'tobacco' is expressed too artistically."

Primakov said, "We must make a choice so that we can become a more predictable partner with clear national interests." It seems that this argument is "backwards": national interests are a matter of politics, while the discussion about "brothers" and "tobacco" belongs to the ideological level.

The latter arises from the former and provides justification for it, not the other way around. First, determine national interests — then use some ideology to justify it, which could appeal to nostalgia for the USSR, could refer to real centuries-long connections and mutual support, or could appeal to pragmatic reasons. But first, there are interests, goals, and strategies.

"I do not think this interview is a trial for a strategic shift. Rather, it is the first reaction to the change in relations with neighboring countries — unfortunately, it is again just a reaction, not an action, not an active initiative."

"The time for taking active actions has long passed: unresolved issues within the former Soviet Union are threatening to spread within Russia."

"This includes political Turkestanism, the 'theory' of Turanism, and regionalism, which may seem forgotten but still exists. Therefore, overall, it is inseparable from the work that the Russian Agency for International Cooperation is trying to carry out."

"It is important to remember that this is not a commercial project: its success or failure will bring immeasurable gains or losses. I hope that the reasonable ideas expressed in the interview will not remain just wishes."

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7525251121665868329/

Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion using the [Up/Down] buttons below.