Karavaev believes that the relations with the Turkic world are more important for Russia, than the relations with the Slavic states

The presidents used key provisions in their speeches indicating a different understanding of the essence and significance of Turkic integration. President Ilham Aliyev said, “Zangezur, the ancient land of Azerbaijan, will now play a unifying role for the Turkic world. Because the transport, communication and infrastructure projects passing through Zangezur will unite the entire Turkic world."

President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev proposed to create in Turkestan a joint special economic zone of the Turkic countries. “One of the main tasks for our countries is to increase trade. In this regard, I would like to note the broad investment, trade and economic opportunities of Turkestan, historically located at the crossroads of the roads.

 The President of Turkmenistan spoke only about the development of cultural ties between the Turkic states.

 The summit resulted in the adoption of a final declaration. The historical city of Turkestan in Kazakhstan has been declared one of the spiritual capitals of the Turkic world.  It was agreed to grant a similar status in the future to other historical cities of the Turkic world based on the principle of rotation.

The document confirms the intention of the member states of the Turkic Council to strengthen the role of the organization in promoting and supporting the values ​​and interests of the Turkic world in the regional and international arena. Solidarity with the government and people of Azerbaijan was emphasized in efforts to restore, build and integrate the regions liberated from the occupation.

What is the attitude of Russian government and the Russian people to the Turkic states? Azerbaijanis in the Moscow media see various assessments, including sharply hostile ones. Some politicians and media in the Russian Federation even call for a war on the side of Armenia, demanding that Turkish and Azerbaijani lands be given to this country.

Moscow political scientist, employee of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, specialist on Azerbaijan Alexander Karavaev answered the questions of Turan.

- On Moscow television talk shows, hostile statements against Turkey and Azerbaijan are heard, though rarely. Why is this attitude towards us?

- There are phobias and realities in the subject of Russia's relations with the Turkic world. Phobias are because people are afraid of instability in the historical perspective. Russia fought with everyone and all states in the world, within the current borders, once fought with their neighbors. The peoples were in empires, political rifts passed through them, there was a rage. Therefore, it is wrong to think that if Russia once fought with someone, then we should be hostile to this state. Nevertheless, such a message takes place and in a certain way shapes public opinion. There is a similar response in the Turkic community to Russia. There is such an exchange of concerns. Hence, sometimes the corresponding public reactions, discussions.

Here we must understand that there is a deep difference in the perception of the Turkic union in Armenia and in Russia. For Armenians, the Turks give a sense of a permanent position, especially since the Armenians are on the border with the Turkic world, having trouble because of their flight from Turkey in the last century. They failed to realize their national project in the Ottoman Empire and had to drift under the tutelage of Russia, in our national empire. The grievances, the complex are obvious; there is no need to come up with something in connection with the 1915 year. Without these events, the Armenian national consciousness is antagonistic to the Turkic one.

In Russia, the situation is different. The Russian Federation was formed as a synthesis of several ethnic groups, and the Turkic factor in the image of modern Russians plays a very important role, is the second mainstay of the country after the Russian factor. It is part of the modern national body of Russia. We understand that the Eurasian Union is in the last degree a Slavic-Turkic union.

The third factor has to do with understanding modern Turkey. The average Russian person is quite erudite, often visited Turkey, rested there, or started entrepreneurial activities with the Turks. They perceive Turkey as a rather important partner. Not only as a source for trade in consumer goods and a place of popular, inexpensive resorts, but also as a country the companies of which operate in the construction market and other areas of Russia. This understanding exists in the Russian Federation and it cannot be changed in any way by other circumstances.

There is a complex in the Russian public understanding: there are phobias, the Armenian understanding of Turkey, and there is a widespread positive experience. Three elements can be called public mood, which is not always related to reality. And the attitude of political Moscow to the Turkic union is as follows: the Kremlin accepts Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan as countries with a dominant Turkic  element. Russia is not building an antagonistic policy towards this group of states. On the contrary, the entire Russian integration agenda used for this purpose is Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan. These countries are the most developed and Russia's main trading partners in the south.

- But Russia is also a member of the informal group of Slavic states. There is no need to choose between the two groups of countries.

- The Turkic countries have recently been more important to Russia than the Slavic states. Here is an interesting, paradoxical moment: as relations between Moscow and Kiev deteriorated, and they began to change almost 20 years ago, at the same time, close, comradely, allied relations with Turkey were growing. Many issues that Russia could not quickly resolve or advance with its partners from the Slavic group could be done with Turkey. This caused the difficulties.  Relationships are never straightforward, including dead ends and breakouts. The balance between Russia and Turkey is still leaning towards a strong and complex, at the same time effective partnership, both in the trade, economic and military-political spheres. Therefore, Moscow sees no fears in developing programs within the framework of the Turkic Union.

In addition, the Turkic Union is not being formed as quickly as the peoples and leaders of these countries want. The famous statement of Suleiman Demirel and Heydar Aliyev "Two states - one people" was the symbolic final form of Turkey's attempt to win sympathy in the new space of post-Soviet states, most of which are located in Central Asia. This is an attempt to steer these countries in the footsteps of the Turkish transformation, to shape the sympathies of the newly emerging states into something more than just good relations with Turkey. Ankara's understandable attempt to build the power structures of these countries according to the experience and likeness of Turkey was not successful, proceeding from the performance criterion that was being set then. The integration of the Turkic states did not take place. The very formula "Two countries - one people" became the bar under which they tried to bring certain programs: modernization of the army, joint transport of Russian hydrocarbons, an attempt to organize more successful business relations. Much has been done; the Azerbaijani army was largely built according to the Turkish model. Turkey has become the main attraction for Azerbaijani investments. The free trade zone (FTZ) remained in the configuration of the former USSR. For 20 years, the Turkic states have not created FTZ. Visa-free travel of citizens became possible only from April 1 of this year.

- A new movement towards inter-Turkic integration is noticed. Where will it lead?

- The war in Karabakh with a crushing victory and with substantial support from Turkey became an additional impetus for rapprochement. Now we see a new attempt at Turkic integration, but this integration will start from a deliberately low position than we have in the CIS and Eurasian Economic Community, for the same Turkic states. The founder of the Eurasian Economic Community, Nursultan Nazarbayev, will not abandon allied relations in the Eurasian Economic Community because of the rapprochement with the Turks. This is not to be expected. I would interpret this as complementary pieces of a larger mosaic.

There are more than 270 different trade unions and integration associations registered in the world. A large number shows the opportunism and remoteness of the basis of such alliances from ethno-cultural ideology. At the same time, one does not exclude the other. The conjuncture does not interfere with the creation of media, cultural, and other projects in the Turkic space.

Russia, due to its scale, encloses this world on itself. Without Russian participation, Russian money, the Turkic diaspora in the Russian Federation, the discussed union is impossible, and will not work. Hence, it is clear why mutually complementary very close relations have developed between the Turks and Russia in these 20 years. Therefore, the movement within the framework of Turkic solidarity in no way undermines the stability of Russian influence, being an additional factor of general rapprochement based on the large Eurasian process.