Abstract
Current political and academic discussions in Russia on Central Asian issues, including relations with individual Newly Independent States (NIS) of the region, reveal a wide variety of views, some of them of extreme polarity. The intensity and divergence of these discussions and views are reflective of the fact that in the opinion of many, Russian-Central Asian relations go beyond the realm of practical policies and acquire a high philosophic — even an existential — dimension. It appears that at stake is not just a set of geopolitical, economic, even military-strategic and other ‘mundane’ interests, but the very essence, the raison d’être of Russia as a state and society and particularly its civilizational quintessence, a choice between European and Asiatic modes of development and models of cultural orientation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
According to IMF data even in 1991, 44% of Tajikistan’s budget, 42% of the Uzbek budget, 34% of that of Kyrgyzstan, 23% of Kazakhstan’s and 22% of Turkmenistan’s were subsidized from Moscow. See Marnie, Shelia and Witlock, Erik, Central Asia and Economic Integration, RFE/RL Research Report, Vol. 2, No. 14, April 1993, p. 34.
Mac-Farlane, Neil S., ‘Russian Conception of Europe’, Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 10, No. 3, July–September 1994, pp. 241–44.
For CIS agreements concluded but not implemented, see Sheeky, Ann, Seven States Sign Charter Strengthening CIS, RFE/RF Research Reports, Vol. 2, No. 9, 26 February 1993, p. 10;
Crow, Suzanne, Russia Promotes the CIS as an International Organization, RFE/RL Research Reports, Vol. 3, No. 11, 18 March 1994, p. 33;
and Hague, Elizabeth, The CIS: An Unpredictable Future, RFE/RF Research Reports, Vol. 3, No. 1, January 1994, p. 9.
By the early 1990s, these ‘traditional’ UN peacekeeping operations were being singled out for intense criticism. Many politicians and specialists began to insist that the new ‘multilateral international peacekeeping operations for the second generation ‘should be introduced’ implying more resolute and direct use of military force. See Mackinlay, John and Chopra, Jarat, ‘Second General Multilateral Operations’, Washington Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, Summer 1992, pp. 113–32;
and Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, Report on the Work of the Organization from the Forty-Seventh to the Forty-Eighth Session of the General Assembly, New York, September 1993, p. 2
See Michalopoulos, Constantine and Tarr, David, (ed), Trade in the Newly Independent States, Washington, 1994, pp. 229–235;
and Whitlock, Erik, The CIS Economies: Divergent and Troubled Paths, RFE/RL Research Reports, Vol. 3, No. 1, 7 January 1994, p. 9
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1998 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kortunov, A., Shoumikhin, A. (1998). Russia and Central Asia: Evolution of Mutual Perceptions, Policies, and Interdependence. In: Zhang, Y., Azizian, R. (eds) Ethnic Challenges beyond Borders. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26226-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26226-7_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-26228-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-26226-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)