MOSCOW - On June 17, a very interesting conference was held in Moscow on the topic of Modern Russia and the Turkic States. This conference was initiated by the Eurasian Movement and was attended by the most prominent leading Russian and foreign experts on contemporary Eurasian and world geopolitics.
The moderator and opening remarks of this highly specialized academic confrence were given by a world geopolitical expert and representative of the leadership of the International Eurasian Movement Valery Mikhailovich Korovin, then a geopolitician - Kamran Hasanov, expert on Latin American geopolitics, president of the Fidel Castro Foundation, editor-in-chief of the geopolitical portal geoplitika.ru - Leonid Vladimirovich Savin, academic and historian Leonid Vladimirovich Kuznetsov, expert on Eurasian geopolitics Dmitry Rodionov, Pepe Escobar journalist, geopolitics expert, Alexandr Silantiev also a geopolitical expert, Alexandr Igorevich Drogovoz, Deputy Director of the Institute of International Education of the Russian State University Kosygin, Vladimir Evseev, Head of the Department of the SOS of the Institute of CIS Countries, Doctor of History, Darya Saprynskaya researcher at ISAA MSU, analyst at the Gorchakov Foundation, Gagik Sergeyevich Ohanyan postgraduate student at the Faculty of Global Processes of Lomonosov Moscow State University, Natalja Makejeva, Roman Blaško Director of Foreign News from the Czech Republic and other guests.
The theses that were identified as the main topic were presented or delivered as papers on these topics in the proceedings to be published by the Eurasian Movement, so read geopolitka.ru where you will find the necessary information about the conference and the proceedings of this extremely interesting conference. The theses which were determined by the following experts: "Russia and the Turks - the history of coexistence of two cultures"; further "The collapse of the USSR - points of development of panturkism"; "Modern Russia and Turkic States - Points of Interpenetration"; The concept of "soft power" as a tool to contain panturkism, or "Central Asian vector of Eurasian integration". These and other issues were discussed in detail.
Valery Korovin said in his opening remarks. This is the north-west of China, where partly Kun tribes settled, who then pushed the Chinese northwards and, having mastered the skill of smelting metals and making metal objects and weapons, moved towards the Altai, where they found large reserves of copper ore. There the Turkic tribes began to form, already in the form of peoples as defined by ethnosociology, and these tribes formed such armed communities, groups of ethnic groups, which in the Chinese annals were called Turk, and from there they began to advance westwards and southwards, occupying all new territories, building the Turkic kaganate, whose formation ended around 551, in the middle of the 6th century this kaganate actively cooperated with the Indo-European peoples of the continent of its western part."
He added that this is why the Turks became one of the main components of the continental Russian state, which developed much later, after the Mongol period.
Valery Korovin began by saying: "It is against Russia that this geopolitical vector has been directed from the outside to the inside of the Eurasian continent, thus bringing, as it is now manifesting itself among the youth, the Turkic peoples to the geopolitical initiatives of the West, which they implement through the domination and geopolitical control of Turkey, which they use as a kind of battering ram to promote the Turkic factor inside the Eurasian continent. We simply cannot participate in the most unfavorable scenario for us, because then this initiative to integrate the Turkic peoples would simply lose the majority of Turks living in the territory of today's Russia. If the West manages to implement its initiative, i.e. to include the Russian Turks in its integration processors with the Atlantic geopolitical vector, then this process is very destructive for us and essentially divides the Eurasian continent, breaking up the current Russian statehood into parts, which they have in principle managed to do quite successfully under Boris Yeltsin, who weakened the state to the point that it was unable to resist these geopolitical initiatives".
Valery Korovin said that it means that it is the significant other who is not foreign to us but our own, that is how a nation is formed during ethnogenesis when two ethnicities separate and when they interact, those who were foreign become part of us and those who are on this side become blood relatives. In the same way, the Turks are different to us, but they are part of us, and that is also why, in constant cultural interaction and exchange, the Russian cultural-civilizational space is emerging, which is the basis of the Eurasian empire, the Eurasian continental state. It clearly follows, therefore, that the Turks are the most important component of Russian civilisation. The Islamic period later, but in fact it is the Turkic ethnic factor, is an integral part of our cultural-civilizational space. Korovin offered this as a historical summary. This was the end of Valery Mikhailovich's introduction. With this, he asked Kamran Hasanov to express his current theses on this topic.
