Part Three: The Concept of the Turkic World – A New Challenge or a Source of Development?

Before giving the floor to the next speaker, Valerij Korovin said: "I would like to point out that Turkey, although not culturally present in the region, is still trying to exert its influence primarily through economic projects. Meanwhile, we, in Central Asia, in the Turkic world, have a complete carte blanche (a free pass) in terms of cultural and civilizational presence. However, when implementing Eurasian integration projects, we focus only on the economy, which is constantly emphasized. And we do not impose, nor even suggest, any programs for cultural or political unification of the post-Soviet space, which is a natural process for us. This means that we are essentially returning to the cultural and civilizational sphere where we have always been present. But again, cultural programs are implemented exclusively on a residual basis, which, in my opinion, is a colossal mistake – this emphasis on the economic component. I would like to ask Alexander Selantiev to comment on the concept of the Turkic world, on how to analyze this new challenge for us, which we will talk about later, and to offer some criticism. Either it is a source of development, and then we can coexist in the format of two cultures by carrying and restoring this cultural and civilizational unity."

Alexandr Selantiev – questions of migration policy

"The 1990s in our country were marked by another phenomenon: a sharp increase in migration processes. And most of these migration processes involve movement between Russia and the countries of Central Asia. Over the decades, the volume of migration has been around 10-11 million people, of which 5-6 million are labor migrants who work permanently in our country. Moreover, this influx has even created an economy that is dependent on migrants, as is often discussed in our country. On the whole, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It involves communication at the level of everyday life, at the level of migration, at the level of culture, and even at the level of negative perceptions of Americans or Turks. When I work or communicate with someone from Central Asia on a daily basis, and they communicate with me, when they tell their children about it, we grow up in a mutual exchange of cultures. But unfortunately, recent events, such as those that occurred at the Crocus City Hall, have significantly changed the migration situation in the country. And it is clear that these are heavy losses, terrible events."

It is, for example, very incomprehensible, said Selantiev, why Russian mass media began to fuel this migration situation much earlier, perhaps a year or a year and a half ago. Everyone will agree that the media has a great influence on our population. Russia has created an image of the migrant as someone who is unkempt, poorly dressed, poorly employed, and a threat to our children and our women. This is simply a form of soft power being used against Russia. The question is, what is this? Is it soft power? And who is behind this soft power? And why are they promoting an image with such negative connotations? Alexander Selantiev suggests that we should reflect on this. The fact is that migration and migration flows are also a source of benefit. Who would benefit from stopping the migration exchange between us and the countries of Central Asia? And despite these events, we know everything, and we felt it after the incident at the Crocus City Hall, when migrants from Central Asia felt very uncomfortable in our country. A large number of them left. As Selantiev said, the question is, who benefits from this? Thankfully, centuries of communication and coexistence between our cultures still maintain these positive relationships between Russia and Central Asia. But this may not last forever. Selantiev stated that we need to seriously consider how Russia should influence these relationships, how to preserve them, and what Russia is willing to do for it.

The host, Valerij Korovin, noted that Alexander Selantiev raised a very important question about the attitude towards migrants, but it would be good to make a few observations. As Selantiev correctly pointed out, in the case of those who come to Russia to study, soft power is primarily exerted when they return to their countries and bring our cultural and civilizational values back to their societies.

Korovin added: "Enclaves are a threat in any society because the modern individual, the normative resident of any Russian region, is alone, with the laws and police on their side, while an enclave is a collective identity that is present in its fullness and diversity. And this diversity, of course, overwhelms the individual. So, when we talk about newcomers from Central Asia and Turkic-speaking countries who are staying in Russia, or when we talk about large cities, there should be no enclaves. The state should strictly regulate not only their integration, but also their further assimilation. Or they should settle in an agrarian environment, then yes, they can live there as enclaves, but isolated from the urbanized environment. And again, we encounter the problem of the politicization of these networks, when Western strategies begin to use Islamist networks, which is not traditional Islam, but political Islam, and in their own interest to destabilize society, as we saw with the Holi network. In other words, migration is a double-edged sword; it probably has certain advantages, especially when we talk exclusively about the economy, but it also has disadvantages, such as the erosion of the cultural and civilizational foundations of the basic host society, and the challenges posed by enclaves, politicization, and Islamism. So, it is a process that is not entirely unambiguously positive. There is nothing good about people leaving their traditional places and moving elsewhere for work."

