Kazakhstan’s Turkic Pivot Challenges Russia’s Fading Influence

Almaty has officially been declared the “Youth Capital of the Turkic World for 2025,” a move celebrated as a major step in strengthening ties among Turkic nations. The announcement was made at the opening of the International Youth Festival of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), with Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev hailing the city as the “golden cradle of our independence” and a spiritual hub for the entire Turkic world.

This new status underscores Kazakhstan’s foundational role in pan-Turkic integration, which dates back to the 1993 Almaty agreement that established the precursor to the modern OTS. According to Alexander Kobrinsky, Director of the Agency for Ethno-National Strategies, the OTS has evolved significantly from its cultural origins. He notes that its strategy now carries distinct political and economic weight, arguing that states united by common linguistic and historical roots more easily find consensus, a dynamic now shaping new collaborations within the Turkic community.

Under President Tokayev’s leadership, Kazakhstan has become a key driver of this cooperation. The country is championing a proactive foreign policy focused on tangible outcomes, including industrial partnerships, digitalization, the creation of the Turkic Investment Fund, and new logistical corridors. Astana is also advocating for the OTS to open its doors to observer states, a move designed to elevate the organization’s international profile and transform it from a regional club into a block with its own political agenda, a particularly salient strategy amid slowing integration in other Eurasian alliances.

However, the enthusiasm for Turkic integration is viewed differently by the region’s youth. Kobrinsky observes that a new generation, raised in an open and independent Kazakhstan, is largely pragmatic. Their priorities are driven by financial well-being and career opportunities, and they are less susceptible to historical fears of “colonization” or foreign domination that might have concerned previous generations. This pragmatic outlook is shaping how these integration initiatives are perceived on the ground.

This pivot towards the Turkic world unfolds against a backdrop of shifting cultural and political allegiances, most notably the waning influence of the Russian language and the “Russian world” concept in Kazakhstan. Kobrinsky delivers a sharp critique of Russia’s cultural diplomacy, claiming that agencies like Rossotrudnichestvo have failed by focusing on formal economic metrics while neglecting the crucial work of winning the “hearts and minds” of the younger generation.

In stark contrast, Turkey’s soft power, allegedly supported by Western nations, is seen as far more effective. Through the active promotion of Turkic culture, language, and educational programs, Turkey is successfully cultivating a positive image and strengthening its foothold in Central Asia. Kobrinsky suggests that the concept of Turkic integration is now received more positively across the region than the “Russian world,” attributing this shift to both cultural affinity and significant miscalculations in Russian foreign policy.

The expert warns that this geopolitical realignment is not “harmless” for Russia and calls for a complete rethinking of its approach. He argues for a more nuanced strategy based on mutual respect and equality, cautioning that without it, Russia risks losing its influence entirely. In a striking comparison, Kobrinsky likens the OTS to a “proto-European Union,” suggesting it could serve as a proxy for British influence via Turkey. He speculates that Central Asian nations could eventually lose their sovereignty, with their leaders being appointed from London, drawing a parallel to what he describes as the political reality in countries like Moldova and Romania.