• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.85-114
• /
• 2023

The purpose of this study is to analyze Russia-Central Asia relations since the launch of the EAEU in 2015 and forecast the future from a structural realism perspective. Bilateral relations have both elements of close cooperation and elements of conflict. Russia and Central Asia, which have the characteristics of an authoritarian alliance, also have a symbiotic relationship in which they have no choice but to cooperate with each other to maintain the regime. Based on this, Russia has made various efforts to reunify Central Asia. Central Asia also has no choice but to cooperate with Russia for its survival, but at the same time, it has expanded its scope of cooperation in the international community to avoid being subjugated to Russia again. However, as China's power expands, Russia's relative weakness, and wariness toward Russia increases after the Ukraine War, the gap in bilateral relations is widening. In particular, as China's influence grows, Russia's nervousness also increases. This is why Putin visits Central Asia and holds active summit talks even during the war in Ukraine. If competition between Russia and China surfaces, there is a high possibility that the international order in Central Asia will become unstable. However, it is still unlikely that the power of Russia and China will reverse in Central Asia. Above all, the security, historical, and cultural connections between Russia and Central Asia are areas that are difficult for China to catch up with. Therefore, a weakening of Russia's influence compared to the past is inevitable, but its superiority is expected to continue. If Russia breaks away from belligerence and transforms into an attractive cooperative partner, there is a possibility that bilateral relations will take an upward turn again. However, it seems unlikely that such changes and innovations will occur under the Putin regime. Therefore, the biggest obstacle to realizing Putin's goal of reunifying Central Asia is Putin himself.

• 한국문화재보존과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2006.04a
• /
• pp.1-3
• /
• 2006

• Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.9 no.5
• /
• pp.13-16
• /
• 2008

• Journal of the Speleological Society of Korea
• /
• no.74
• /
• pp.11-21
• /
• 2006

• Journal of the Speleological Society of Korea
• /
• no.72
• /
• pp.9-17
• /
• 2006

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Sericultural Science Conference
• /
• 2003.04a
• /
• pp.15-15
• /
• 2003

독일의 지리학자 Ferdinand F.Von Richthofen(1833-1905)의 $\boxDr$China$\boxUl$ (1877)에서 비단길(Seidenstrassen-영역 silk road) -동서 교통의 역사를 개관하고서 중국과 서툴키스탄 및 북서 인도와의 silk 무역을 매개한 중앙아시아 경유의 길을 일렀음. 리히트호펜에서 한걸음 나아가, 1910년 독일 지리학자 알벨트헬만 (Albert Herrmann)은 한 대(BC 114 - AD 127의 견의 최대의 판로의 하나가 시리아였음을, 들어, 내륙 아시아 및 이란을 경우 중국에 이르른 통로를 추가함. (직후 시리아의 팔미라 분묘에서 다수의 한면 발견) (중략)

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Rock Mechanics Conference
• /
• 2008.10a
• /
• pp.209-219
• /
• 2008

• Journal of the Korean association of regional geographers
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.559-575
• /
• 2003

The purpose of this study is to systematically explain and discuss the return migration of Koreans in Central Asia to the Russian Far East. The Koreans' return migration is explained by the combination of push and pull factors inherent in the host and home countries. The structural or institutional push factors in Central Asia include the linguistic policy of a country, civil war, ethnic conflicts, while the micro ones are the Koreans' high concern of their children's education and the improvement of a socio-economic status. The macro pull factors operated in the Russian Far East are the permission to use the housing facilities and land previously controlled by military authorities and the laws of recovering the koreans' basic right and honor, while the micro ones are the networks of relatives and friends living in Central Asia and the Russian Far East. The two aspects related to the Koreans' return migration are also discussed. Firstly, the return migration of Koreans in Central Asia is interpreted as a migration of ethnic affinity. Secondly, the establishment of an autonomous district of Koreans in the Russian Far East is discussed.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.65-84
• /
• 2017

This paper attempts to investigate FDI Trade have been viewed a power affecting economic growth in Mongolia and five Central Asian countries(Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) directly and indirectly using the Vector Error Correction Model. The results of empirical analysis based on data from 1995 to 2015 confirmed that FDI had a significant impact on economic growth in the rest of countries expect Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and Trade was not statistically significant for all countries. Accordingly we've come to below conclusion in consideration of the results of the statistics survey. It is urgently required to implement the policies on promoting foreign investment at first in order to recover economic decline though the international trading is considered important in developing the economics of developing countries. Especially, the landlocked countries, namely the countries having same border should focus on promoting the development of transport and freight forwarding systems between the countries, implementing the policies on trade relationships and foreign direct investments throughout the nation in consideration of the low- level of market economic conditions.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.107-127
• /
• 2016

This paper attempts to investigate determinants of foreign direct investment in transition countries of Mongolia and Central Asia five countries of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. FDI inflows in this transition economies have been far increasing due to their rapid growth, GDP, gross capital formation, wage, labor force, open trading, infrastructure and natural resources as well as the factors demonstrating the economic variables and political variables of these countries by Vector Error Correction Model. The results of empirical analysis based on data from 1993 to 2013 confirmed that FDI and open trade and gross capital formation and political than GDP, wage, labor force, infrastructure and natural resources had a significant impact on Central Asia and Mongolia. In addition, if Mongolia and Central Asian five countries can maintain the country's economic growth, reduce unemployment level, achieve certain improvements in domesticating new technologies and improving skills and knowledge sphere as well as promoting stable domestic price increase, attracting and improving the FDI by paying more attention to the indicators focusing on country's GDP, wage, labor force, infrastructure and natural resource.