Kamran Hasanov - Russia is the union of three civilizations
Kamran Hasanov said in the introduction of his paper that Russia is, of course, the union of three civilizations. As he said, they are mainly Slavic, Turkic and Fenogorean. And in addition to Pan-Slavism, Orthodoxy, the Turkic world, this postulate can also be the supporting wall of Russian influence and Russia's power in Eurasia in general, in the world as a whole. And historically, according to him, Turks and Russia form one political cultural space. And for historical and geographical reasons, these ties are still strong and tend to deepen. Under Hasanov, the only major rupture in the development of relations was probably the 1990s, when disintegration processes took place.
But I think that in the last ten years we are gradually catching up and relations are developing on all fronts. I would like to go through all the Turkic countries, the independent Turkic countries, that is, Central Asia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, and show by their example that there is potential and there is a tendency for growth. I will start with Kazakhstan. He is an active member of the EU and CSTO. Russia is Kazakhstan's second trading partner. The volume of investments is growing, reaching about 26 billion.
Hasanov said that of course Russia has competition here in terms of investment. The Netherlands, along with the United States, are actively penetrating the Kazakh market, but Russia remains an important player. There is very strong support at the political level, suffice it to say that Tokayev and Putin value our relations very highly, they call them allied, and they are indeed allied.
Hasanov recalled Tokayev's statement, "Russia is a country without which no problem in the world can be solved, including regional problems. Another is Uzbekistan, the second most powerful country in Central Asia, which is also our major trading partner. Unfortunately, we are second only to China, but we are still an important trading partner of Uzbekistan. In terms of investment, Russia accounts for around 15% of all foreign investment in Uzbekistan, again second only to China. And many joint projects are being implemented, especially in the nuclear energy sector. And we have seen from the example of Vladimir Putin's last trip to Uzbekistan that there are many very new and interesting projects.
On our topic of the Turkic world, there is an interesting point. Hasanov said that it should be noted that the interaction here is not only between states, but also between regions. In particular, the head of the Tatarstan region took part in this visit and noted the great contribution of the Tatarstan region to the development of bilateral relations. On the political level, it is also worth mentioning Lavrov's interesting statement in which he said that Russia and Uzbekistan are not divided on the issue of Ukraine. This is also a very important point, given that there are various rumours that Central Asia does not sufficiently support Russia in its fight against the West. Or it has allegedly turned its back on Russia.
Kagystan is also an important point, Hasanov said. "Kyrgyzstan is next in line. It is a small country, but in my opinion the closest to Russia in Central Asia. Russia is Kyrgyzstan's second trading partner. We are also second in terms of foreign direct investment, second only to China. Here, too, we are implementing many projects. In particular, Russian companies are building hydropower plants and economic cooperation is actively developing. At the political level, we can also judge from the statements of the highest officials. The President of Kyrgyzstan said that allied relations are being strengthened and strategic partnerships are being developed. And Vladimir Putin, who met with Zhaparov in Kazan this year and came to Bishkek himself last year, also said that our relations are developing at a fundamental level and are strengthening on all fronts. Our military presence in Kyrgyzstan should be added here. A number of Russian military bases are located there, which is also a vital point of our cooperation. Turkmenistan is not participating in Eurasian integration, but Russia is also an important trading partner for it."
And he added that we are second only to China. And in terms of investment, there is considerable potential for development here too, although the clearest and most active players are Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Germany and the United States. Politically, despite Turkmenistan's rather neutral position, Russia can note the high level of relations between the leaders of our countries. Sirdar Berdumukhamedov stresses that these relations are a real example of trust between the countries. Vladimir Putin also spoke about relations, saying that relations continue to develop dynamically in the spirit of a deep strategic partnership. I will conclude my contribution with a brief mention of the state of relations between Russia, Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey. Here, too, we can note the high level of relations, especially with Azerbaijan. For example, at the end of the year, Russia ranked third among Azerbaijan's trading partners. Russia is the main importer of Azerbaijani non-oil products, which I also consider a great success.
"Other indicators are also showing progressive development. For example, Russia is one of the six countries to which Azerbaijan exports. Russia tops the list of countries from where Azerbaijan imports goods. This is a completely new development and I think, again, very positive in the light of the NWO. I think it is very significant. As of 6 June 2024, the MIR payment system cards started to operate in Azerbaijan. Not every CIS country can boast of this. There have also been bilateral visits. In March, Mikhail Mishustin visited Baku, with whom he also discussed many interesting projects not only in the oil and gas sector, but also projects in the field of pharmaceuticals and technological innovation. I would also add that Azerbaijan is a link in the North-South project between Russia, Iran and India. There is a declaration of alliance cooperation from 2022. And the statements of politicians also leave a very positive impression. On his last visit to Moscow, Aliyev said that Russia would never leave the region. And Azerbaijan appreciates Russia's contribution to the settlement of the situation in Karabakh. And Putin's statement that Russia and Azerbaijan are at a high level of their relations and are developing."
