But its appeal and practicality remain contentious. And the new way of doing things comes with profound implications for the farming community.
Money is tight, and the future is scarily uncertain.
To give you the best possible experience, this site uses cookies. If you continue browsing, you accept our use of cookies. You can review our privacy policy to find out more about the cookies we use.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
You've reached your limit of one free article.
You can cancel anytime .
SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS
Exclusive International news coverage
Ad-free experience NEW
Weekly digital Magazine NEW
9 daily & weekly Newsletters
Access to Worldcrunch archives
30-days free access, then
$2.90
per month.
Subscribe to Worldcrunch
$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90. Subscribe to Worldcrunch
From Kazakhstan to Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Tajikistan, countries in Russia's orbit have refused to help him turn the tide in the Ukraine war. All (maybe even Belarus?) is coming to understand that his next step would be a complete restoration of the Soviet empire.
-Analysis-
KYIV — Virtually all of Vladimir Putin's last remaining partner countries in the region are gone from his grip. Kazakhstan, Armenia, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan have refused to help him turn the tide in the Ukraine war, because they've all come to understand that his next step would be a complete restoration of the empire, where their own sovereignty is lost.
Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.
Sign up to our free daily newsletter.Before zooming in on the current state of relations in the region, and what it means for Ukraine's destiny, it's worth briefly reviewing the last 30 years of post-Soviet history.
The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was first created in 1992 by the Kremlin to keep former republics from fully seceding from the former Soviet sphere of influence. The plan was simple: to destroy the local Communist elite, to replace them with "their" people in the former colonies, and then return these territories — never truly considered as independent states by any Russian leadership — into its orbit.
In a word - to restore the USSR.
In 1999, Georgia and Azerbaijan left the CSTO. Each had its stated reasons: Georgia did so because Moscow supported separatism in Abkhazia and Ossetia; Azerbaijan, because Russia flirted with Armenia. Though in retrospect, the leaders of these states also understood that then reformist President Boris Yeltsin was weakening, and the old guard Kremlin power apparatus would take over. As Putin took over, Georgia and Azerbaijan began looking for allies outside Russia.
Uzbekistan suspended its membership in the organization in 2012 after having turned to the United States and NATO to contain the Afghan Taliban.
None of the member states wanted to share their sovereignty, which Moscow tried to force them to do. Even Belarus, which today is probably still Putin's closest ally in the region, often blocked the creation of security units based on the CSTO. The country's long-ruling strongman Alexander Lukashenko was afraid that Moscow would try to destroy his regime, so he strengthened only the internal Belarusian security apparatus. In 2020, this helped him to stay in power, although he had to concede to Putin.
Xi Jinping made it clear that he would not allow Russia to seize Kazakh territory.
In January 2022, Moscow deployed CSTO "peacekeepers" to Kazakhstan, probably assuming they'd stay there and be able to monitor the arrival in power of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who'd taken over in 2019 from dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev. Yet Tokayev would wind up outsmarting Kremlin officials by enlisting the support of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who made it clear that he would not allow Russia to seize Kazakh territory. Tokayev took advantage of the vacuum and destroyed both popular resistance and the influence of the Nazarbayev clan.
Defense Ministers for Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan attend the opening of the Army 2022 International Military and Technical Forum in the Moscow region on Aug. 15, 2022.
Armenians asked Moscow to intervene in 2020 in the ongoing conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. Yet the Kremlin had very different plans: it was trying to weaken Armenia's President Nikol Pashinyan, who had been seeking better relations with the United States and talking about the need to shut down Russian military bases.
Moscow turned a blind eye to the advance of Azerbaijani troops, and the CSTO did not intervene, after which Armenians came out to mass protests - the chair under Pashinyan shook. The security of the Armenian border began to depend on Russian "peacekeepers."
Uzbekistan again started talking about renewing its membership in the CSTO because, after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Russia did everything possible to fill the security vacuum in the region. Having deep relations with the Taliban, Moscow forced many Central Asian states to move away from the United States.
Thus for Russia, the situation had been evolving quite well within the CSTO, as the Kremlin steadily strengthening its influence. However, February's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and especially the significant losses of the Russian army, changed everything. Most organization members began to do everything possible to distance themselves from Moscow.
They realized that after Ukraine, Russia could come after them.
Against the backdrop of Azerbaijan's increasingly active troops, Pashinyan enlisted the support of the United States. The arrival of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Armenia after her visit to Taiwan demonstrated that the Americans are ready to support the current Armenian government if it does not make concessions to the Kremlin and remains neutral, and does not send troops to Ukraine.
Tokayev has publicly stated that he does not recognize the occupation of Ukrainian territories.
Tokayev has publicly stated that he does not recognize the occupation of Ukrainian territories and their forced annexation into the Russian Federation. After the Kremlin's not-so-subtle references that no Kazakhstan existed and the start of trade wars, the Kazakh leader has turned towards Azerbaijan, Turkey, and China.
Kazakhstan, and with it Kyrgyzstan, introduced criminal liability for the participation of their citizens in Russia's war against Ukraine. The same happened in Uzbekistan, which until recently was thinking of returning to the CSTO.
