Focus on Ukraine and the Post-Soviet Space
The latest session of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (SVOP) focused on the key directions of Russia’s domestic and foreign policy. Political analyst Evgeny Minchenko, known for his proximity to Sergei Kiriyenko, presented his own summary of the expert discussions, prompting notable responses among participants. Nezygar obtained comments from several sources familiar with the talks.
One of the central issues was the situation in Ukraine. Experts largely agreed that even under the most favorable outcome for Russia in the special military operation, Ukraine will remain a “long-term source of instability and hostility.” The probability of pro-Russian forces coming to power in Kyiv was deemed extremely low. Therefore, Russia will need to maintain a strong military presence near the border and prepare for internal threats, including provocations and sabotage.
The situation in Central Asia also drew serious attention. Experts expect growing political instability in one of the countries of the region — most likely Tajikistan — where religious and ethnic tensions are escalating. President Emomali Rahmon’s secular regime is seen as increasingly unable to control radicalization.
By contrast, the prospect of conflict with Europe was considered unlikely. The expert consensus emphasized avoiding escalatory rhetoric and maintaining Russia’s strategic focus on the post-Soviet space. Despite the military’s readiness for action along the northwestern frontier, a real campaign there would incur excessive costs in a prolonged confrontation.
Moldova remains a concern, though experts admit there is currently no effective strategy for engagement. Despite the population in Transnistria maintaining generally pro-Russian sentiment, peaceful political shifts in Chișinău are considered improbable in the near term.
Selective Foreign Policy and Caution in Asia
Experts expressed concern over rising tensions in East Asia and the risk of Russia being drawn into a broader U.S.-China conflict. The consensus is clear: Russia should avoid entanglement in external confrontations. Syria was cited as a cautionary tale — while it brought short-term success, it failed to secure lasting influence, reinforcing the need for a more selective foreign policy strategy.
Participants emphasized the need to realign priorities around domestic development and resilience. Military tools should be used only when absolutely necessary, with a preference for flexible and adaptive responses.
This approach was described as “a pragmatic and restrained imperial policy.” The focus, they argued, should be on achieving sustainable long-term results rather than short-lived victories. Armenia was mentioned as a country that remains in Russia’s orbit despite ongoing challenges.
Commenting on Minchenko’s views, one source noted that some of his conclusions reflect the current political climate rather than deeper strategic thinking. For example, the notion of a dominant “hardline” in diplomacy is seen by some as performative. Despite signs of fatigue, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov continues to fulfill his duties — as underscored by his recent state decoration.
Short-term forecasts for Russia’s economic resilience in the face of sanctions were cautiously optimistic. However, long-term risks were believed to be underestimated, particularly due to political considerations.
Shifting U.S. Policy and the Limits of Military Optimism
In the military domain, talk of “moderate optimism” was seen as largely inertia-driven. The front lines in Ukraine remain largely unchanged, and expectations of major shifts were considered unrealistic.
Regarding the United States, participants noted that under President Donald Trump, Washington appears to be losing interest in the Ukrainian issue and shifting the burden of support onto European allies. This limits Moscow’s diplomatic room to maneuver and dampens hopes for a swift resolution to the conflict.
Russia’s partnership with China was described as tactical, with Beijing increasingly asserting its senior position. Efforts to influence Moscow — including through third-party intermediaries like Brazil — were cited as signs of China’s growing discomfort with Russia’s unilateral actions.
Domestic Pressures and the Risk of Radicalization
Migration and ideology were discussed in depth. The topic of migration triggered the most intense debate. One source said that domestic policy handlers oppose a sharp rise in nationalism, even under the guise of patriotism. Some argue that society should remain moderate, with only surface-level ideological messaging. Others — the majority — advocate for deeper ideological consolidation. Attitudes toward migrants are seen as a barometer: while stricter policies toward Central Asian migrants may yield short-term political benefits, they risk creating fertile ground for social radicalization — a risk many still underestimate.
Experts also warned of potential radicalization among veterans of the special military operation. The return of large numbers of combat-experienced and psychologically affected individuals could pose challenges to social and political stability, especially in Russia’s regions. “If you strip away the nuances,” one source said, “Minchenko and others are signaling the risk of radicalization among these veterans. Most come from rural areas and will remain a persistent source of pressure on both the authorities and society.”
The tone of these forecasts is pragmatic. As one source put it: “We need to come down from the clouds and stop focusing on Kyiv or Odesa — it’s time to think about retaining power inside the country and managing the many risks that are already here or coming.”
In terms of foreign policy, most experts call for pragmatism and a strategy aimed at avoiding full-scale wars in the near future. While threats exist, the advice to the country’s leadership is to refrain from military engagements over the next few years.
Key Conclusion: The path forward should focus less on large-scale foreign ventures and more on domestic control, systemic resilience, and the prevention of future wars.
