2024 – The year Russia will not leave Uzbekistan in peace

Despite the end of imperialist thinking and colonialism in the 1960s and 70s, some forces in the world continue to disregard the sovereignty of nations. As the world approaches the first quarter of the 21st century, it is widely accepted that self-respecting states resolve political matters through diplomacy rather than aggression. Yet, certain actors remain entrenched in outdated political practices. Unfortunately, some of these individuals apply pressure not only on their neighbors but also on countries with which they share strategic partnerships. These actions disregard the domestic and foreign policies of partner nations, elevating minor incidents to political issues and interfering in matters such as language and history.  

This behavior reflects a lack of respect for national legislation and fundamental diplomatic norms. For such entities, crossing red lines—like intervening in another country’s internal affairs—is routine. The appropriation of another state’s policies, culture, and laws by a more powerful actor is a concerning trend that Uzbekistan has experienced multiple times in the past year. Russian chauvinist figures, including public intellectuals and officials, have repeatedly targeted Uzbekistan. Below is a closer look at the incidents and threats Uzbekistan faced from Russian figures over the past year.  

Threats of occupation

One of the most striking threats emerged in the final days of 2023. Russian writer and deputy commander of the Russian Guard, Zakhar Prilepin, a member of the "Putin Team" social movement, called for the reintegration of former Soviet territories into Russia and the imposition of the Russian language on their populations. Although his statements were made in 2023, their impact resonated deeply throughout 2024.  

In late December, Prilepin suggested that Russia should incorporate countries from which it receives labor migrants, citing Uzbekistan as an example. He argued that once Russia occupied Kyiv, no nation in Eurasia could resist further Russian expansion.  

“They should be taught Russian not here, but in their own country—say, in Uzbekistan. I’m not joking. We are raising the issue of reversing the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since two million of your citizens are on our territory, we will claim yours. The majority are already here and could ‘vote’ for it. After the parade in Kyiv, who will stop us from doing anything in Eurasia? No one,” Prilepin declared.  

Shockingly, his remarks were met with applause, reflecting the normalization of chauvinism within segments of the Russian political elite and media. Prilepin’s comments drew swift and widespread condemnation in Uzbekistan. Activists, officials, and high-ranking leaders responded with sharp rebuttals.  

Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs eventually addressed the issue, viewing Prilepin’s statements as a direct threat to national sovereignty. While the Russian Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Oleg Malginov, was not formally summoned, he was invited to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for discussions. In most diplomatic contexts, such inflammatory rhetoric would typically prompt the formal summoning of an ambassador. However, Uzbekistan adopted a more measured approach, opting to invite the ambassador instead.

The Foreign Ministry’s statement noted that such remarks, widely circulated in Russian media, were deliberately provocative and could negatively impact the historically friendly relations between the two nations. In response, Oleg Malginov assured that Zakhar Prilepin's statements did not reflect the official stance of the Russian Federation regarding Uzbekistan. As Russia’s representative in Uzbekistan, Ambassador Malginov emphasized that Uzbekistan’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity had never been questioned by the Russian leadership. He further stated that the Russian Foreign Ministry would issue a formal statement on the matter.  

As anticipated, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova addressed the issue, clarifying that Prilepin’s remarks were his personal views and bore no relation to Russia’s official position. Zakharova referenced the strategic partnership agreement of June 16, 2004, and the allied relations agreement of November 14, 2005, underscoring the mutual commitment between Russia and Uzbekistan to assist one another.  

The day after Prilepin’s controversial remarks, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev addressed an expanded meeting of the Republican Council for Spirituality and Enlightenment on December 22, 2023. While not directly referencing the incident, Mirziyoyev highlighted the growing global trend of confrontation and pressure by powerful nations.  

“We are all witnesses to how the powerful centers of the world, which once pursued their goals through diplomacy and politics, have now openly embraced the path of pressure, confrontation, and conflict. Unfortunately, the effects of these large-scale and contradictory processes do not bypass Central Asia or our country. In such a complex and dangerous environment, finding the right path that aligns with Uzbekistan’s national interests is no easy task,” Mirziyoyev remarked.

“There is no nation called Uzbek” – another Russian chauvinist

As Uzbekistan was still processing the fallout from Prilepin’s aggressive remarks, another blow came from the north. This time, the attack targeted the nation’s history and identity. One month after Prilepin’s statement, on January 21, during a televised discussion marking the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s death, Russian historian and nationalist Mikhail Smolin made dismissive claims about the origins of Central Asian nations.  

