On December 12, 2008, the Center for Oriental Literature of the Russian State Library hosted the international scientific and practical conference "Russian-Turkish Dialogue on Central Asia and the Caucasus: History and Modernity". The Forum, which brought together representatives of scientific circles from Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Taiwan, was held with the financial support of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, and the main organizer was the Institute of Asian and African Countries of the Lomonosov Moscow State University.

Opening the plenary session, MSU ISAA Director M. S. Meyer emphasized the growing urgency of the problem of cooperation between Russia and Turkey in cooperation with Central Asia. At the same time, he noted that if at the dawn of the 1990s, the beginning of Turkey's relations with these countries was viewed with some caution, now the situation looks completely different. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Turkey to Russia Khalil Akinci, who delivered a welcoming speech, also noted positive trends in cooperation between Ankara and Moscow in the field of cultural and socio-economic integration of the peoples of the region.

The key points of this new " Russian-Turkish dialogue "were outlined in the report"Russia and Turkey in Central Asia and the Caucasus: from Rivalry to Dialogue" by Zh.S. Syzdykova, Head of the ISAA Center for the Caucasus and Central Asia. She noted that Turkey is the first country in the world to recognize the sovereignty of the Central Asian states at the end of 1991. In those years, the socio-political circles of the Central Asian states were inclined to focus on Turkey, believing that it could help solve acute socio-economic problems and the issue of their entry into the world community. In the changed geopolitical structure of the world, Turkey acts as a" bridge "or" link " between the Central Asian countries and the West, i.e. it promotes the transition of new states to a market economy and at the same time promotes its own model of building a liberal economy and democratic governance.

Turkey's interest in the Central Asian countries is driven by both economic and military-strategic considerations, coupled with global security issues, which increases competition and leaves an imprint on difficult interstate relations in the region. The activation of world powers and regional forces in the region creates a more realistic approach to assessing plans for further cooperation. According to Zh. S. Syzdykova, it is in this vein that we should consider the peculiarity of the current state of Russian-Turkish cooperation in the region - the desire to create a new platform for cooperation. However, despite their close approaches to many pressing international issues and the beginning of a "new level of dialogue", Moscow and Ankara continue to compete in the CIS, primarily in the Central Asian and Transcaucasian republics.

A total of 34 reports covering a wide range of issues (from Russian-Turkish cooperation in resolving ethno-political conflicts in the Caucasus and Turkey's participation in oil and gas transit to the specifics of ethno-cultural and linguistic contacts between the peoples of Central Asia and Turkey) were heard at three working sessions of the conference. Scientific reports were divided into six thematic blocks.

The first of them-" The August crisis in the South Caucasus and Russian - Turkish relations " - caused the greatest controversy.

Mehmet Perincek (Istanbul University, Turkey) in his report "The War in the Caucasus through the eyes of Turkey" drew a parallel between the problem of South Ossetia and the situation in Cyprus. According to him, since the early 1990s, Georgia has pursued a policy of pressure and extermination of Ossetians, and the Greeks have carried out similar actions against the Turks of Cyprus since the early 1970s. For Turkey, parting with Cyprus is equivalent to surrendering part of the country, just as for Russia, allowing South Ossetia to be included in the North Atlantic Bloc means losing the North The Caucasus. In addition, after experiencing conflicts and wars, Ossetians with Georgians and Cypriot Turks with Greeks lost the possibility of normal co-existence.

In his report "Russian-Turkish cooperation in resolving contemporary ethnopolitical conflicts in the Caucasus", Sergey Semedov (RAGS) noted that Moscow and Ankara are "centers of power" that play an important role in the complex of ethnopolitical conflicts in the Caucasus (Armenian - Azerbaijani, Georgian-Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhazian). Changes in the domestic policy of the two countries in 2000-2002 had a significant impact on the policy of the countries in the Caucasus. Turkey has a very different view of Abkhazia and its status from Western countries. S. A. Semedov comes to the conclusion that by activating the Caucasian foreign policy, both countries are gradually bringing their positions on conflict resolution in the region closer together.