Seeing Moscow's weakness, Tajikistan is trying to resolve its territorial claims by organizing a campaign against Kyrgyzstan. The Kremlin can do little because these are two members of the CSTO on the territory where Russian military bases operate.
The CSTO is unraveling. Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine has changed everything. It is now clear to all that there can be no integration. Occupation is the only choice, even Belarus understands this. And as such, Russia is left with no friends in the neighborhood.
From Kazakhstan to Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Tajikistan, countries in Russia's orbit have refused to help him turn the tide in the Ukraine war. All (maybe even Belarus?) is coming to understand that his next step would be a complete restoration of the Soviet empire.
-Analysis-
KYIV — Virtually all of Vladimir Putin's last remaining partner countries in the region are gone from his grip. Kazakhstan, Armenia, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan have refused to help him turn the tide in the Ukraine war, because they've all come to understand that his next step would be a complete restoration of the empire, where their own sovereignty is lost.
Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.
Sign up to our free daily newsletter.Before zooming in on the current state of relations in the region, and what it means for Ukraine's destiny, it's worth briefly reviewing the last 30 years of post-Soviet history.
The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was first created in 1992 by the Kremlin to keep former republics from fully seceding from the former Soviet sphere of influence. The plan was simple: to destroy the local Communist elite, to replace them with "their" people in the former colonies, and then return these territories — never truly considered as independent states by any Russian leadership — into its orbit.
In a word - to restore the USSR.
In 1999, Georgia and Azerbaijan left the CSTO. Each had its stated reasons: Georgia did so because Moscow supported separatism in Abkhazia and Ossetia; Azerbaijan, because Russia flirted with Armenia. Though in retrospect, the leaders of these states also understood that then reformist President Boris Yeltsin was weakening, and the old guard Kremlin power apparatus would take over. As Putin took over, Georgia and Azerbaijan began looking for allies outside Russia.
Uzbekistan suspended its membership in the organization in 2012 after having turned to the United States and NATO to contain the Afghan Taliban.
None of the member states wanted to share their sovereignty, which Moscow tried to force them to do. Even Belarus, which today is probably still Putin's closest ally in the region, often blocked the creation of security units based on the CSTO. The country's long-ruling strongman Alexander Lukashenko was afraid that Moscow would try to destroy his regime, so he strengthened only the internal Belarusian security apparatus. In 2020, this helped him to stay in power, although he had to concede to Putin.
Xi Jinping made it clear that he would not allow Russia to seize Kazakh territory.
In January 2022, Moscow deployed CSTO "peacekeepers" to Kazakhstan, probably assuming they'd stay there and be able to monitor the arrival in power of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who'd taken over in 2019 from dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev. Yet Tokayev would wind up outsmarting Kremlin officials by enlisting the support of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who made it clear that he would not allow Russia to seize Kazakh territory. Tokayev took advantage of the vacuum and destroyed both popular resistance and the influence of the Nazarbayev clan.
Defense Ministers for Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan attend the opening of the Army 2022 International Military and Technical Forum in the Moscow region on Aug. 15, 2022.
Armenians asked Moscow to intervene in 2020 in the ongoing conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. Yet the Kremlin had very different plans: it was trying to weaken Armenia's President Nikol Pashinyan, who had been seeking better relations with the United States and talking about the need to shut down Russian military bases.
Moscow turned a blind eye to the advance of Azerbaijani troops, and the CSTO did not intervene, after which Armenians came out to mass protests - the chair under Pashinyan shook. The security of the Armenian border began to depend on Russian "peacekeepers."
Uzbekistan again started talking about renewing its membership in the CSTO because, after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Russia did everything possible to fill the security vacuum in the region. Having deep relations with the Taliban, Moscow forced many Central Asian states to move away from the United States.
Thus for Russia, the situation had been evolving quite well within the CSTO, as the Kremlin steadily strengthening its influence. However, February's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and especially the significant losses of the Russian army, changed everything. Most organization members began to do everything possible to distance themselves from Moscow.
They realized that after Ukraine, Russia could come after them.
Against the backdrop of Azerbaijan's increasingly active troops, Pashinyan enlisted the support of the United States. The arrival of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Armenia after her visit to Taiwan demonstrated that the Americans are ready to support the current Armenian government if it does not make concessions to the Kremlin and remains neutral, and does not send troops to Ukraine.
Tokayev has publicly stated that he does not recognize the occupation of Ukrainian territories.
Tokayev has publicly stated that he does not recognize the occupation of Ukrainian territories and their forced annexation into the Russian Federation. After the Kremlin's not-so-subtle references that no Kazakhstan existed and the start of trade wars, the Kazakh leader has turned towards Azerbaijan, Turkey, and China.
Kazakhstan, and with it Kyrgyzstan, introduced criminal liability for the participation of their citizens in Russia's war against Ukraine. The same happened in Uzbekistan, which until recently was thinking of returning to the CSTO.
