The formation and expansion of the Eurasian Economic Union is forcing experts to talk about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Moscow's use of 'soft power' policy. The opponents of this course argue that "Russia is a psychologically insecure state that does not trust its natural attractiveness and therefore feels compelled to rely on big-power deals as well as coercion, bribery and blackmail to “force its neighbors into friendship.” But if Russia could experience influence based on attraction, not coercion; if it had followers, not vassals and inspired respect, not fear, then this could be a culture shock that would affect Russia’s ways of engaging with the world and neighbors." The supporters of 'soft power' remind that "the Soviet Union spent a lot of resources in Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua and Vietnam, realizing that these were buffer countries for the security of the Soviet Union. The more the West was stuck in these countries, the quieter the USSR was. Now the level of non-interference in the affairs of the neighbors at the level of soft power will lead to problems in the North Caucasus, in the Orenburg region, in the Far East in the near future, and it's all because the rest of the buffers will be 'eaten'."
In any case, the integration policy of 'soft power' has its effect. A few days ago Kyrgyzstan became a full member of the EEU. The agreement on its membership in the organization came into force on August 6. Russia has done a lot of work with the instruments of 'soft power' in a country covered by velvet revolutions for the last ten years. Moscow provides funding for projects to support education, health, food security, the restoration of social facilities. Russia has allocated 3.5 million dollars for the 'Integrated development of the Naryn region of Kyrgyzstan' project. The project involves the creation of conditions for socio-economic development of the Naryn region through the strengthening of the material-technical base of agricultural production and processing of agricultural products, the improving of vocational and technical education system, promotion of small and medium-sized businesses.
One of the main conductors of 'soft power' is Rossotrudnichestvo, which works in Kyrgyzstan through the Russian Center for Science and Culture. Since 2011 the agency has been implementing the 'New Generation' program (short-term study visits of Russian youth representatives of political, social, scientific and business circles of foreign countries). The Ministry of Education allocates quotas for the education of foreign students and compatriots from Kyrgyzstan in Russian universities at the expense of the federal budget. Within the framework of the federal target program 'Russian Language', Rossotrudnichestvo brings books and textbooks on Russian language, literature and culture into the educational facilities of Kyrgyzstan.
The head of Rossotrudnichestvo, Lyubov Glebova, who spoke about the possibility of the organization of USE facilities on the basis of Russian centers of science and culture for those who want to continue their education in Russia, has recently visited Kyrgyzstan. "Given the great interest of Kyrgyz students in studying at Russian universities, we should try to expand their opportunities to participate in the admission campaign," Glebova said.
It is interesting that Russians have also become more loyal to visitors from the Central Asian republics. According to the research center 'Romir', more than half of the residents of Russian cities have a positive attitude towards labor migration in the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. The opposite opinion is shared by a third of the survey participants. More than 60% believe that the relationship with migrants from the countries of the EEU can be called peaceful and even friendly. Only a quarter of the respondents spoke about tensions.
Sociologists note that the opinions of the residents of the two capitals is different from others. Thus, people from Moscow and St. Petersburg in four cases out of ten believe that relationships with migrant workers are rather strained.
More than half of respondents (53%) are positive, and 32% are negative about the support for labor migration within the EEU, 14% found it difficult to answer the question. It is worth noting that in this matter the residents of St. Petersburg showed the opposite proportions to the distribution of responses. Thus, the 46% of respondents who do not support labor migration exceed the 33% who support it in the northern capital. Sociologists say the respondents, answering questions about labor migration within the EEU, do not distinguish between workers who came from the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union and other former Soviet republics. Therefore, the answers of the residents of two capitals, where the number of migrants is significantly higher, are very different from the opinion of the residents of other cities in the country.