Political scientists from Kabardino-Balkaria T. Z. Tenov and A. S. Borov focused on the problems of modernization of the countries of the Caucasus region and their position in the new geopolitical conditions. A. S. Borov emphasized the existence of a stable stereotype regarding the North Caucasus as a focus of ethnic conflicts and separatism. Since the reforms of the 1860s and 1870s, dualism and duality of social structure and institutions have become a fundamental feature of the life of the highlanders of the North Caucasus. T. Z. Tenov believes that the peoples of the North Caucasus are characterized by a certain tension between the need to meet the challenges of the modern world and the need to preserve their cultural and historical identity. Modernization policy in the Caucasus as a whole and the formation of a system of effective institutions can ensure the sustainable development of the economy and democracy. According to A. S. Borov, an eventual platform for cooperation and stability in the Caucasus would have acquired a fundamental and strategic perspective in this case.

A. Skakov (RISS) in his report "The South Caucasus after the August crisis: main trends" analyzed the transformation of the position of the ruling circles of the United States and the European Union regarding the August crisis. S. Shermatova (special correspondent of the newspaper "Gazeta", Moscow), having considered the results of the Caucasus crisis, noted the desire of the countries of the region to create an effective system of collective security.

In the second thematic block, "Economic aspects of relations between Russia and Turkey in the Central Asia and Caucasus region", four reports were read.

L. A. Friedman (ISAA) outlined the economic potential of the region's countries in his report "Central Asia and the Caucasus in the geo-economic structure of the modern world". In his opinion, the position of Central Asian countries on the scale of global economic development is clearly contradictory. By most indicators, these countries had much in common with other developing countries, but they inherited from the USSR certain elements of economic potential that are characteristic of States with a higher level of per capita GNI production. According to L. A. Fridman, the economic situation of the CAR states is largely determined now and will continue to be determined by the general situation on the world market of goods and capital. Consequently, the opportunities for accelerated economic growth on the path of catch-up development are inextricably linked to the current and medium-term global economic environment.

In her report "Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC): Results of activities and Development Prospects", N. Y. Ulchenko (Institute of Information Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences) was rather pessimistic about the results of the BSEC activities. Today, the main problems of the organization are reduced to the lack of financial resources and the inability to attract significant investments from third countries. The transformation of the BSEC into a dynamic regional economic organization requires a new quality of partnership. In its current form, according to N. Y. Ulchenko, the activities of the BSEC remain extremely insignificant, and the political and institutional costs associated with the creation and functioning of the organization are unjustified.

E. M. Urazova (IB RAS) considered the problem of Turkey's participation in oil and gas transit in the context of Russian-Turkish relations. Among the most significant economic motives

she highlighted the country's growing dependence on imported fuel and energy raw materials. Ankara seeks to gain access to the region's resources, as well as implement projects related to the use of Turkish territory for the transit of hydrocarbons to world markets. Thus, the speaker concludes, Turkey's interest in building serious and long-term relations with the countries of Central Asia and the difficult dynamics of relations themselves require finding a reliable partner for implementing joint projects in the region, and Russia can become such a partner.

Nine reports were made on the topic "Foreign Policy of Russia and Turkey in the Central Asian region".

E. Tellal (Ankara University, Turkey) presented his vision for Turkey's policy in Central Asia. After 70 years of silence, Turkey made attempts to develop relations with the states of Central Asia and the South Caucasus, but due to a number of regional and international factors, the effectiveness of its policy in the region was low. For the success of Central Asian projects, Ankara, according to E. Tellal, should identify these factors and focus on cooperation with the countries of the region, and first of all with Russia.

B. M. Potskhveria (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) focused on the problem of relations between Turkey and the Turkic states of Central Asia and the Caucasus in the 1990s. In his opinion, during this period, Ankara's policy in Central Asia was characterized by a significant saturation of events and an active search for optimal models of interaction. However, relying only on ethnolinguistic and cultural-historical proximity, the parties did not get the expected results. The financial and economic potential of Turkey was insufficient for large-scale projects in the CAR countries. Many problems in Turkey itself (economic instability, frequent changes of government, foreign policy conflicts), together with the increased need for external financing for their own development, caused a temporary decline in the interest of Central Asian and Caucasian countries in Turkey.

