A fresh wave of controversy has erupted in Central Asia after Russian philosopher and political theorist Alexander Dugin publicly questioned the sovereignty of several post-Soviet states, including Uzbekistan. A video fragment of Dugin’s recent remarks circulated widely online, prompting strong backlash from regional analysts and commentators.
In the recording, Alexander Dugin, founder of the International Eurasian Movement and often described as the ideologue of the so-called “Russian world,” said that national sovereignty should no longer apply to former Soviet republics. He specifically named Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan as states that, in his view, should not exist independently under any future political order.
“Nothing sovereign can exist in this new model. That’s it. Sovereignty is over. National states are a thing of the past. This is garbage,” Dugin said, adding that “it is impossible to agree with the existence of a sovereign Uzbekistan.”
Backlash from Uzbek Analysts
Dugin’s remarks prompted immediate criticism in Uzbekistan. Journalist Ilyos Safarov described the comments as part of a broader ideological pattern rather than an isolated statement.
“Yesterday it was Solovyov calling for a ‘special military operation’ in Central Asia. Today it is Dugin denying our sovereignty,” Safarov said. “This shows that post-imperial thinking is still alive in certain Russian political circles.”
He warned that ignoring such rhetoric could further embolden these narratives. “Silence is often interpreted not as diplomacy, but as weakness. If these ideas are left unanswered, they begin to look acceptable to a wider audience,” Safarov said, noting that even unofficial figures can influence public discourse and political attitudes in Russia.
Zavqibek Mahmudov, an associate professor at the Abdulla Avloniy National Institute of Pedagogical Excellence, echoed these concerns. He argued that ideological declarations, even from non-state actors, can translate into real-world political agendas.
“History shows that radical political projects often begin with philosophical justifications,” Mahmudov said. He criticized Dugin’s rhetoric as part of a political chauvinism that categorizes countries as either “real” or “artificial.” “When the existence of an entire nation is questioned, this is no longer academic debate, it is a direct challenge to international law and the principle of sovereign equality.”
Mahmudov called for a coordinated legal and diplomatic response from all the countries mentioned in Dugin’s remarks. “A collective stance would be far more effective than individual national responses,” he noted.
Official Distancing from Moscow
The controversy follows recent remarks by Russian television host Vladimir Solovyov, who had floated the possibility of military action in Central Asia. That incident prompted a response from Russia’s Foreign Ministry. On January 16, ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated that Solovyov’s views did not represent official Russian policy and reaffirmed that Moscow’s relationships with Central Asian countries are grounded in “partnership and respect for sovereignty.”
Despite this distancing, analysts caution that repeated rhetorical assaults on Central Asian sovereignty, whether from state actors or affiliated intellectuals, may reflect deeper ideological currents that could have lasting consequences for regional stability.
