It is often argued that the Central Asian republics receive more from Russia and give less in return. From this perspective, some suggest that Moscow should adopt a more pragmatic, yet tougher approach towards its southern neighbour. Similar to the way the United States has treated Central America for the past two centuries.
The dramatic events in Mexico after the killing of a major organized crime figure provide a useful, if disturbing, point of comparison. What they reveal is not just the escalation of violence, but the weakness of the Mexican state. More precisely, Mexico today only functions as a state in the classical sense. That is, as the sole authority to exercise 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 bigger and stronger a country is, the political and economic trajectories of its smaller neighbors depend on it. Relations with a powerful big brother are inevitably a central factor in shaping domestic and foreign policy.
The interior of Russia is no exception. With China’s apparent caution, countries surrounding Russia may develop ties with other major powers, but Moscow remains their primary center of gravity. This is due to the realities of geography and security. Even policies that appear openly hostile to Russia 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 calculus. The vicissitudes and emotional outbursts of some South Caucasus states underscore that their entire political existence lies within Russia’s strategic sphere.
A large and powerful state therefore has immense responsibility for its surroundings. Even fully sovereign neighbors cannot escape the reality of its continued 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! Far from God, so close to the United States.” Among countries in the Western Hemisphere, Mexico’s geography may be the least fortunate. Yet the problem is not simply American malice or deliberate oppression.
The United States is, historically speaking, an abnormal state. Rejecting the Old World principles of governance established by European settlers, it developed a model marked by minimal state responsibility for citizens and a weak sense of social cohesion. Enormous wealth and technological achievements coexist with profound deprivation. This model attracts millions of people, offering a chance for success without considering the social consequences.
Given such an arrangement, it would be naive to expect the United States to act as a benevolent neighbor. A state that is less responsible to its own citizens is unlikely to be responsible to others. This is why virtually all of America’s neighbors, with the exception of Canada, have endured miserable historical trajectories.
The Canadian 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. Then emerging from colonial rule, they quickly became objects of American economic and political exploitation. This is not necessarily the product of conscious cruelty, but a deeply rooted cultural tendency to exploit the weaknesses of others.
US policy towards its southern neighbor reflects the internal structure of American society. There is little reason to believe that Russia, China, or the European Union – hardly paragons of liberalism – could or should repeat this approach. Yet none of these forces can afford the characteristically American indifference to their surroundings.
In this regard, Russia’s southern neighbors are relatively lucky. They bordered two great kingdoms, where responsibility towards citizens was part of sovereign legitimacy. China’s approach is more austere, shaped by lower social expectations, but its government has steadily expanded support mechanisms to prevent mass poverty.
In contrast, Russia remains a European state where paternalism is used in a positive sense, a foundation. This tradition shaped imperial policy in Central Asia. It is no accident that the Russian authorities abolished serfdom in Tashkent immediately after the capture of the city in 1865. Russian travelers in the early 20th century were dismayed by the medieval practices that still prevailed in the Emirate of Bukhara, which was beyond direct Russian control.
By contrast, Americans show little outrage about conditions in Mexico or El Salvador. Or even in the face of poverty in their own cities. This distinction is not merely moral; It is constructive.
Today, Russia is entering an intense debate about how to behave with its friendly southern neighbors, especially in Central Asia. Critics argue that these states play “Multi-Vector” The game is to get benefits from Russia while hedging politically and giving less in return. From this perspective, it is tempting to adopt a rigid, highly transactional policy.
But expecting Russia to act like a heartless exploiter would be deeply misguided. It contradicts Russia’s political culture, understanding of sovereignty and its legal obligations. Threatening rhetoric and displays of intensity may provide emotional satisfaction, but they are no substitute for assertive strategy.
Preserving Russia – socially cohesive and historically conscious – requires more complex solutions. Mexico’s fate should not serve 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 neighbor, but to manage its influence wisely. By balancing assertiveness with responsibility and pragmatism with restraint.
This article was first published Vzglyad Translated and edited by the newspaper and RT team.