E. A. Gavrilina (Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences) in her report "Russian-Kazakh relations" considered the problem of cross-border cooperation between the two countries and concluded that the role of not only individual sectors of the economy, but also regions is quite clearly expressed in relations between Russia and Kazakhstan. The specific nature of border areas is that in most cases they are remote from national markets, but close to neighboring countries. In the context of the globalization of the national economy, according to E. A. Gavrilina, the importance of specific regions in international economic relations is significantly increasing.

G. Y. Sitnyansky (IEA RAS), who presented the report "Integration in Central Asia: Russian and Turkish projects-rivalry or cooperation", drew attention to the erroneous stereotype in the perception of Central Asia as a single whole, although in fact the region consists of three different parts: The Eurasian cattle - breeding steppe (Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan), rather self-sufficient Central Asian proper (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and some regions of neighboring states that are close to them), and, finally, the Turkmen cattle - breeding desert. At the same time, just as Russia forms a Eurasian whole with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, Turkey and Azerbaijan form a "civilizational whole" with Turkmenistan. Therefore, along with the Eurasian integration project in the Central Asian region, there is a pan-Turkist project. G. Y. Sitnyansky comes to the conclusion that the interests of the Russian Eurasian and Turkish pan-Turkist integration projects do not collide anywhere, even if Ankara decided to follow the energy integration with political integration.

K. M. Panda (RAGS), in his report "Russian Project for Central Asia and the Caucasus", focused on the problem of the Caspian region, which turned into the most important resource base of the world economy after the collapse of the USSR. One of the main and unresolved problems in the Caspian Sea today is the issue of the status of the Caspian Sea. As one of the mechanisms for resolving disputes between the coastal States of the region, Russia proposes to create a system of arbitration courts. This is where the need arises for dialogue with states that actively influence the countries of the Caspian region, primarily with Turkey. Successful cooperation with Turkey as a NATO member, according to Landa, will largely determine the promotion of Russian proposals in the Caspian region, since without Ankara's participation it is impossible to implement trans-regional economic projects, solve problems of "frozen" conflicts and stability in the region.

A. A. Kurtov (RISS) in his report "Russia and the CSTO on ways to ensure the security of Central Asia" focused on the specifics of the CSTO activities. The events in the South Caucasus in August 2008, he said, showed that states still need both military forces and reliable allies. It is no coincidence that in September 2008, it was in Central Asia that the CSTO decided to create a large military grouping of units from Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

A. Sh. Kadyrbayev (Kazakh State University) UN-t) in his report "The Uyghur problem and relations between Central Asian countries and China"stressed that, despite the balanced policy of the Chinese leadership on the national issue, especially after Deng Xiaoping came to power, which put an end to blatant forms of discrimination against the peoples of East Turkestan, interethnic relations in the Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan have worsened in connection with the support of a significant part of the largest indigenous population, the Uighurs, is the movement for state independence from China. Kadyrbayev was skeptical about the chances of the Uyghur separatist movement to separate East Turkestan from the PRC, especially since the Chinese authorities control the situation in the region. In his opinion, the Uyghur resistance is deep underground, and it has failed to attract other non - Chinese peoples, such as the Turks and Muslims, to its side. The further historical development of East Turkestan, the speaker concludes, despite the importance of external factors, depends primarily on the policy of the Chinese leadership, the success of its socio-economic and political reforms.

