🧩🌏 For the outside world, the region of Central Asia has always looked like a cultural, historical, and — partly — political and economic whole.

However, in the region itself, two tendencies have coexisted — rivalry between the countries on the one hand, and rapprochement and cooperation on the other.

The regional egoism was fuelled by the desire to connect as quickly as possible to the globalisation trend that was gaining strength by the end of the 20th century. The scientific and technical base left over from the Soviet Union, as well as skilled labour and natural resources located in the region — all this provided hope for a decent life. At the same time, it only seemed possible to realise their potential through cooperation, first of all, with the advanced and rich countries of the world.

This desire to reach the outside world has become part of the strategic culture, practically, as they sometimes say, the “foreign policy DNA” of the elites of the Central Asian states.

It also coincided with talks about closer regional cooperation, both in terms of groups which would be limited to the Central Asian states, and in wider formats. The corresponding regional associations were created. However, for a long time, the direction of regional cooperation was more declarative. In practical terms, regional egoism and the desire to expand ties with the outside world prevailed, if not at the expense of neighbours and due to cooperation with them, then at least as a higher-priority initiative.

The countries of Central Asia tried to integrate into the world system not as a single region, but each on its own.

Gradually, the regional egoism and the degradation of regional cooperation complicated communications with the outside world, as well as efforts to effectively participate in globalisation, rather than facilitating these processes, writes Valdai Club expert Ivan Safranchuk. Ivan is a speaker of the second session of the Russian-Uzbek conference in Tashkent.

https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/central-asia-what-is-the-choice/

#Valdai_ThinkTank #Eurasia #CentralAsia #CIS

@valdai_club — The Valdai Discussion Club

🇷🇺🌏 Russia’s policy towards is neighbours is based on three factors: the traditional power component, the existence of a common geopolitical space, and a common history.

Russia has been and remains the dominant power in the so-called post-Soviet space, because it has the largest population, one of the world’s best armies, and a large arsenal of nuclear weapons that is commensurate only to the US stockpile. However, it should be remembered that topography precludes the marking of clear dividing lines between Russia and its neighbours, and that common historical experience will always influence decisions.

Therefore, Russia’s military-political might cannot guarantee control of its neighbours or allow it to keep aloof of them.

Many problems could be solved if Moscow resumed a form of direct control of a part of the former Soviet republics. But the effort required could eventually prove fatal to the Russian economy and statehood. Keeping aloof of its neighbours would imply the development of a defensive strategy for the areas in direct proximity to vital centres of Russian territory. Military domination is a way to develop relations favourable for a sustainable but not imperial international order around Russia, that is, an order that does not include direct control of neighbours.

Moscow needs to find a form of interaction with its neighbours that supports the national security and relative peace of the countries along Russian borders without dictating domestic or foreign policy rules to them, Timofei Bordachev,  the author of a new Valdai Club's report, titled “Space Without Borders: Russia and Its Neighbours”. The report was prepared especially for the 30th anniversary of the collapse of the USSR.

🔗 Space Without Borders: Russia and Its Neighbours — Valdai Discussion Club Report

👉 While working on this report from March through September 2021, I visited
several capitals and other cities in the post-Soviet states, where I met with local intellectuals, politicians and public figures. The content of the conversations, as well as the interpretation of the assessments and opinions expressed in the framework of almost fifty interviews, were used in the preparation of the report.

❗️ The presentation of the report will take place today, December 20, at 12:00 Moscow Time (GMT+3). Watch it live on our website!

#Global_Governance #CIS #Russia #Eurasia

@valdai_club — The Valdai Discussion Club

🌏 Thirty years after the end of the Soviet Union is a sufficient period to assess the effectiveness of the foreign policy strategies of all post-Soviet states. Although in the historical perspective thirty years is a short period, one can already notice the delimitation of states according to certain models of national strategy.

1️⃣ The first group of countries took a course towards nationalism in foreign policy. The nationalist model is based on a black-and-white picture of the world that allows much to achieve and to act with great energy in international politics. Such a model, of course, is demonstrated today by Ukraine, which is unceremoniously trying to find an independent way in resolving the crisis in the east of the country, regardless of its neighbours’ opinion.

