Russia’s scientific and educational policy in  the Eurasian Economic Union countries: major tools and counteracting actors

In this research, the authors consider the main scientific and educational tools of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as RF, Russia) aimed at maintaining leadership in the regional system of the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter referred to as EAEU) as well as the main non-regional actors, their acts of humanitarian influence and intra-system factors of the development of relations between Russia and the countries of the Union in the scientific and educational sphere of interaction. The object of the proposed article is the integration space of the EAEU. The subject is the foreign policy aspects of the RF’s state policy in the scientific and educational sphere in the context of its sovereignty and transformation of approaches to the interaction with the EAEU countries since 2022. The methodological basis of the article consists of systematic and historical methods, an institutional approach, content analysis. The authors characterise the scientific and educational policy of Russia in the EAEU countries as a set of measures of the humanitarian influence, and highlight the main institutionalised instruments of soft power. The key non-regional actors are identified: the United States of America, China, Turkey and Poland, whose humanitarian projects are aimed at countering the initiatives of the RF in the region. The foundations of their policies and the main tools are characterised. The authors analyse the regulatory framework for the functioning of the international cooperation in the humanitarian field in the EAEU. By the historical and political consideration, positive and negative internal factors of the development of this sphere of interaction have been identified. The conclusion has been made about the focus of Russia’s scientific and educational policy in the region on overtaking the differentiation of international and constitutional and legal bases of the cooperation to protect the national interests in the context of the international confrontation.

1. Avatkov V.A. Turkic world and Turkic organisations. World Politics. 2018;2:11–25. (In Russian). http://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8671.2018.2.26047

2. Babich S.N., Gegelashvili N.A., Nguyen M.M., Petrova I.A., Ro‐ gov S.M., Rogova N.V. et al. USA policy in the CIS. Russia and America in the XXI Century. 2015;3. (In Russian).

3. Bondarenko N.V., Varlamova T.A., Gokhberg L.M., Zorina O.A., Kuznetsova V.I., Ozerova O.K. et al. Indicators of education: 2024: statistical collection. Moscow: Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge of the “Higher School of Economics”; 2024. 416 p. (In Russian).

4. Cohen A. U.S. policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia: building а New Silk Road to economic prosperity. The Heritage Foundation, 1997;1132.

5. Danilov V.D. Problems of cultural and humanitarian cooperation among China and the Central Asia countries (on example of the Kyrgyz Republic). Modern scientific thought. 2020;2:112–119. (In Russian).

6. Dovgopolov V.Yu. Historical factors of the development of nationalism in post-Soviet Russia. Almanac “Cossacks”. 2017;28:19–25. (In Russian).

7. Esenamanova N. Islamic landmarks of Kyrgyzstan: role of foreign religious movements. Central Asia and the Caucasus. 2015;3–4(18):213–227. (In Russian).

8. Kirchanov M.V. Political and intellectual mythologems of modern Turkmen nationalism. Central Asia and the Caucasus. 2010;1(13):59–71. (In Russian).

9. Konovalova K.A. States of the post-Soviet space as objects of the influence of external “soft power”: example of the Republic of Belarus. World Politics. 2018;2. (In Russian). http://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8671.2018.2.19446

10. Kudayarov K.A. Turkey’s policy in educational sphere of Kyrgyzstan. RGGU Bulletin Series “Political Science. History. International Relations”. 2015;2(2):82–90. (In Russian).

11. MacKinder H.J. Geographical pivot of history. Polis. Political Studies. 1995;4:162–169. (In Russian).

12. Manahov S.V., Zuev V.M. Main directions of formation of common education space within the Euroasian Economic Union. Vestnik NSUEM. 2016;2:40–48. (In Russian).

13. Panov V.G. (ed.). Yearbook of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Issue 34. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia; 1990. 560 p. (In Russian).

14. Sarafchuk I.A. Concept of the “New Silk Road” and the USA policy in the “Greater Central Asia”. International Affairs. 2013;7:43–53. (In Russian).

15. Smailov A. (ed.). National composition of the population of the Republic of Kazakhstan: results of the 1999 population census in the Republic of Kazakhstan: statistical compendium. Volume 1. Almaty: Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Statistics; 2000. 202 p. (In Russian).

16. Starr S.F., Cornell S.E. Putin’s great strategy. The Eurasian Union and its discontents. Stockholm: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program; 2014. 203 p.

17. Valeev R.M., Kadyrova L.I. The cultural relations between Kazakhstan and China. Bulletin of Kazan State University of Culture and Arts. 2014;3:117–122. (In Russian).

18. Velikaya A.A. USA humanitarian presence in Central Asia: involving the region in the sphere of its influence. International Affairs. 2019;9:90–101. (In Russian).