What are the unfavorable factors in the process of CIS integration?

Russia's factors and its restrictive factors in the process of CIS integration Russia, as a leading country in the process of CIS integration, has certain regional cohesion. However, due to the national political rift caused by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, as well as the process of globalization and political competition among big countries in a wider scope, the process of CIS integration is far from smooth, and even there is a trend of anti-integration. Since the mid-1990s, more dynamic sub-regional organizations have emerged in this region, among which the Russian-Belarusian Union, Eurasian Economic Unity Organization, Collective Security Treaty and GUAM Group are more important. Under this background, it is of great significance to analyze the social and international political constraints of Russian factors to understand the integration process of CIS. The regional cohesion of Russian countries and the Russian factor first show the initiative of Russians. Russia's national centripetal force and national identity can play a certain political guiding role. At the moment of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, more than 20 million Russians lost their motherland instantly, and the resulting power of Russians to find their national homeland and historical motherland shocked the whole region with the immigration tide in the early days of the disintegration of the alliance countries. Russia's autonomy and self-determination movement has become a restrictive factor for some countries to develop westward or outward, and the efforts of Russians to actively integrate into the local society or fight for their own civil rights have also had a profound impact on the social development of the host countries. Russians and Russian countries are playing an active role in the process of regional modernization. Among the countries of the former Soviet Union, the Russian Federation represents the economic ties formed during the Soviet period to a great extent, including the support for the regional economy in terms of capital, technology, human resources and natural resources. If we want to completely disintegrate the regionality of the Soviet Union, we will inevitably pay a high price, and may even lead to a full-scale conflict throughout Eurasia. This is also the reason why the CIS can be maintained for a period of time and Russia can dominate the CIS region to a certain extent. The Russian factor is also reflected in the influence of Russian language and culture. The influence of Russian language and culture on the countries of the former Soviet Union is historic. It has integrated the Russian factor into the national societies of the countries of the former Soviet Union and endowed them with the "Eurasian quality" that cannot be completely separated. "The conditions for the birth of the Kazakh nation itself have the historical roots of the interaction between Turkic culture and Slavic culture for thousands of years. This interaction has continued within the framework of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. " On the one hand, no one is willing to accept the cultural logic plan of imperial thought, on the other hand, no one can deny the practical role of Eurasian structure in the past, present and future. "Russian, as a tool for inter-ethnic communication, and Russian culture that has deeply penetrated into the Eurasian nation, can link the complex contradictions of national interests in different countries. However, the practice of regional political process in the post-Soviet period proves that the Russian factor can play a limited role in regional cohesion and has not stopped the development trend of regional de-integration. There are many factors leading to the trend of de-integration in the CIS region. First of all, there was a national political rift in the process of integration between the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. After the disintegration of the Russian Empire, it is doubtful how likely Russians will continue to play a role in regional cohesion. First, whether the self-determined nation and its country agree with the choice of integration with the original sovereign state, or even accept the leading role played by the former colonists in the regional process; Second, whether the original ruling nation still has the desire to try to revive the empire again. The Soviet Union is a nation-state alliance based on ideology. At least the Soviet Union and the Soviet government did not rule in the name of Russians. Under the guidance of a new ideology, the Soviet Union established a nation-state for the main ethnic groups in the former empire, and many oppressed ethnic groups had their own national and autonomous forms. This process enabled the territory of the Russian Empire, which should have been completely disintegrated at the beginning of the 20th century, to be maintained for more than half a century. However, in 70 years, the Soviet Party and government did not complete the task of building a modern unified nation-state within the imperial territory, and the Soviet Union eventually disintegrated due to its own contradictions, including ethnic contradictions. The historical fact of the disintegration of the Soviet Union itself makes people wonder whether the 70 years of the Soviet Union really provided a foundation for reviving regional integration. The material condition for the existence of the Soviet Union is the existence of the eastern camp that is anti-Western, that is, anti-"world system". Stalin's so-called "two parallel markets" theory is a theoretical and realistic description of the opposition between the two camps. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, all countries of the former Soviet Union, including the Russian Federation, scrambled to put forward the road of integration into the world, and the political foundation for regional development and integration no longer existed. The unified economic space left by the Soviet Union is even more riddled with holes. In the process of free economic reform, the economic ties between regions have become weaker and weaker. From the perspective of modern nation-state, the regional cohesion of Russians will inevitably be affected by the new round of nation-state process. The world system is a nation-state system. " It seems that no place in the world has reached the level of integration and mutual penetration of culture, education system and language diversity like Western Europe. However, it is in this part of the earth that the highest degree of integration, including culture, is achieved not by denying the nation-state, but on the contrary, on the basis of the latter. The nation-state is the foundation of the integration process. "(2) the post-Soviet area, including the Russians, is undergoing a new round of nation-state process. If representatives of different ethnic groups can't take root and settle in their own country of residence, but deliberately look for their own nation-state on the other side of the border, regional integration will be impossible. Newly independent countries will only focus more on the maintenance of sovereignty, and will not pay attention to the so-called * * * interests and the transfer of sovereignty. It is precisely because the power of Russian national identity transcends national boundaries that the countries of the former Soviet Union cannot fully recognize Russian national identity. From a cultural point of view, the Russian factor is restricted by the revival of local national culture. In the former Soviet Union, no matter western countries such as Ukraine and Moldova, or countries in South Caucasus and Central Asia, they all had different cultures. The assimilation policy of the Soviet Union produced a group of Russian residents, which transformed the cultural outlook of the former Soviet Union to a certain extent, but did not eliminate the ethnic and cultural differences between regions. The sub-regional organizations of the former Soviet Union vaguely showed cultural boundaries. The reason is the difference between Soviet culture and Russian culture. Russianization under the framework of Soviet culture is more manifested in language and form. Fundamentally speaking, Soviet culture is not a national culture. Just look at the differences between Soviet slogans such as "Orthodox Church, autocracy, people's character (Russian nationality)" and "* * * productism", "internationalism" and "national self-determination". 1At the end of the 1980s, the "new political thinking" subverted the national ideology of the Soviet Union, causing the alliance to quickly lose control of the participating countries. Years of Soviet education and inter-ethnic concepts were replaced by "national identity" in various places in a short time. Soviet culture soon disappeared. "The revival of nationalism cannot be interpreted as the result of political exploitation: more precisely, it is exploited by the elite, which just proves the plasticity and vitality of national identity as a mobilization principle", and also proves from one side that Soviet culture is not a culture based on national values. The change in the late Soviet Union was also the de-Soviet of Russians, which was manifested in the revival of Russian national culture in the Russian Federation. In the post-Soviet period, the Russian state put forward a cultural autonomy plan for Russians in various countries, which proved that Russian culture is still a national culture and cannot assume the role of a supranational. In fact, the Russian policy in the Soviet period has always been an important cause of ethnic conflicts in the Soviet Union to some extent. Russia in history is not a framework of national competition. In this framework, different nationalities have different opportunities for cultural development. If in the new era of nation-state competition, Russians are divided more than connected, then Russians will not be able to assume the pillar role of building regional integration. A framework that lacks recognition is doomed to failure. The influence of social transformation in the countries of the former Soviet Union occurred in the eastern part of the former Soviet Union. The basic content of social transformation is "in a general sense, it is a transformation from highly centralized planned economy and one-party system to modern market economy and democracy and legal system." ④ The characteristics of national identity and national identity in the period of social transformation have changed without the influence of social transformation, especially the transnational and interregional expansion of large capital, which is changing the connection between a nation and its individuals and the world on an unprecedented scale. To some extent, social transformation has cut off the traditional political channel for the Russian issue to play the role of regional cohesion, and Russian nationalism as a traditional value concept has been weakened. The first is the domestic political changes brought about by the social transformation of Russia, that is, Russia, as the ancestral home of Russians in the former Soviet Union, has chosen the development path facing the international community and the world market. Their support for overseas compatriots is not so obvious in the imperial tradition of Russian national geographical expansion. In view of the areas in the former Soviet Union where Russians seek autonomy and self-determination, Russia's political prescriptions are all "federalism" of cultural autonomy and recognition of national sovereignty, rather than the unconditional reunification of the Russian nation. Among them, there is the helplessness of Russians, that is, the issue of national identity. Chechnya and Tatarstan exist in the Russian state itself, which are both national political faults of Russian national security. But more importantly, Russia plays a more critical role in the choice of the world (globalization). According to a poll conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation in the mid-1960s, 36% of Russians think that "consolidating their nation-state is the main thing", 30% of Russians think that "consolidating economic and political ties between CIS countries" is better, and 23% of Russians think that "rebuilding a centralized country on the territory of the former Soviet Union" is better. Later, the public opinion consultation of the Russian Independent Institute of Social and Ethnic Issues once again proved this trend: Russia's independent policy is most popular with the younger generation (16-24 years old). Scholar Migranyan concluded from this: "In the Russian public consciousness, the desire to establish one's own nation-state is dominant." Secondly, social transformation has brought new national political ideas of civil society to all countries of the former Soviet Union. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev emphasized the foundation and core position of Kazakh cultural identity in Kazakhstan's national identity, but still believed that solving the identity problem needed two levels. The first level forms a unified civil and political body (not a supranational body) with all the people of Kazakhstan. "If we want to speed up the formation of a unified national consciousness of all Kazakhs, it may lead to a great tragedy." Because "in the experience of the Soviet Union not long ago, we saw the historic failure of trying to implement an assimilation model-that is, guiding everyone to the same language, the same ideology and the same cultural model. Once the iron hoop of totalitarianism is broken, the whole propaganda and preaching about the new superpower will collapse like a castle in the desert. Instead of experimenting with the fate of our own people, it is better to learn from history. " ⑤ Nazarbayev's viewpoint is representative in the process of social transformation in CIS countries. At the same time, the new institutional framework has also increased the potential of society to accommodate ethnic and cultural diversity. It makes Russians in the former Soviet Union regard the legitimate struggle for civil rights and national cultural rights as the main channel to realize their own values and national values, and makes national identity more of a cultural identity. One aspect of social change is the increase of globalization factors in this region. Globalization has provided new economic and political choices for Russians in the former Soviet Union. The entry of Russian capital into the countries of the former Soviet Union has enabled some Russians in these countries to choose Russian enterprises in foreign countries and be Russians who can work and live according to their national identity within the framework of multinational companies. The picture of globalization also shows that a considerable number of Russians who moved out of their country of residence did not return to their country of origin, but went to Western Europe and the United States through other channels. Under the background of globalization, Russians in the Russian Federation have also participated in the tide of world labor mobility. Of course, this does not prove the dissolution of their national identity, but it can prove that people's social and political concepts have changed greatly during the transition period, and people's initiative is more manifested through economic channels than political channels. Even political choices are closely related to economic factors. In the frequent "color revolution" in the former Soviet Union countries in the new century, the combination of state power and free power is obvious to all. After the influence of international political competition entered1mid-1990s, the CIS region became the target of western powers representing the interests of world capital. According to the information released by us energy information administration 200 1, the Caspian Sea area can be the replacement area of the Middle East oil-producing area. Oil interests have prompted important industrial countries in the world to enter this region one after another. In addition to economic purposes, the strong entry of the United States into the former Soviet Union was mainly due to geopolitical considerations. After the end of the Cold War, the United States, as the only global superpower, continued to regard Eurasia as the center stage of the world, and ensured "the primacy of the United States in the world" through the management and struggle for Eurasia. The main weapons of geopolitical competition in the United States are economic aid and the export of democratic values. The United States disintegrated the regional economic integration led by Russia through a large amount of assistance, and made maximum use of the ethnic contradictions and conflicts between the countries of the former Soviet Union and Russia to undermine the political foundation of regional integration. In order to help the CIS countries build a "civil society", the United States has provided various assistance to the CIS countries. From 65438 to 2003, the United States provided $9 billion in special political appropriations to CIS countries. The United States represents the world system, and the entry of world capital represented by large western multinational corporations has decisively weakened Russia's efforts to lead the process of regional integration in the former Soviet Union. Russia is not an opponent economically, and there is no model to compete with the United States politically. This political and economic weakness determines the limited cohesion of Russians in the former Soviet Union. Equally noteworthy is the realistic attitude of the United States in international competition. As a struggle between great powers, American politicians after the Cold War have been deeply influenced by morgenthau's power and political thinking, which makes the American ideal of "expanding democracy" a pragmatic international strategy, which has never been linked with the sober principle of American national interests in practice. In the countries of the former Soviet Union, Russians transformed from American democracy were disarmed of nationalism. If the United States during the Cold War is committed to "corrupting the ideology of * * * through the pressure of nationalism and humanitarianism", then in the post-cold war period, western scholars are more accustomed to interpreting the social reality of the former Soviet Union from the perspective of "post-colonialism", while affirming the demands of all ethnic groups in Russia, questioning the nature of Russia's modern nation-state, and then directly criticizing Russia's internal affairs and diplomacy. By putting forward the double standards of nationalism in the former Soviet Union, the West maintained the domestic and cross-border pressure on Russian nationalism and restricted the development and application of Russia's "soft power". Note: ① ② ⑤ [Ha] Nu Nazarbayev: In the Long River of History, Ethnic Publishing House, 2005. (3)[ America] Manuel Caster: "The Power of Identity" (2nd Edition), Social Science Literature Publishing House, p. 43. ④ Feng, editor-in-chief of "New: Transformation Theory and Russian Political Reform", Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2005, p. 3. ⑥ [America] Manuel Caster: The Power of Identity (2nd Edition), Beijing Social Science Literature Publishing House, p. 44.