logo
No more crutches: Russia's neighbors must now stand on their own

No more crutches: Russia's neighbors must now stand on their own

Russia Todaya day ago
As global instability deepens, Russia's role in Eurasia – and the nature of its ties with neighboring states – is once again in sharp focus. Moscow is not driven by a mission to dominate its neighbors or enforce a privileged position over them. But it must ensure that future dependencies – economic, political, or security-related – do not come at the expense of its own national interests.
This delicate balance is now being tested.
The summer of 2025 has brought fresh tension to Eurasia. The worsening crisis surrounding Iran could easily spill over, affecting international cooperation and security throughout the region. Meanwhile, relations between Russia and long-standing partners such as Armenia – both a formal military and economic ally – are showing visible strain. Even frictions with Azerbaijan, though less dramatic, signal that the geopolitical fabric of southern Eurasia is shifting.
Amid this turbulence, Russia's neighbors face a new set of choices. The ongoing standoff between Russia and the West, combined with uncertainty in the global economy, presents both risks and openings. These smaller states now must navigate a rapidly changing landscape – one where traditional alliances feel less reliable and new poles of influence emerge.
Despite these pressures, Russia's influence remains evident. In July, Moscow formally recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan, a move reflecting both realism and strategic calculation. While the United States still holds significant global clout, particularly through its Western military alliances and presence in the Middle East, Russia, China, and India continue to shape the regional dynamics of Eurasia.
This is especially clear in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. These nations, already established as independent and sovereign players, are adapting to new realities – economic integration, demographic change, and environmental pressure. A notable example is the growing cohesion among Central Asia's five republics. Their cooperation may well enhance their regional agency in the years to come. Russia views this development positively. A more resilient Central Asia – capable of solving its own challenges – contributes to overall regional stability and makes cooperation more effective.
Nonetheless, new challenges are on the horizon.
First, the Middle East will remain volatile. The outcome of the Israel-Iran confrontation remains uncertain, but its destabilizing effects are already rippling outward. Türkiye's foreign policy, often unpredictable, adds further complexity. For countries like Armenia and Azerbaijan, these dynamics will pose a constant strategic test.
Second, the energy economies of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan remain vulnerable to global market shocks. A sustained drop in oil and gas prices – or the depletion of reserves – could threaten both countries with domestic turmoil. Managing this risk will demand careful economic planning and diversification.
Third, climate change is poised to hit Central Asia hard. Rising temperatures and water shortages, paired with demographic pressures, may evolve into a genuine crisis within the next decade.
Fourth, and perhaps most profoundly, Russia's neighbors are not insulated from the deepening instability of global politics and economics. Larger powers may weather volatility thanks to reserves and institutional strength. Smaller states may not be so lucky. They are aware of these vulnerabilities – and they are preparing for them.
This, in turn, raises the question: what kind of relationship should these countries build with Russia?
Geography, history, and shared infrastructure mean that Russia remains a central power in the former Soviet space. But the nature of this 'space' is evolving. The past three decades have seen the emergence of distinct, sovereign states with their own political trajectories. The idea of a unified 'post-Soviet' region is fading. Cooperation now depends less on shared ideology or past structures, and more on pragmatic interest.
Russia does not seek to impose its will on these nations. But it must avoid any arrangement that allows others to benefit from Russian support – economic, security-related, or political – without reciprocity. This would be not only unfair, but strategically dangerous.
In this light, the political regimes of neighboring countries are not of primary concern. What matters is that their partnerships with Russia do not undermine its sovereignty or long-term stability. Moscow welcomes genuine cooperation – built on mutual interest and equality – but cannot allow itself to become a crutch for governments unable or unwilling to manage their internal affairs.
That principle applies across the board: in the South Caucasus, in Central Asia, and in Eastern Europe. What's required is a consistent, firm, and future-oriented approach to regional policy – one that encourages integration where possible but is unafraid to protect Russian interests when necessary.
Of course, breaking away from old habits and assumptions will not be easy. The legacy of the Soviet Union still shapes expectations on both sides. Many governments in the region continue to treat Russia as a default provider of security and economic support – even while forging closer ties with other powers. This dual approach is unsustainable.
It's time for a new model – one where Russia is not the guarantor of regional balance but a stakeholder among equals. A partner, not a patron. In such a system, cooperation would no longer rest on sentiment or historical inertia, but on clearly defined, reciprocal benefits.
To succeed in this, Russia must act with strategic patience and clarity of purpose. It must support its neighbors where doing so serves mutual goals. But it must also draw clear boundaries – ensuring that its resources, prestige, and geopolitical position are not squandered on arrangements that yield little in return.
In a world tilting towards greater uncertainty and multipolar competition, Russia's role in its own neighborhood remains vital. But it must be a role shaped not by nostalgia or charity, but by realism, prudence, and a firm defense of national interest.
Only then can lasting, balanced partnerships emerge in the vast, shifting space of Eurasia.This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Zelensky trashes Trump's peace demands
Zelensky trashes Trump's peace demands

