Moscow Meetings On Siberia ‘Talking Issue To Death’ Without Plans To Do Anything More – OpEd

This week, Russian scholars met in Moscow to talk about Siberia; but talk is all they did, apparently committed to “talking this issue to death,” Dmitry Verkhoturov says, rather than actually doing something constructive like suggesting actual steps that could be taken.

Of course, for the participants in such meetings, which are baldly named after Siberian cities like Tobolsk in this case, the senior Siberian economics commentator says, meeting in Moscow is far more convenient, especially on the eve of the new year’s holidays, than travelling to distant parts of Russia east of the Urals (https://sibmix.com/?doc=19326). 

He discusses several of the presentations – on the meeting itself, see windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2025/12/unless-moscow-changes-course-russia.html – and points out how they do little more than highlight how out of touch the Muscovites are from Siberian realities (sibmix.com/?doc=19326).

They talk about corridors without asking what these would connect or how they could be constructed given both the problems of the region itself and the problems of industries like shipbuilding or railroad construction over which Moscow certainly should be devoting itself to solving, Verkhoturov says.

But he adds: “Commenting on this meeting is very difficult without violating the restrictions imposed by Russian media watchdogs. But nonetheless, “it has become clear that the sole purpose of these meetings and the idea of ​​‘Siberianization’ in general is to talk the topic of Siberian development to death, a topic they have no intention of actually addressing.a

There are at least three reasons why this commentary is important: First, it is in stark contrast to officialdom in most predominantly ethnic Russian regions who welcome any talk about them in Moscow that suggests the center will help them even if history makes it clear that isn’t going to happen.

Second, such sharp language suggests that Siberians like Verkhoturov are very close to adopting a position like the one the Baltic nations did at the end of Soviet times and many non-Russians have taken since – “nothing about us without us” – or at least in our regions rather than in distant Moscow.

And third, it highlights something Moscow has good reason to fear but that it is exacerbating rather than helping to overcome by meetings like the one in the capital: the growth of Siberian regionalism extending beyond the borders of this or that federal subject in the enormous space east of the Urals.

When experts like Verkhoturov begin to talk in this way, Moscow needs to pay close attention rather than assuming it can get its ways on all things and control the future by having meetings within the ring road that pledge to do something but in fact have no real plans to do more than that.