Speaking on the talk show “Meeting Place,” Smolin asserted that Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, and Kazakhs did not exist as distinct nations prior to the Russian Revolution.  

“How did Kazakhstan emerge? Initially, within the RSFSR, the Kazakh SSR was formed. Before that, there were no Kazakhs at all. The creation of nations was arbitrary. Uzbeks, for instance, did not exist before the revolution. The name ‘Uzbek’ was pieced together from various Central Asian peoples. And Azerbaijanis? There was no such nation – no such people existed before the revolution,” Smolin claimed.

Rasul Kusherboev, a former deputy and current advisor to the Minister of Ecology of Uzbekistan, was among the first to respond to Smolin's remarks.  

"It seems likely that, under Kremlin orders, the Russian intelligentsia is gradually preparing its society for potential incursions into Central Asian countries," Kusherboev remarked.  

He suggested that similar tactics were employed before the invasion of Ukraine. Kusherboev noted that two consecutive instances of disrespectful and insulting rhetoric within a month were unlikely to be coincidental. He did not rule out the possibility that such remarks were orchestrated by central authorities. However, in response, the Russian Foreign Ministry downplayed the comments. Spokesperson Maria Zakharova reiterated the Kremlin's familiar stance, dismissing Smolin’s statements as personal opinions.  

"Russia and the countries of Central Asia share common history, humanitarian ties, trade, and economic relations. Our deep cooperation, strategic partnership, and in most cases, alliances, are built on mutual respect and cultural dialogue. These peculiar statements are purely subjective and bear no relation to the realities of our partnership. They reflect solely the author's personal views," Zakharova said.  

Despite Zakharova’s efforts to downplay the issue, the controversy surrounding Smolin's comments persisted. Alisher Kadyrov, chairman of the Democratic Party "National Revival," called for a reduction in the use of the Russian language in Uzbekistan’s education system and media.  

"For Russian compatriots, who comprise less than 3 percent of the population, the use of Russian in education and television is disproportionately high. This must change. Let’s start by exchanging television programs with our Kazakh, Azerbaijani, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Turkish, and Tajik brothers," Kadyrov suggested.  

He proposed introducing legislation mandating primary education in Uzbek and stated that the matter would be addressed by his party’s faction. Kadyrov also urged practical responses, not just rhetoric, to Russian chauvinism.  

"The Russian authorities consistently label such chauvinistic remarks as 'strange,' yet their frequency suggests implicit approval. Russian discourse is increasingly filled with chauvinistic rhetoric. In light of this, we must consider concrete measures," Kadyrov said.  

Zakharova – A symbol of Russia’s diplomatic crisis

On September 23, at approximately 3:00 PM, an incident occurred in the 6th "B" grade class at Secondary School No. 188 in Tashkent’s Chilonzor district. During a Russian language lesson, teacher R.O. was interrupted by student E.G., leading to an argument. The situation escalated when R.O. forcibly removed E.G. from his seat and struck him. Following the incident, the student’s parents filed a complaint with law enforcement. The Children’s Ombudsman requested an investigation by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Security Service. The Chilonzor district police launched a preliminary inquiry, as physical punishment, insults, or any form of child abuse are strictly prohibited by law. The incident gained significant attention on social media, prompting swift action from authorities. Despite the fact that the incident involved Uzbek citizens within Uzbekistan, Russia requested an explanation, citing concerns over hostility toward the Russian language. Zakharova, who previously dismissed hostile remarks toward Uzbekistan as "personal opinions," expressed deep concern over the incident. Russia formally asked Uzbekistan for a legal assessment and demanded action against those responsible. Zakharova went further, suggesting the issue was under Russia’s close watch, escalating the situation.

In the friendly relations between the two countries, based on strategic partnership and alliance, there is no place for hostility, especially regarding language. "We are keeping this issue at the center of our attention," concluded the Russian Foreign Ministry official.  

Alisher Kadyrov responded to Zakharova’s interference in Uzbekistan's internal affairs. According to Kadyrov, the incident involved the violation of a child's rights in an Uzbek school, against a citizen of Uzbekistan, and the measures taken were in accordance with the laws of Uzbekistan.  

“They should focus on their own problems before concerning themselves with our internal matters. It seems they’ve realized there is no benefit in making noise over nothing,” Kadyrov remarked.  

Shortly after the incident, the teacher who assaulted the student was brought to justice—not because of Zakharova’s insignificant request, which held no right to interfere in Uzbekistan’s internal affairs. The teacher was held accountable for multiple offenses. On September 24, she visited Secondary School No. 204 in Tashkent’s Yashnabad district, where her daughter studies. She confronted the school administration and used physical force against the deputy director, in front of numerous students.  