Valerij Korovin also mentioned one crucial thing: the struggle for the Altai region has intensified. How is this manifesting? Several countries have begun to assert their claims. He then invited the geopolitical analyst Dmitry Nikolaevich Rodionov to give a presentation at the conference.

Dmitry Rodionov

Expert on Eurasian geopolitics, Dmitry Nikolaevich Rodionov, believes that we should not consider the Central Asian countries as entities that blindly and unwillingly submit to someone's soft power or influence, without having their own opinions. He noted that, as the previous speaker mentioned, schools are being built in Central Asia. Indeed, Tajikistan has opened six or nine Russian schools in various cities. And just a few months ago, there was a scandal. In one school, a history textbook was found that spoke of Russian and Soviet occupation, the colonial period, and so on. This was, incidentally, funded by Russia, and, according to Rodionov, this is how soft power works. That means that if they have learned to play this soft power game, then even Russia itself cannot fully control it. And Tajikistan, of course, is not among the Turkic-speaking countries, but in any case, it is the same thing with the textbooks, the attribution of history, the glorification of embassies, and the so-called Turkestan, which fought on the side of Hitler during the Great Patriotic War.

This is happening in all the countries of the region. It is happening in Kazakhstan, which is considered our main ally in the region. It is also happening in Uzbekistan. It is even happening in Kyrgyzstan, which is our closest trade and economic partner in the entire region. This is what is called expanded multi-sectoralism. Of course, such multi-sectoralism is present in one way or another in all post-Soviet countries. Therefore, it is necessary to understand that all these elites, these states, have their own interests and are trying to sit not on two chairs, but on five. These are the Anglo-Saxons, the Chinese, the Europeans, us, and the Turks," Rodionov listed the countries.

Rodionov also emphasized: "Therefore, I repeat again that we should not think of them as just objects, not subjects, that they do not have their own will to influence things. And by the way, the same should be said about Turkey, because it has been repeatedly said that Turkey is a channel of Anglo-Saxon influence. Yes, Turkey has indeed often been used by the British Empire against Russia, even during the Great Game, and in all conflicts, it has always stood on the side of the British Empire against Russia. But at the same time, how many wars have we fought with them? We have constantly fought with them in the Caucasus. So, Turkey also has its own geopolitical interests, which, to put it mildly, do not always align with the interests of Russia. Now, let's talk about history. Altai is indeed the center of Turkic peoples. In the 6th century, the Turkic Khaganate emerged, from which all subsequent Turkic states originated. And indeed, most of the territory of this Khaganate is located within the historical territory of Russia, and Russia, from the very beginning, from the first centuries of its existence, was connected to the steppes, directly interacting with them. Yes, there were wars, there were conflicts, but there was, as one of my colleagues who spoke before me said, mostly a symbiosis, a symbiotic relationship. And of course, even today, the situation is largely the same. Today, there are nearly 200 million Turks in the world, of whom 11 million live in Russia."

If most of the Turkic-speaking peoples live in Russia, we are, in terms of population, ranked sixth after Turkey, Uzbekistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, and China. It should be noted that Turkic-speaking peoples live in a vast territory, from the North Caucasus to Northeast Siberia, specifically Yakutia. There is a huge number of languages and cultures. And we must not forget that Turkic-speaking peoples are very diverse. That is, when we compare, for example, Orthodox Gagauzians, some Muslim communities among the Turks, and the Altai people, where there is shamanism, Tengrism, and even Kurturism, it is very difficult. When it comes to integrating the Turkic world, it is very difficult to find common ground because there are completely different peoples, languages, and cultures.

This is something that, according to Rodionov, must always be kept in mind. Russia should also remember that it already cooperates with most of the Turkic states within the framework of the Eurasian Union, the CIS, and the SCO. Moreover, these Central Asian countries have been part of the Russian world for nearly two centuries and share a common cultural space. Although it is true that young people are increasingly disconnected from these roots, this common cultural space still exists to some extent, and Russia should certainly take advantage of it. Rodionov recalled that during the Soviet Union, most of the world's Turks lived there. And, in fact, the only organization, the only country that was an independent, purely ethnic Turkic state, was Turkey itself. It is clear that at that time, there was no question of creating any kind of Turkic states association, because, in fact, there was Turkey, there was the Soviet Union, and there was Iran and China, where Turkic peoples lived who would not join any organization; they were, in fact, not invited. He also pointed out that the creation of the Turkic states organization, the Turkic Council, began in the 1990s, and that the first meeting of heads of state took place in Istanbul in 1992, at the initiative of Turkey. From the very beginning, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkey has been trying to create new independent Turkic states and to bring them closer together.