2️⃣ The second group of countries followed the path of liberalisation — at least the elites of these countries think so, although this can often come down to nationalist mimicry. According to the elites of such countries, their main problem is their geography. They would like to be somewhere in the Central or Western Europe, but happened to be, for example, in the Caucasus. First of all, this is Georgia.

3️⃣ The third group of states builds their foreign policy strategy from the standpoint of pragmatism. Of course, such countries should include Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, which are developing relations with both eastern and western neighbours.

The incomplete nature of the collapse of the USSR echoes current politics and complicates the equation of successful foreign policy for the young states. Will we be able to state in next 30 years that all of the state experiments, which began in 1991, have been successful? Writes Andrey Sushentsov, Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club.

🔗 Thirty Years of Post-Soviet States’ Foreign Policy: Is It Enough for Maturity?

#Conflict_and_Leadership #CIS #Geopolitics

@valdai_club — The Valdai Discussion Club

🌏 Now Russia’s near abroad consists of a community of independent states that cannot ensure their own security and survival by relying only on their own forces; we cannot be completely sure of their stability.

From Estonia in the west to Kyrgyzstan in the east, the existence of these countries in a competitive international environment is ensured by their link with one of the nuclear superpowers. Moreover, such connections can only complement each other with great difficulty. As the recent developments in Kazakhstan have demonstrated, they are not limited to the threat of an external invasion; even internal circumstances can become deadly.

It is unlikely that Moscow would simply observe the processes taking place on its immediate periphery. The real challenge may be that in a few decades, or sooner, Moscow will have to take on an even greater responsibility, which Russia got rid of in 1991, writes Valdai Club Programme Director Timofei Bordachev.

🔗 Neighbours and Crises: New Challenges for Russia

#Asia_and_Eurasia #CIS #Kazakhstan

@valdai_club — The Valdai Discussion Club

🌏 During the first 30 years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the former Soviet republics were like teenagers who graduated school at a time of historical transformation. 

As in most cases when classmates meet 30 years after graduation, they learn that nobody turned out to be a massive success or failure, and everyone thinks that they have something to be proud of. Some are sure that they have made it in life and pity their classmates. 

Any comparison of the former Soviet republics is bound to be inaccurate, because they are such wildly disparate countries with hardly a common parameter for comparison. They have different foreign policy goals. What is a blessing to some is a curse to others. Sharing its sovereignty with the United States is a dream come true for Estonia. For Russia, this would be a historical catastrophe. How they can be classified?

👉 The authors of a new Valdai report "The Growing Up Romance: Foreign Policy as a Formative Experience for the New States of Eurasia" Andrey Sushentsov and Nikolai Silaev try to answer this question. Watch live presentation of the Report at 11:00 a.m. Moscow Time on our website.

🔗 Coming-of-Age Stories: Foreign Policy as Formative Experience for New Eurasian States

🔵 The Report is published within the framework of a new Valdai Club programme “Modern Diplomacy”.

#ModernDiplomacy #PostSovietSpace #CIS #Eurasia

@valdai_club — The Valdai Discussion Club

🇷🇺🗺 On March 13, 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree to amend the Concept of Russia’s state policy in the field of international development assistance (IDA) concerning relations with developing countries. 

The updated concept contains a number of new priorities in terms of the list of IDA recipients. In particular, the EAEU member states are ranked first among them, followed by the CIS member states, other states in the post-Soviet space, as well as neighbouring states pursuing a course of neighbourliness or an alliance with Russia.

Separately, the list of recipients of the Russian IDA includes states, mentioned by the UN in the list of least developed countries (LDCs), which includes many states in Africa.

The new Concept of Russia’s state policy in the field of international development assistance will contribute to the adaptation of state policy to “new international realities,” writes Valdai Club expert Sergey Mikhnevich.

https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/how-can-russia-make-its-international-development/

#EconomicStatecraft #CIS #EAEU

@valdai_club