Russia—Uzbekistan: From ‘Nostalgia Diplomacy’ to the Alignment of Sovereign Strategies

o keep the dialogue between Russia and Uzbekistan resilient in the long term, the two sides need not look for support in appeals to a shared past, which, amid the natural change of generations and the consolidation of national identities, increasingly give rise to debate. Rather than trying to prolong the inertia of a departing era, they should concentrate on aligning their sovereign development strategies, writes Arina Tsvetkova. The author is a participant of the Valdai—New Generation project. 

August 2026, which Uzbekistan spent under the banner of preparations for the 35th anniversary of its state independence, offers an occasion to analyse the profound changes that have taken place in the country’s ideological landscape in recent years. This period has seen the institutionalisation of the “Third Renaissance” concept take visible form in such landmark projects as the thorough renewal of the State Museum of the History of Uzbekistan’s exhibition and the steady development of the Centre of Islamic Civilisation. An analysis of current processes suggests that these transformations amount to a consistent reconstruction of national identity, aimed at asserting the country’s civilisational self-sufficiency. Such dynamics make substantial adjustments to the very logic of interaction between Moscow and Tashkent, implying a gradual shift from emotional categories to a rational alignment of interests.

Sovereign Narrative and the Politics of Memory

The central pillar of Uzbekistan’s ideology has become the formation of a sovereign historical narrative. In official discourse, scholars now view the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century as a complex colonial period. Within this paradigm, the emphasis has shifted to the interruption of the natural evolution of regional statehood and culture. Such a lens is used not as an act of confrontation but as an important instrument for consolidating society, intended to underline the value of sovereignty and national distinctiveness.

Bringing the legacy of the national enlighteners and reformers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, known as the Jadids, back to the fore plays a vital role. Their work on modernising society and seeking paths of national development is today regarded as the ideological foundation of modern nation-building. Attention to the legacy of the Jadid enlighteners allows Tashkent to present its current course of development as a return to its own historical roots.

For bilateral relations, this creates a fundamentally new situation. The former tools of engagement, built on appeals to a “shared historical destiny,” are gradually losing their past universality. Tashkent is asserting its autonomy of meaning, shaping the citizen’s identity through the prism of a profound rethinking of the colonial-era legacy. This is an objective challenge for Eurasian dialogue: in this new memory, Russia is inevitably perceived in a different historical role. Recognising this fact is a necessary condition for finding a new language of communication, one free of paternalistic expectations and Soviet inertia.

The Nuclear Project as the Foundation of a New Partnership

At a time when the former “nostalgia diplomacy” is objectively losing its binding force, a need arises for new, future-oriented strategic pillars. The most tangible example of such a transition is the construction of an integrated nuclear power plant in the Farish District of the Jizzakh Region.

The link between the nuclear project and the move away from the politics of nostalgia is one of principle. Nostalgia is a psychological and changeable category—an attempt to preserve cohesion through an appeal to memory. It inevitably weakens as generations change. The nuclear project, implemented with the participation of Rosatom, is, by contrast, a long-term material alignment, built to last for many decades to come. It is a matter of creating a reliable foundation for the republic’s future energy balance: according to expert estimates, the plant’s operation will cover around 15% of national energy consumption.

In March 2026, concrete works began at the nuclear power plant construction site for a small-capacity power unit, a component of the large-scale integrated project, which also includes two large-capacity units. This facility lays the groundwork for a long-term partnership based on common engineering standards and many years of cooperation in supplying the plant with fuel and technical support. Therein lies the distinctiveness of the present moment: while in the intellectual sphere the historical role of Russia is being rethought, in strategically important sectors our interaction is becoming one of the key factors in the energy resilience and development of the republic.

Pragmatism in the Economy and in Digital Borders

This model—sovereignty in meanings combined with deep alignment in resources—is reflected in the economic behaviour of both sides. By 2026, Uzbekistan continues to pursue a strategy of pragmatic participation in regional processes, retaining observer status in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This position effectively turns Eurasian platforms into an instrument supporting Uzbek modernisation. Receiving energy resources at preferential tariffs, with the Union’s member states accounting for more than a quarter of its foreign trade, Tashkent is successfully capitalising on its geographical position while minimising formal obligations to supranational structures. The effectiveness of this course is illustrated by the dynamics of bilateral relations with Russia, where over the past ten years trade turnover has more than tripled, and exports of Russian gas in 2025 via the “Central Asia—Centre” system have risen by 30%.

Russia’s strategy in the region is also gradually transforming: while retaining elements of traditional support, Moscow is at the same time steering the dialogue towards national realism, in which the granting of preferences is balanced by the introduction of digital regulatory mechanisms and a clear delineation of mutual obligations.

A vivid example was the revision of migration policy in 2024–2026. A regulated system has replaced haphazard processes, one in which the workforce is viewed through the prism of economic expediency and security.

The digitalisation of control has reached a qualitatively new level with the introduction of the Amina mobile app. Whereas from 1 September 2025 the service became mandatory for labour migrants, from 1 September 2026 it becomes the main means of registration in the Moscow Region, including for foreign students from countries with a visa-free regime, Uzbekistan among them. In effect, digital registration is replacing the former forms of administrative trust. In parallel, new standards have been introduced in education: for the children of foreign citizens, a test of Russian-language proficiency has become a condition of enrolment in schools. This is a reciprocal gesture: if a partner “nationalises” its identity, Russia “pragmatises” its social responsibility.

Conclusion: Eurasian Dialogue as the Art of Alignment

The situation in 2026 shows that the Eurasian space has outgrown the confines of “post-Soviet” inertia. We have entered an era in which material resources have ceased to be an automatic guarantee of ideological closeness and have become instruments of a delicate balance of interests. Recognising this reality is a necessary condition for building a viable partnership in a multipolar world.

The reconstruction of identity in Uzbekistan, including through the revival of the legacy of the Jadid enlighteners, is a natural result of the maturing of the nation and its pursuit of a sovereign reading of its own history. By the middle of the decade, relations between Russia and Uzbekistan had reached a level of high pragmatism, turning from a “family affair” into the art of aligning sovereign strategies. What binds our countries is now determined not by a shared history textbook but by the effectiveness of a joint response to the challenges of the future.

In an age of competing meanings, appeals to the past are no longer enough—what is needed are concrete and far-reaching prospects for development. Respect for the historical sovereignty of one’s neighbour, together with the simultaneous strengthening of the framework of shared material interests, is the only path to genuine resilience in Eurasia.

https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/russia-uzbekistan-from-nostalgia-diplomacy