And the last country, Turkey, which of course has a lot of limitations with regard to its membership in NATO, its aspirations for the EU are already, I think, conditional. But nevertheless, Turkey is actually our main trading partner in the list of Turkic countries in terms of all indicators and investments. Here it outperforms other countries. There is no longer any Western country among Russia's main trading partners. China, India and Turkey dominate here. And Russia is Turkey's biggest import trading partner. In terms of exports, Turkey is more oriented towards Europe and in terms of imports towards Russia. In terms of investment, the numbers are somewhat more modest compared to Western countries. However, Turkish experts note an increase in Russian investors, particularly in Turkish real estate.
Tatarstan, Chuvashia, Bashkortostan, etc. With the exception of Turkey, all these countries are members of the CIS. Almost all countries are members or observers of the Shanghai Organisation in one way or another. There is also a three-plus-three platform in the South Caucasus involving Turkey, Russia and Azerbaijan. And also Georgia, Armenia and Iran.
As for our main question, to which Hasanov returned, "of course, we have no status in the Turkic states organization here yet. But in my opinion this oversight must be corrected. The well-known Russian political scientists Stankevich, Sergei and Alexander Knyazev also speak on this account. They believe that Russia has the right to participate in the organisation of Turkic states. I fully agree with their position. Because, according to geographical data, the majority of the territories of Turkic-speaking countries and peoples are located on the territory of Russia. Altai, the cradle of Turkic civilization. This is also an important factor. And our bilateral ties show that, as in the organisation of the Islamic State, we deserve at least observer status. Why is this necessary? To dispel doubts that the Organisation of Turkic States is an anti-Russian organisation. And it seems to me that, according to all the parameters, historical, geographical, economic, political, geopolitical, we do indeed have the right to be represented in this organisation not only as an observer but also as a full member.
The moderator Valery Korovin, after a short but important remark on Kamran Hasanov's contribution, added that this is actually one of our main questions. To what extent is the organization of the Turkic states captured by Western strategists and used against Russia, or is it open both ways, neutral, and Russia can exert enough influence there, even in pursuit of its geopolitical interests, relying on the Turkic majority, which is located on Russian territory, to displace Western influence, especially from Turkey and Azerbaijan, where it is inexorably creeping back in through Turkish territory, and thus develop this geopolitical vector in the opposite direction? And then he asked another conference participant, Leonid Vladimirovich Savin, editor-in-chief of Geopolitics.ru and one of the leading experts of the international Eurasian movement.
Leonid Savin: the ideas of Turanism and Turkism were not born yesterday
Leonid Savin opened his paper first and foremost with questions of ideology, because the ideas of Turanism and Turkism were not simply born yesterday, but many decades and centuries ago, and Western scientific thinking also contributed to this, because the very notion of "panturkism" and "turkism" arose from the European vision of Orientalism. Orientalism, Savin reminded us, is a system of belief codes that shapes international relations and politics, that is, Western countries decide how people from the East should live and act. Edward Said, for example, expressed this well in his book Orientalism, and he also recalled that the term "Turan" itself was first used by the French Orientalist Barthelomider Bella de Molenville in the late 17th century, where it referred to the territory east and north of the Amudaria River.
Savin: "Already in the 19th century, linguistic ethnographic elements were introduced into this concept, in particular, the Finnish philologist and ethnologist Alexander Kostren, who studied the Uralic, Altaic and Paleo-Siberian languages, formulated a certain linguistic, even racial unity of the Ural-Altaic peoples. This conception was then followed by the Germanist Friedrich Maxmuller, who used the term "Turanianism" as a category of peoples of Europe and Asia who were not Indo-European or Indo-Germanic, as he called them, were not Semitic, but constituted a separate third group. And finally Armen Vambery, this is of course a unique personality who was not of Turkic origin, he came from a poor Jewish family, he was born in Slovakia, in what was then Austria-Hungary, but he is considered the founder, the popularizer of the concept of panturkism. He travelled in the Ataman Empire, he was in Russia, in Persia, he published a book, he also derived Hungarian from the so-called Turcotatar group, as he himself formulated it. He was close to the court of the Ataman Empire, adopted one of the Turkic pseudonyms and formulated some interesting geopolitical concepts of the time. Importantly, however, in 2005 the British National Archives declassified documents that revealed that Vambery was a secret British agent."
