It is often argued that the Central Asian republics receive too much from Russia while offering little in return. From this perspective, some suggest Moscow should adopt a more pragmatic, even harsher, approach toward its southern neighbors. Something akin to the way the United States has treated Central America for the past two centuries.
The dramatic events in Mexico following the killing of a major organized crime figure offer a useful, if unsettling, point of comparison. What they revealed was not merely a surge of violence, but the fragility of the Mexican state itself. More precisely, Mexico today barely functions as a state in the classical sense. That is, as the sole authority capable of exercising organized violence.
This should not surprise students of international relations. States evolve by developing strategies shaped by the balance of power with their neighbors. The larger and stronger a country is, the more its smaller neighbors’ political and economic trajectories depend on it. Relations with the dominant big brother inevitably become the central factor shaping both domestic and foreign policy.
Russia’s hinterland is no exception. With the obvious caveat of China, the countries surrounding Russia may cultivate ties with other major powers, but Moscow remains their primary center of gravity. This is by virtue of geography and security realities. Even policies that appear overtly hostile to Russia often reflect this dependence rather than its absence.
The Russophobic posture of the Baltic states and Finland is paradoxically an extension of their dependence on Russia, despite their membership in NATO and the EU. Meanwhile, the more pragmatic and friendly stance of Central Asian states and Mongolia reflects a different, but equally dependency-driven, calculation. The fluctuations and emotional outbursts of some South Caucasus states likewise underscore that their entire political existence lies within Russia’s strategic field.
A large and powerful state therefore bears immense responsibility for its surroundings. Even fully sovereign neighbors cannot escape the reality of its constant presence. The question is not whether such influence exists, but how a great power chooses to use it.
More than a century ago, Mexican president Porfirio Diaz famously lamented: “Poor Mexico! So far from God, so close to the United States.” Among Western Hemisphere countries, Mexico’s geography may indeed be the least fortunate. Yet the issue is not simply American malice or deliberate oppression.
The United States is, historically speaking, an abnormal state. Founded by European settlers in rejection of Old World principles of governance, it developed a model marked by minimal state responsibility for citizens and a weak sense of social solidarity. Enormous wealth and technological achievement coexist with deep deprivation. This very model attracts millions, offering the chance for success without regard for social consequences.
Given such a system, it would be naïve to expect the United States to behave as a benevolent neighbor. A state that assumes little responsibility for its own citizens is unlikely to assume responsibility for others. This is why virtually all of America’s neighbors, Canada aside, have endured miserable historical trajectories.
Canada’s exception proves the rule. It established relatively strong institutions and norms of social justice before achieving independence. Mexico and other Central American states were less fortunate. Emerging later from colonial rule, they quickly became objects of American economic and political exploitation. This was not necessarily the product of conscious cruelty, but rather of a deeply ingrained cultural instinct to capitalize on others’ weaknesses.
US policy toward its southern neighbors mirrors the internal structure of American society itself. There is little reason to believe that Russia, China, or even the European Union – hardly models of generosity – could or should replicate this approach. Yet none of these powers can afford the uniquely American indifference to their surroundings.
In this respect, Russia’s southern neighbors are comparatively fortunate. They border two classic empires for which responsibility toward citizens forms part of sovereign legitimacy. China’s approach is more austere, shaped by lower social expectations, but its government has consistently expanded support mechanisms to prevent mass impoverishment.
Russia, by contrast, remains a European state where paternalism, used here in a positive sense, is foundational. This tradition shaped imperial policy in Central Asia. It was no accident that Russian authorities abolished slavery in Tashkent immediately after occupying the city in 1865. Early 20th-century Russian travelers were appalled by the medieval practices still prevailing in the Emirate of Bukhara, which lay beyond direct Russian control.
Americans, by contrast, show little outrage at the conditions in Mexico or El Salvador. Or even at the sight of destitution in their own cities. This difference is not merely moral; it is structural.
Today, Russia is entering an intense debate over how it should behave toward its friendly southern neighbors, particularly in Central Asia. Critics argue that these states play a “multi-vector” game, extracting benefits from Russia while hedging politically and offering little in return. From this viewpoint, adopting a tougher, more transactional policy appears tempting.
But expecting Russia to behave like a heartless exploiter would be deeply misguided. It would contradict Russia’s political culture, its understanding of sovereignty, and its legal obligations. Menacing rhetoric and displays of severity may offer emotional satisfaction, but they are no substitute for sustainable strategy.
Preserving Russia as it is – socially cohesive and historically conscious – requires more complex solutions. The fate of Mexico should serve not as a model to emulate, but as a warning of what happens when a great power abdicates responsibility for its hinterland.
Russia’s challenge is not to abandon its southern neighbors, but to manage its influence wisely. By balancing firmness with responsibility, and pragmatism with restraint.
This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.
Read the full article here