On September 25, the Yashnabad district court reviewed the case, finding the teacher guilty under the relevant articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses. She was sentenced to 7 days of administrative detention, fined three times the minimum wage (1,020,000 sums), and ordered to pay seven times the minimum wage (2,380,000 sums).  

Sherzodkhan Kudratkhuja, Rector of the Uzbek University of Journalism and Mass Communications, also criticized Zakharova’s interference, emphasizing that meddling in Uzbekistan’s internal affairs is unacceptable. Kudratkhuja pointed out that the state engaging in such interference faces significant unresolved issues of its own, indirectly referencing Russia’s struggles with war and sanctions.  

Zakharova’s inappropriate comments and disregard for Uzbekistan’s sovereignty prompted responses not only from public figures but also within high-level official circles. The last 10 days of September, coinciding with the incident, highlighted this.  

On September 26, during the 79th session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Uzbek Foreign Minister Bakhtiyor Saidov met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. At the time, Zakharova’s remarks were still a contentious issue. Following the meeting, Saidov shared on Telegram that the discussion underscored the importance of respecting the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.  

"The importance of adhering to the principle of non-interference to strengthen mutual trust was emphasized. We agreed to maintain a continuous dialogue in the spirit of alliance," said Saidov.  

Uzbekistan reminded of Ukraine's fate

The interference in Uzbekistan’s internal affairs did not end with Zakharova’s remarks. Her actions triggered further controversy. Andrei Klimov, Deputy Chairman of the International Affairs Committee of the Federation Council, echoed the aggressive mindset of Russia’s political elite by responding to Kadyrov’s call for Russia to “mind its own business” with a veiled threat, referencing Ukraine’s fate.  

"I am against responding so harshly to any incident. What this so-called teacher did is not just a legal violation but much more. There was one country that behaved this way for a long time. Now, it is in a very difficult situation," Klimov said, alluding to Ukraine.  

Klimov’s threat did not go unanswered. Bobur Bekmurodov, Chairman of the "Yuksalish" National Movement and Deputy of the Oliy Majlis, issued a sharp response.  

“In Uzbekistan, the government and civil society promptly address any cases of violence. We do not need foreign advisors. Klimov, you can take a compass and find your way in any direction,” Bekmurodov wrote.  

Kadyrov also responded to Klimov, emphasizing that his concern was not about repeating Ukraine’s fate, but about potentially losing Russia as a market for Uzbek goods.  

"When it comes to Ukraine, intimidation is more dramatic in Keosayan’s style. I prefer to let the experts handle it. Personally, I’m more concerned about the risk of losing a reliable market like Russia," Kadyrov remarked.

Russian MP tramples on Uzbek legislation

On February 24, 2022, Russia, a country with questionable adherence to legal norms, invaded Ukraine in violation of international law. Despite being recognized as the world’s second-largest military force, the Russian Armed Forces revealed their true limitations in Donbas. From that point, Russia found itself embroiled in a conflict that has driven the nation toward the brink of collapse. Facing heavy losses and shortages on the front lines, Russia sought to bolster its forces through controversial means, including recruiting migrant workers residing in the country.

Recruitment efforts, driven by promises of money, citizenship, and other benefits, expanded aggressively. Recently, advertisements targeting Uzbek-speaking migrants have appeared in subways and public transport. This recruitment campaign represents a blatant violation of Uzbekistan’s national laws, particularly Article 154 of the Criminal Code, which addresses “Crimes against peace and security.” The article clearly stipulates that recruiting individuals for armed conflicts or military operations in foreign states carries a prison sentence of five to ten years.

Despite Uzbekistan’s legal prohibitions, Russia’s political elite has continued to disregard these laws by actively enlisting Uzbek citizens. In response, Uzbekistan’s Ministry of External Labor Migration and other relevant bodies have repeatedly warned citizens of the legal consequences and urged them to avoid such offers. However, the onus of responsibility arguably lies with the Russian government rather than Uzbek migrants. Recruitment campaigns have persisted, becoming even more aggressive.

The Consulate General of Uzbekistan in Kazan issued another warning to citizens, emphasizing the legal ramifications under Article 154. The consulate reiterated that individuals involved in such illegal activities would face prosecution without exception. While the consulate’s actions adhered to legal norms, they did not resonate with Russian lawmakers who consistently disregard Uzbekistan’s sovereignty.

