Should we hold back the process of exodus of Russians from Central Asian countries: opinions
A strange situation is taking shape within the emerging Eurasian Union: with the increased economic integration of the member countries, ethnic nationalism is also growing. "Kazakhstan is not just one of the potential members of the Eurasian Union being created on its initiative, but also a member of the current Customs Union with Russia and Belarus. Nevertheless, in the last six months, statements from Astana have been more hostile to Russia and Russians.At first, the Kazakhstani authorities voiced new claims on Baikonur, then President Nazarbayev announced the translation of the Kazakh language into the Latin alphabet (until the appearance of the Cyrillic alphabet, the Kazakhs did not have written language or statehood - approx. Ed.), Then the local tame nationalists tried to initiate referendum to ban the Russian language. And the other day came no longer rhetorical news: in 2013, the number of Russians wishing to leave Kazakhstan to Russia under the state program of voluntary relocation increased two (!) times, "says rosbalt.ru.
IA REX: Does it make sense to restrain the process of exodus of Russians from Central Asian countries or, on the contrary, should we promote this outcome?
Grigory Trofimchuk, political scientist, first vice president of the Center for Modeling Strategic Development:
The exodus of Russians from Central Asia is a geopolitical inevitability, since the strengthening of the Russian diaspora in the near abroad (against the background of the reporting pensioner “Pushkin readings” and “Chekhov evenings”) has not happened over twenty long years. People of such an all-Russian scale, such as, for example, the Ferghana native Alexander Abdulov, will never leave the depths of Central Asia; Russian communities in the Muslim countries of this region will rapidly shrink and die.
Eurasian integration processes could well stop this alignment, but only for such historical missions within its structures should in no case be the traditional type of officials. The Eurasian movement should be led by a special kind of politician, evoking universal respect and interest. However, we see that the administrative offices of the EAC are gradually filled with bureaucratic “sludge”, which, for one reason or another, did not find a place in the governments of the participating countries. Moreover, this applies not only to Moscow and Minsk, and Astana, judging by the Eurasian appointees, clearly does not make its vital bet on Eurasia. The Eurasian theme for them is a political elective, evening school, distance learning.
Russians from Central Asia will migrate to their historical homeland anyway, while they can still walk with their feet, while they have the money to buy a one-way ticket. Of course, nobody waits for them in their homeland, here and theirs, for no reason at all, no one will give a piece of bread, not to mention apartments or elementary work. At the same time, we should not forget that the Asian Russians still have time to calmly leave “to their own people”: this historical window will soon close, and they will become “minced” in the war of all against all, which will be triggered by the discovery of the “Afghan traffic jam” . And then with the Russians, with the “shuravi” here it is quits for everything.
Therefore, the Russian people, who still live in the countries of Central Asia, do not have to, having weighed all the circumstances, nothing else but to ride horses, donkeys, trains — anything to get away from such a terrible end.
Alexander Sobyanin, political scientist, head of the strategic planning service of the Association for Cross-Border Cooperation:
Actively participating in migration and demographic policy, I have always opposed the concept of the return of compatriots. The very discussion of the usefulness or risks of the outcome of Russians and Russian speakers from anywhere means that the Russian state fixes for itself the meaninglessness and the impossibility of building a new Big state - the Eurasian Union. I am categorically against such defeatism and for the Big State.
Yuri Yuriev, political designer:
Nothing strange. Economic integration is often not a choice, but a gift for nothing. And “for nothing” is not a bakshish, it is a tribute. In addition, it’s not a fact that Russians are economically integrating, and not entirely different. If Russians a century ago were useful, now there is no direct link between Russians and benefits, and most importantly, retribution and reward, both good and well-deserved. In general, the local people know better what is allowed and what is encouraged in them. It would be nice to remember that at one time both Europe and the USA were very dependent on Algerian and Egyptian piracy, which were difficult to win and even paid ransoms and tributes.
It is possible that now in the CIS they are trying to create something like the current Somalia, where it is more profitable to trade prisoners than to save their own children from epidemics. If the cult of the raiding economy is not overcome in society, then it is worthwhile to invest money and fortunes only after the power in power guaranteeing the inviolability of those. That's how it used to be when one Baikonur was an investment of half a trillion dollars, which the current Kazakh regressors are very upset about, as well as schools and hospitals. But then - they risked their lives for trying to regress, and now - only by moving to another country and with money at the same time.
The paradox is that the Russians politely and kindly allowed the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz to remain such Kazakhs and Kyrgyz. But China Uigurs and other foreigners forced to become Chinese, and, very hard. There is also the temptation of Islamization, the threats of which the locals also do not really watch, until they begin the Shari'a trial and other medieval tendencies, like the Taliban or in Ichkeria. And besides, the scenario of colonization by capital simply requires cutting local to new formations, for example, “Adayans”, which local people also do not quite understand. Or - very much understand and fully contribute to this.
Does Russia need to support this all? We need to look at and bargain, not forgetting the final profit not only in money, but also in Russians. After all, if money arrives, while Russians are declining, then why on the world map is Russia?
Daniel Steisslinger, journalist and translator (Israel):
And he never weakened. The ruling bai in Soviet times simply avoided, as far as possible, its public manifestations. But sometimes they broke through: in the same Kazakhstan, in 1979, there were riots that disrupted the decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (!) To reestablish the German ASSR at the Germans new place of residence: the Kazakhs were afraid that by tradition they should put representatives of the title in the national republics of the population, the Germans will get those posts that until now in these territories were occupied by the representatives of that zhuz who were given this part of the republic "for feeding" (although the Kazakhs were a minority in this part of the republic, the majority ulation Slavs, and Germans were all very tasty positions battered them) in second place. In the USSR, it was customary to sweep unpleasant problems under the carpet. But now it just got out.
Information