Russia Today

timean hour ago

  • Russia Today

Zelensky trashes Trump's peace demands

Vladimir Zelensky has rejected US President Donald Trump's call for territorial concessions to Russia, claiming no such agreement would be accepted by the Ukrainian people. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff visited Moscow this week and reportedly made significant progress toward a compromise aimed at ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The US president said the proposal includes 'some swapping of territories to the betterment of both' sides and that Zelensky would need to find a way to approve such a deal under Ukrainian law. In his regular video address on Saturday, Zelensky stressed that Ukraine's borders are defined by its constitution and that 'nobody can or will' make concessions on the issue. 'The Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupiers,' he proclaimed. Zelensky added that Ukrainians will only respect a 'real, living peace,' warning that 'any decision taken against us and without us, without Ukraine, would be a decision against peace.' Earlier this week, Zelensky acknowledged that Ukraine is not in a position to forcibly retake Russian territories claimed by Kiev. The Ukrainian military relies heavily on Western weapons, funding and intelligence. The government is counting on sustained long-term support. Russian officials have repeatedly accused Zelensky of denying reality and prolonging a conflict he cannot win. Moscow says it intends to achieve its core national security objectives, preferably through diplomacy. The Ukrainian Constitution, which Zelensky cited, also requires a president to hand power to either a newly elected successor or the parliament speaker when their term ends. Zelensky did neither when his term expired last year, retaining power under martial law. Last month, Zelensky clashed with Ukraine's foreign backers after his administration pushed through legislation eliminating the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, created in 2015 under Western pressure. However, he quickly reversed the measure after aid donors threatened to suspend assistance.

US role in nuclear bombings omitted at commemoration events
US role in nuclear bombings omitted at commemoration events

Russia Today

time2 hours ago

  • Russia Today

US role in nuclear bombings omitted at commemoration events

The United States' role in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki 80 years ago went unmentioned during the city's commemoration events on Friday, continuing a long-standing practice at such memorials. Speeches by Japanese and international officials focused on the destruction caused by the bomb and calls for nuclear disarmament, but avoided naming the US as the country that carried out the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the final stage of World War Two. 'We must pass down as memories what unfolded here in Japan 80 years ago — the reality and the tragedy of war, and the brutal impact of the harm wrought by the atomic bombings,' Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru said. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in remarks delivered by his disarmament chief Izumi Nakamitsu, urged nations to 'move from words to action by strengthening the global disarmament regime,' with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at its core. Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki called on world leaders to present a 'specific course of action for achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons.' The US remains the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in warfare – a fact that was also left unacknowledged during Wednesday's commemoration of the Hiroshima bombing. The attacks killed an estimated 200,000 civilians and have been defended by US officials as necessary to avoid a costly invasion of Japan. However, a 1946 US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that 'Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.' Last month, the US carried out airstrikes on three Iranian sites tied to Tehran's nuclear program. Washington said the attacks were aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, a goal Tehran denies pursuing. Under the NPT, signatories, including the Islamic Republic, are entitled to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Several nations, including Russia and China, have accused the US of seriously undermining global non-proliferation efforts with its strikes on the Iranian facilities.

Ukraine conflict could have become ‘world war'
Ukraine conflict could have become ‘world war'

Russia Today

time8 hours ago

  • Russia Today

Ukraine conflict could have become ‘world war'

The Ukraine conflict could have escalated into World War III under the previous US administration, President Donald Trump has claimed. He has frequently argued that global tensions peaked when relations between Moscow and Washington hit their lowest point under his predecessor, Joe Biden. Since returning to office in January, Trump has reestablished US diplomatic ties with Russia, which had been suspended since the conflict's escalation in 2022. Speaking to journalists at the White House on Friday, Trump claimed that, if not for his administration's actions, the Ukraine conflict 'would have ended up being a world war." 'We've brought it down a long way, but when I first came in, I thought, 'Wow, this thing is really bad,'' Trump added. 'Now the only question is, when is it going to be settled? And it could be very soon,' he said. The president again labeled the conflict 'Biden's war' and criticized what he described as the previous administration's vast military support for Kiev. 'Through Biden and his people, we're probably in for $350 billion,' he said. Trump has previously indicated that he intends to recoup those funds through a minerals deal with Kiev, signed earlier this year. However, analysts note that much of Ukraine's mineral wealth is concentrated in the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, territories that voted to join Russia in 2022. Moscow has framed the Ukraine conflict as a NATO proxy war and has long denounced Western military aid to Kiev. The Kremlin maintains that NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's ambitions to join the alliance are key drivers of the hostilities. Since taking office, Trump has reduced US arms shipments to Ukraine, with his administration – including Secretary of State Marco Rubio – openly characterizing the conflict as a proxy war against Russia. Russian officials have stated that securing a peaceful resolution will be the central focus of the upcoming bilateral meeting between President Vladimir Putin and President Trump.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store