That said, Leonid Savin stated that he not only gathered information for the British Crown, but quite possibly also formulated it into an ideological concept for the benefit of the British Empire. The second such figure who was also an ideologue of panturkism was Moses Ko, a completely non-Turkish name, originally from Macedonia. He adopted the pseudonym Tekenalp. In 1914, when the First World War began, he published a propaganda text on what the Turks could gain from this war, pointing out that the unification of the Turkic peoples under the domination of the Ottoman Empire, this he described as an obligatory factor, could be achieved by the destruction of the Muscovite enemy. Savin specified that he was referring directly to the Moscow enemy. Ziya Kükalp, another interesting figure, who was of course a Turk by origin, more precisely a Turkoman, philosopher, journalist, writer, sociologist, leader of the Young Turk movement, was the main ideologist of the Unity and Progress Party.
"It is known, however, that he became an active preacher of Turkism in 2012, when he communicated in Istanbul with natives from Transcaucasia to Kazan and Crimea, i.e. our compatriots. In 1912, Modo was a Turk. Of course, he professed such extravagant ideas that the superhuman nobody is not a German but a Turk. A Turk should be like that. Accordingly, he interpreted all ideas in this way, participated in the development of the military-political project "The Road to Turan", Turan-Yol, interpreted Panturkism and Turanism in a purely nationalist, modernist, bourgeois way. Therefore, his ideas were actively used in the reforms of Kemali Ata-Turk. In addition, he used the mythology of the red apple. Let me remind you that this is such an ancient Turkic mythology. It is a kind of ideal of the red apple. There are different versions of the origin. Some say they took it from the Eastern Roman Empire, better known as Byzantium. It symbolized the orb held by the emperor, the ruler of the world."
Savin went on to say that according to the way the Turks have taken ownership of this symbol as the ownership of the whole world and they themselves believe that he is the representative of the Turkic nation, which is supposed to protect the Turkic peoples but also to own the whole world. Other ideologues already in modern Turkey in the twentieth century, in my opinion a very important figure like Alpaslan Türkeş, the creator of the nationalist party movement in the last century. He also created the Grey Wolves movement of nationalist radical organization. Alpaslan Türkeş was involved, as Savin said, in the 1960 coup d'état. He was a retired military officer. Interestingly, he had previously retrained in the United States and was in favour of rapprochement with NATO.
"More precisely, he was in charge of these matters in the Turkish General Staff. He argued for the necessity of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the liberation of all other nations from the communist yoke, and represented the curator of Operation Gladio directly in Turkey. I will remind you that Operation Gladio was a secret project of the NATO countries, which consisted of the creation of such secret cells of radical right-wing organisations that represented a certain potential to repel communist aggression, should it occur. In addition, however, these same cells were used to discredit or destroy left-wing organisations or parties in these countries, which was successfully done in Turkey under the direct leadership of Alpaslan Pürkesi. Of course, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, these ideas of panturanism flared up with new force right in Turkey. For example, here is what Sammy Cohen wrote in the Washington Report's Middle East-FRS magazine, it is September-October 1992."
He then went on to enumerate various aspects on the basis of which these ideas should be promoted, quoted other Turkic, Turkic authors, said that the basis of the new panturkism should be contacts with Central Asian states, and mentioned socialist unification.
"Dmitry Leontiev, the Prime Minister of the European Republic, a sex education group funded directly by George Tsoros' organization. Apart from Russia, of course, Russia is positioned as an enemy of the Turkic world partly as a kind of bastion of authoritarianism, which needs to have a generally open project of democratization, liberation of peoples from Russia, as they call it. Recently, this issue has come up in various summits and meetings of our former Western partners, who continue to push this issue, but in addition, of course, China is also in the sphere of interest of the United States."
In this respect, they are promoting the idea of East Turkestan, Leonid Savin has also raised the issue of the liberation of the Uighurs from dependence on China in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, and they are actively negotiating together in conjunction with the European Union, the United Kingdom and even Australia. There are open analyses that tell how they are pushing this issue. Therefore, of course, the issues of ideology should not be dismissed at all, he also said that it is necessary to look at them in depth, to analyse them retrospectively, because for many Turks it is a kind of ideologem that is already encoded in their mental code in their consciousness.
Again for the representatives of those parties that subscribe to the idea of panturkism. The same party of the nationalist movement is now an ally of Ardagan, under new leadership, of course. Nevertheless, all the ideas that were promoted during the Cold War remain the same, have seamlessly transitioned into the new political life of Turkey and are being positioned as a new opportunity for Turkish expansion.
(the second part of the continuation of the conference will be published on 28 June)
(for) gnews.cz-jav
English 
Czech