Yu. M. Solozobov (Institute of National Economy) strategies of Russia) in his report "The Long Road to Europe: the experience of Russia, Turkey and Kazakhstan" noted the changes in the assessment of priorities in relation to the Turkic world that are taking place in the Russian political class. Solozobov considers Moscow's interest in Ankara to be tactical, since it is caused by two pragmatic reasons: Moscow's growing disillusionment with the prospects for a strategic dialogue with the European Union and the complication of Russian positions in the Black Sea region. According to Y. M. Solozobov, a fundamentally new approach to the European Union can and should become the basis for intellectual unification. It is time to openly talk about the existence of an incongruous value (or even civilizational) gap between, on the one hand, the Eurasian countries (including not only Turkey, but Russia and Kazakhstan), which have distinct national and religious values, and, on the other, the purely secular countries of a united Europe. Therefore, the political scientist concludes, dynamic Eurasian democracies should seize the initiative in relations with Europe, but first of all-intensify relations with each other, developing a coordinated agenda of international life and domestic development, since now there is a historical choice between two projects: the project of assimilation of European integration and the project of independent development.

The thematic block "External Factors and their influence on the policy of Russia and Turkey in Central Asia" included four reports: "The Afghan problem in Russian-Turkish relations in the 1920s-1940s: History and Historiography" by V. S. Boyko (Barnaul State University). ped. un-t); "The Afghan factor and security problems in Central Asia" by V. G. Korgun (IB RAS); "Tajik-Afghan borderlands: Ethno-religious features" by N. M. Yemelyanova (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences); "The Chinese Factor in Russian-Turkish Relations" by S. G. Luzyanin (MGIMO(U) MINISTRY OF Foreign Affairs OF THE Russian Federation). According to V. G. Korgun, the political marginality of Afghanistan, which seeks only to copy the reform experience of neighboring countries, did not contribute to the development of interest in Afghan issues in the scientific circles of Turkey. This circumstance significantly impoverishes the overall panorama of Afghanistan and the possibility of a comparative analysis of the Afghan political experience of the late monarchic period. V. S. Boyko touched upon the little-studied problem of Afghan-Turkish relations in the first half of the XX century, their historical and socio-political dimensions. The scientist is convinced that thanks to the fruitful combination of diplomatic and political initiatives of the USSR and Turkey, as well as some other countries, Afghanistan was brought out of the state of civil war and reduced the level of tension in the Middle East, Central and South Asia.

Five reports were devoted to "Problems of languages and culture of the peoples of Central Asia": "Diasporas of Kazakhstan: on the issue of ethnic and linguistic identification" by U. E. Musabekova (Kazakh National University). al-Farabi University); "Adaptive lexical and grammatical topics in teaching the Kyrgyz language to Russian students" by Zh. S. Baiterekova (Kyrgyz National University).

Zh. Balasagyn State University); "Peculiarities of ethno-cultural and linguistic contacts between the peoples of Azerbaijan and Turkey (in the post-Soviet period)" by L. G. Ismayilova (FSB Academy).

A. A. Zhubanova (Kazakh National teacher) un-t) in the report "Russian-Kazakh linguistic relations: towards the history of the issue" proceeds from the thesis that international contacts between Russia and Kazakhstan, due to historical, political, economic and cultural ties, entail the indispensable interaction of languages. The basis for studying the Turkic languages in Russia was the direct neighborhood and close interaction with the Turkic-speaking peoples. During the 18th century, many Russian scientists and practitioners laid the foundation for the development of Turkology. By the beginning of the 20th century, Turkic linguistics had reached a high level of development, and the USSR became a recognized center of European Turkology. Analyzing the rich history of the Russian school of Turkology, A. A. Zhubanova comes to the conclusion that Kazakh historians of linguistics face the task of more in-depth research, rethinking and systematization of the results of scientific relations between Kazakh and Russian scientists in the field of linguistics, since Russian language science plays an important role in developing the methodology of Kazakh linguistics and in its formation as a truly scientific discipline.

G. A. Kazakbayeva (IPV, Moscow) in her report "On the issue of Arabisms in the Turkic languages (Uzbek language)" considers the solution of the problem of ethnogenesis of the Uzbek people in its close connection with the ancient peoples who lived on this territory-Sogdians, Bactrians, Khorezmians, Chachs, Parikans, Saks, Massagets, etc. On the basis of linguistic analysis, she concludes that Arab influence increased after the Islamization of Central Asia in the IX-XII centuries. Arabic loanwords are included in the active lexicon of Turkic languages, in particular the Old Uzbek language. A special role in this process belongs to scientists, poets, historians, and writers.