Seeing Moscow's weakness, Tajikistan is trying to resolve its territorial claims by organizing a campaign against Kyrgyzstan. The Kremlin can do little because these are two members of the CSTO on the territory where Russian military bases operate.
The CSTO is unraveling. Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine has changed everything. It is now clear to all that there can be no integration. Occupation is the only choice, even Belarus understands this. And as such, Russia is left with no friends in the neighborhood.
You've reached your limit of free articles.
To read the full story, start your free trial today.
Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.
Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.
Already a subscriber? Log in
The UK government wants its farming sector to transition to a more sustainable model. But farmers fear the complex post-Brexit agricultural policy and lack of EU subsidies are threatening their livelihood.
The UK’s farming landscape has changed dramatically since Brexit. Agricultural policy has been adjusted, and EU subsidies, which funded UK farming for decades, are no more.
Before the split, those subsidies helped British farmers to the tune of nearly £3 billion a year, which for some, made up 90% of their annual income. That system is now being phased out, in a move which the UK government claims will be more environmentally sustainable.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Central to this new approach are “environmental land management schemes”, designed to encourage farmers to produce what are known as “public goods” – things like soil health and wildlife habitats – with financial payment levels dependent on which of these goods are attained. Defra aims for 70% farmer participation by 2028, with 11,000 farmers in England already enrolled.
But its appeal and practicality remain contentious. And the new way of doing things comes with profound implications for the farming community.
Money is tight, and the future is scarily uncertain.
Our work investigates the constraints and challenges facing farmers in the UK and abroad. Recently, we explored the constraints encountered by farmers since Brexit, specifically focusing on upland farms in England. We found that the focus on environmental sustainability, though commendable, overlooks critical economic and social dimensions.
The transition threatens to marginalise traditionally minded farmers, lose cultural heritage and weaken the rural community’s social fabric. And it’s a transition which doesn’t just affect the farmers themselves. The farming and food industries are valued at over £120 billion to the British economy.
Speaking to upland farmers (who work in hilly and mountainous regions) across four English counties (Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and Devon), we discovered that many are extremely concerned about the future of the farms they look after. Farms that for some, have been in their families for generations.
I don’t even bother with these newer schemes because I don’t understand it.
One 70-year-old farmer from Lancashire commented bluntly about the future of his 250-acre beef and sheep farm: “We’re not going to be viable.”
He added: “I might as well stop farming and diversify into holiday lets.”
Another farmer, aged 50, who keeps Herdwick sheep in the Lake District, highlighted the critical role of EU subsidies, noting that their planned removal by 2027 would severely limit their farm’s finances and their ability to pursue environmental initiatives.
She said: “With that basic payment taken out of the business, it’s really difficult. We can make about £10,000 profit, but our basic payment is more than that. So that’s going to take us into a situation where we’re not making any money.”
There were also concerns expressed about how difficult it is to understand the new farming policy in the UK. Four in ten UK farmers are aged over 65, and information laid out in the 150-page “Sustainable Farming Incentive” document can be overwhelming. Many traditional farmers do not use mobile phones, and are unfamiliar with the online world.
Farmers bring their tractors into London duringa protest organised by Save Briish Farming and Farmers for Fairness.
Cal Ford/ZUMA
One farmer told us: “In my porch I’ve got like a thousand leaflets stacked up that [Defra] just sent me to take out to people because a lot of the farmers that I’m working with are not online. They haven’t heard about a lot of this stuff.”
She added: “I went to a farm last week, which is only accessible with a 4x4. Nobody’s been there to talk to them about schemes and stuff ever.”
Another said farmer, aged 72, said: “All the form filling is too damn difficult. I don’t even bother with these newer schemes because I don’t understand it.”
And while new schemes may be complex, many of the farmers we spoke to were very clear about the risks to the future of British farming. Overall, they seemed worried that farms, skills and knowledge that have been passed down through generations would be lost during this transition to more sustainable farming.
One said: “If farming isn’t going to be supported in the way it has been in the past, we’re going to lose an awful lot of farmers who have been on farms [for generations]. Their skill set and instinct will be gone, and it’ll be enveloped by agribusiness. That’s perhaps what [the government] want.”
The future seems pretty bleak.
Another explained: “If we lose the older generation that’s a massive loss."
"What used to happen with tenancies is people would work together, like me and my son. And then one would gradually step back and the other would gradually take over. It’s a gradual process.”
Overall, we found that for the more traditional farmers we spoke to, the future seemed pretty bleak. There was also a strong sense that while the farms they operated may not be hugely profitable, or provide the strongest environmental benefits, the work they do still had social and cultural value – which risks being lost forever.
And as England navigates the complexities of post-Brexit agricultural policy, the balance between environmental goals and the preservation of traditional farming practices remains precarious. Many of the farmers we met felt that they were being pushed away from their traditional role as producers.
As one farmer put it: “If you’re taking productive land out of production for your tree planting or diversification of whatever kind, then where’s our food coming from?”
*Peter Gittins, Lecturer in Management, University of Leeds and Deema Refai, Associate Professor in Enterprise and Entrepreneurship, University of Leeds
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The latest