Sergei Mironov, chairman of the Russian party "A Just Russia – For Truth" (SRZP), publicly opposed Uzbekistan’s stance. In a post on his social media account, Mironov criticized Uzbekistan’s consulate, questioning why Uzbeks should benefit from Russian opportunities without reciprocating military service. "If they refuse to join the Russian army, perhaps we should introduce a visa regime. We don’t need such citizens," Mironov wrote.

This was not Mironov’s first display of disregard for Uzbekistan’s legal framework. In 2023, he criticized Central Asian nations, including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, for enforcing legislation that criminalizes their citizens’ participation in the war in Ukraine. Such statements from a prominent Russian political figure, who previously ran for president between 2004 and 2012, reflect broader systemic issues within Russia’s deteriorating legal structure.

Mironov’s comments are emblematic of a country where the legal system has eroded under President Vladimir Putin’s regime, which prioritizes power and coercion over legal norms. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has further exposed these weaknesses. Recent high-profile disputes, such as the ownership battle over Wildberries, Russia’s largest online marketplace, illustrate the fragility of the country’s legal institutions. The involvement of Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and Dagestani billionaire Suleiman Kerimov in the dispute highlights the extent to which Russian elites circumvent formal legal channels. Ultimately, Russia’s attempts to recruit Uzbek citizens for its war efforts continue to strain diplomatic relations and violate international norms. Uzbekistan, firm in upholding its legal framework, remains resolute in protecting its citizens from unlawful recruitment, despite provocative rhetoric from Russian officials.

Response from the usual "troika"

Mironov's words to Uzbekistan did not go unanswered. The usual "troika," ready to respond to attacks on the official Tashkent address, includes Alisher Kadyrov, chairman of the "Milliy Tiklanish" democratic party, Bobur Bekmurodov, chairman of the "Yuksalish" nationwide movement and deputy of the Oliy Majlis, and Rasul Kusherbayev, advisor to the Minister of Ecology, Environmental Protection, and Climate Change, and public activist. 

Alisher Kadyrov expressed his response on his pages on X and Telegram, stating that Uzbeks are a blessed people who earn their rights through hard work, not by killing others. He also emphasized that Russia should be defended by Mironov himself and his relatives. 

“Uzbeks are a blessed people; they earn their rights by working hard, not by killing people. Russia should be defended by Mironov himself, his sons, sons-in-law, and grandchildren. As far as I know, do Russians consider defending their homeland as a sacred duty, like Uzbeks?” Kadyrov wrote.

Bobur Bekmurodov reminded the Russian deputy that such aggressive rhetoric negatively impacts bilateral relations, stressing that comparing social benefits with actions that threaten human life is both illiterate and foolish.

"Firstly, we will never agree to our compatriots being drawn into another state's wars. It is natural and fair for our consulate to protect our citizens from actions that are considered illegal in Uzbekistan. Secondly, our compatriots contribute to the Russian economy through their labor. It is illiterate and foolish to compare social benefits with actions that threaten human life," the deputy wrote on his Telegram channel.

In addition to his words, Bekmurodov also referenced Article 7 of the Treaty on Allied Relations between Uzbekistan and Russia. According to him, “one side will take effective measures to guarantee the legitimate rights and interests of its citizens and legal entities on the territory of the other side.”

“We have laws. You should have them too. Such aggressive rhetoric will only have a negative impact on bilateral relations,” said the deputy of the Oliy Majlis.

Rasul Kusherbayev, responding to the Russian senator's actions which reeked of chauvinism, stated that he views the threat of a visa regime as a sign that Russian politicians see Uzbekistan as a dependent state and are seeking an excuse to disrupt relations between the two countries.

“The fact that the diplomatic mission of Uzbekistan reminds its citizens of the norms stipulated in the legislation of Uzbekistan, and the threat of a visa regime from Russia, indicates that Russian politicians view Uzbekistan as a dependent state. Unfortunately, these words from a high-ranking politician show that the Russian side is looking for an excuse to sever relations with Uzbekistan,” Kusherbayev wrote on his Telegram channel.

Here’s a reminder to migrants: The ongoing invasion of Ukraine is a war between two brotherly Eastern Slavic peoples – Russia against Ukraine. This shows that your life holds no value to the political elite that has waged war against its own brothers. By being drawn into the invasion, you will become nothing more than a mere weapon in the hands of chauvinists. No offer, no money, nor citizenship from a state that has turned into an empire of war is worth a single tear from your family members and relatives. Remember, such costly and silent promises made by the Kremlin are ultimately a "ticket" to the afterlife!