Lights And Shadows At The Level Of Russia`S Neocolonial Temptations

The subject of colonialism, which is linked to a rather long stage in the evolution of modern, but also pre-modern civilization, continues to arouse the interest of the entire scientific spectrum, manifesting the more the concept has become enriched with the neo- and post- prefixes, being approached by a great variety of theorists and historians of the theory of international relations (be they economists or political scientists, sociologists and anthropologists, moral or cultural result of the radical change in the balance of power, "the former metropolises (Great Britain, France, Spain, Belgium) have left the place of neo-colonialist entities. Such as the United States of America and the Soviet Union.” During this paper, an attempt will be made to explain the extent to which the characteristics of the Russia's current international relations can be applied to partnership with the former components of the Soviet Union (USSR), which have declared their autonomy and are developing as independently as possible. Emphasis is placed on the ways in which such political and military powers influence the flow of things in neighbor states, either directly or indirectly, using both traditional and new practices. This Central Asia region has been centuries of confluence of geopolitical and geo-economic disputes between the great powers. Things are no different at present, and what is different is the balance between soft and hard diplomacy. The events that took place in the past few years reopened the dilemmas of a new type of neo-colonialism. What differ are the forms in which this inclination is manifested for each of the great powers. In this paper the author seeks to answer some questions about Russia's neo-colonial orientation, these being: Does Central Asia fit within contemporary Russian foreign policy? Is there a coherent game plan of Moscow with clearcut objectives? How is Moscow going about its business? What are the main outcomes of Russian behavior? What does the future hold for Russia in Central Asia? The main assumption of author is that Central Asia is significant mainly as is it a pivot area to Russian self-perception as a still relevant global actor. In order to respond to these questions, there was a call for dynamic series of economic, technological, cultural and political data and information, aggregated on the basis of phenomenological research. The main conclusions reached by the author are: Russia lost its hegemonic position while these countries become assertive actors; prioritization of geopolitical aims over security objectives; there is no clear strategy but an entropic package of ad hoc arrangements; it is ambiguous the dynamic balance between authoritarianism and sovereignty. The entirely process depend on the new variables: turbulences in the Russian domestic politics and economy; succession outcomes in few countries; the future of relations of Russia with other global political and economic actors.