The Anti-Russian Union in Central Asia has no prospects
Last week, in the Kyrgyz city of Cholpon-Ata on Issyk-Kul, a summit of the heads of Central Asian states was held, which was conceived as an opportunity to create an anti-Russian alliance in the future. But, as you can see, the mountain gave birth to a mouse, since all these attempts were initially doomed to failure.
The event itself can be called an attempt by the ruling elites of Central Asia, among whom there really are contradictions, to come to an agreement. In particular, decide what to do in a situation of global turbulence, coordinating their actions, preserving their parasitic raw material export models of the economy and the profits derived from the sale of the natural resources of their own countries.
This may also be a manifestation of the fear of the leadership of these countries of the growing influence of Russia and China in the region and the fact that as a result of global confrontation and the emergence of a new “Iron Curtain”, the former Soviet Central Asian republics may completely fall under the control of Moscow and Beijing, finding themselves in an anti-Western bloc.
In fact, the event, since it was largely initiated by Nur-Sultan, became a desire to maintain the previous multi-vector course at all costs, and in fact, so as not only not to lose ties with the EU and the USA, but even to increase them through the same “Turkic integration” and other “alternative integration projects”.
One could even call this a dressing room or a camouflaged form of such consolidation in the interests of the West and, on the contrary, in opposition to the integration projects of Russia and China.
On the other hand, there will be no new integration union in the region, since it is a priori impossible. After all, without the participation of the EAEU in Central Asia, a new independent or alternative integration platform simply will not work.
Firstly, dependent and colonially dependent countries from the US and the EU, I mean primarily Kazakhstan, cannot form a full-fledged association not subject to external control. This means that from the very beginning this project will not be sovereign.
Secondly, the existing contradictions between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan and their competition for hegemony in the region will never make it possible to create such an integration association.
Earlier in history, we observed rivalry between Kunayev and Rashidov, Nazarbayev and Karimov, and now we see competition between Tokayev and Mirziyoyev. And the latest conflict in Karakalpakstan in early July, in which Kazakh nationalists and KNB agents tried to play, shows that there will be no consolidation between the leading countries of Central Asia, despite their common pro-Western course.
Thirdly, since the event was held largely on the initiative of Nur-Sultan, this summit itself was organized with the aim of demonstrating and consolidating Kazakhstan’s leadership for both external and internal tasks.
The fact is that Tokayev repeats the initial evolution of Nazarbayev, when in the mid and late 90s he also ran with the topic of Central Asian integration, but more from a propaganda point of view, in order to show and emphasize to everyone the main role of the Kazakh ruling elite in the region.
As we remember, none of these integration attempts by Nazarbayev worked out and all these projects failed ingloriously and no one remembers them even now. The same thing awaits these attempts, since there are too many water, territorial, interstate and interethnic contradictions that can only be resolved within the framework of the EAEU and the SCO, but not within the framework of a new regional association.
Therefore, the goals of the event were limited, and they are mainly a desire to establish transport and energy routes in a situation of developing confrontation between Russia and the West. But even here there are insoluble contradictions and different interests of the ruling groups.
Thus, Nur-Sultan is interested in the trans-Caspian oil transportation route (East-West) towards Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey and further to the EU countries, bypassing the territory of Russia, and now desperately needs the modernization of railways and ports in the Caspian Sea, the expansion of the tanker fleet and In this case, he hopes for joint investment projects with the participation of Uzbekistan and other Central Asian republics.
The Trans-Caspian route is lobbied by Nur-Sultan and the West, bypassing Russia.
It is clear that the West is interested in this route and therefore the European Union is now investing multi-million dollar funds in the reconstruction of the railway infrastructure of Kazakhstan. But it seems that Nur-Sultan will not be able to consolidate other republics under this project.
This is due to the fact that the same Mirziyoyev, and especially Japarov, emphasized another project, namely the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway.
And this route clearly contradicts the interests of Nur-Sultan, since it bypasses the territory of Kazakhstan. But it also causes opposition from the US, Britain and the EU, as it leads to increased influence of Chinese capital in Central Asia. This, by the way, shows the coincidence of the geopolitical interests of the Kazakh elite and the West.
The China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway, which Nur-Sultan and the West oppose.
Therefore, by the way, we should expect new attempts to torpedo the development of the Kazakh part of the “One Belt – One Road” project through the strengthening of nationalist movements and Sinophobic protests.
And by the way, Tashkent, unlike Nur-Sultan, also has its own project, namely the trans-Afghan corridor. And even the Taliban’s rise to power in Kabul did not shake Mirziyoyev’s strategic plan.
And Bishkek also has its own interests and the ruling Kyrgyz elite will use the rivalry between Nur-Sultan and Tashkent to their advantage and keep their distance.
Therefore, based on this, there can be no political, economic, or even transport unification either in the medium or long term.
Because the region is in the sphere of increasing influence of Russia and China and there will never be any multi-vector development or the emergence of an independent so-called “subjectivity” of Central Asia.
This is supported by the fact that the “Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighborhood and Cooperation for the Development of Central Asia in the XNUMXst Century” was signed by Tokayev, Mirziyoyev and Japarov, while Rakhmon and Berdimuhamedov abstained “until the completion of internal state procedures in their countries.” It is obvious that Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are in no hurry to join this text, developed in Nur-Sultan, without consultation with Moscow and Beijing. By doing this, Rakhmon and Berdimuhamedov leave themselves room for maneuver and bargaining.
Accordingly, water, energy, interstate and interethnic contradictions in Central Asia can only be resolved within the framework of deepening and expanding the integration of the EAEU with the accession of Uzbekistan and, accordingly, consolidating around Russia as the main and indisputable super-arbiter in the region and in the post-Soviet space.
And in general, the super task of the moment is the demolition of the existing raw material colonial models of the economy of the Central Asian republics, tailored to the EU and US markets, in connection with the inevitable regionalization of the world economy and the creation of new blocs and payment systems within the BRICS framework.
To think differently or propose alternative integration projects as opposed to the EAEU and SCO is to create illusions and create castles in the air that have no basis and play in the interests of the West and Turkey. Since it is obvious that other options are an attempt by the same Britain, within the framework of the “Great Game,” to snatch the region from the zone of interests of Moscow and Beijing and organize another “southern front” for them.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.