Within the framework of the thematic block "Problems of national identity: cultural traditions and the education system", eight reports were heard. Sh. S.Suleymanova (RAGS) noted the peculiarities of the national identity of the peoples of the Caucasus, Kh. O. Khushkadamova (National News Agency "Khovar", Tajikistan) considered Tajik-Turkish relations in the field of education. Historical topics were presented by Yu.A. Averyanov (RSUH) "Sufi fraternities in Central Asia and their role in the translation of cultural values and current state" and K. I. Koblandin (Institute of Oriental Studies of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan) "Main stages of settlement and changes in the demographic characteristics of Kazakhs in Uzbekistan in the XVII-XIX centuries".

T. A. Krivorotova (Institute of Economics, Management and Law, Nizhny Novgorod) in her report "Conditions for strategic choice of a multicultural educational model in the context of Eurasian interaction" noted that the choice of a strategy for the development of a single educational space in Eurasia requires special attention to the structural and functional components of the social environment. The problem field of cross-cultural dialogue, determined by the specifics of the region, has a matrix structure, where the definition of the dialogue position of the subject depends on the degree of influence of cultural autonomy and socio-cultural factors on it. According to T. A. Krivorotova, cross-cultural dialogue is the driving force of a holistic educational process.

A. T. Sibgatullina (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) touched upon the problem of pilgrimage from Russia to the Hijaz in the early 20th century, which was rather acute for the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Saidazimbayeva is the first official leader of the pilgrimage movement from Russia.

D. M. Nasilov (ISAA), in his report "Central Asian and Asian Minor language contacts: towards the history of the issue", turned to the legacy of Mahmud of Kashgar, his main work "Diwan lugat at-Turk" (XI century). Recognizing that with his "Diwan" Mahmud of Kashgar anticipated many subsequent grammatical works on Turkic languages and that, according to the author, the author of the book "Diwan" was the first author of the book. Due to its encyclopedic nature, this dictionary has no equal in the history of studying the Turkic peoples and their languages, D. M. Nasilov convincingly showed the unacceptability of direct extrapolation of information from M. Kashgarsky's work to the modern picture of the Turkic-speaking world. He also noted that, on the one hand, the terminology and linguistic comments of the author of "Divan" reflected the state of science of that time, and on the other hand, Mahmud could not, despite his encyclopedic nature and universality, reflect all the diversity of the Turkic ethnic and linguistic landscape of the X - XI centuries in the vast expanses of Central and Central Asia.

A. I. Galenko (Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) in his report "Wine and feasts in the political tradition of Central Eurasia" drew attention to the fact that the unity of feasting traditions in Central Eurasia was ensured by two factors: the symbolic value of wine as a means of health and eternity and the social environment receptive to this tradition, covering the territory of Central Eurasia with its national and cultural diversity. According to the speaker, the origins of the customs of wine consumption and feasting lie in the political traditions of the Eurasian steppe. The value of wine as a sacred symbol, together with its inaccessibility in the steppe belt of Eurasia, gave it a high social status and made it a powerful tool in the hands of a steppe leader of any rank. A. A. Galenko believes that the traditions of feasting were developed on the basis of the idea of sacralization of wine borrowed, apparently, by the Scythians in Ancient Assyria, and adapted political power in steppe empires. Thanks to the extensive conquests of the steppe people and the high prestige of the steppe rulers, the feasting rituals cultivated by the latter became popular throughout the entire zone of their political influence.

In general, the conference and discussions on the most pressing issues showed a constructive dialogue on key issues of the Caucasus and Central Asia, not only between Moscow and Ankara, but also between the states of the regions themselves. Caucasian studies and Central Asian studies occupy an important place in the topics of the country's leading scientific centers, and the "regional approach", which is expressed in considering Central Asia and the Caucasus in close connection with neighboring Asian and European cultures and civilizations, has once again proved its relevance and relevance.

Permanent link to this publication: