MOSCOW, 20 April 2026. VCIOM Analytical Center presents findings from a study exploring how post-Soviet countries are viewed in terms of success and reliability in Russia.

The CIS countries are no longer perceived through a single perspective in the Russian consciousness. What we observe instead is a fragmented picture, in which each country, or a group of countries, follows its own trajectory, ranging from deepening alliance to complete distancing. An analysis of monitoring data demonstrates not just changes in countries’ positions in success and reliability rankings, but the formation of several multidirectional trends: in some cases, trust and economic recognition are strengthening; in others, diminishing trust levels are observed, while respect for achievements remains intact; and in some cases, a generational divide gives rise to parallel perceptual realities.
 

Key trends

Belarus: sustained growth

Belarus retains its status as the undisputed leader in terms of perceived success and reliability as a partner. Three-quarters of Russians (75%) consider it the most successful country in the region, and 83% view it as a reliable partner internationally. Over the past 10 years, both indicators have shown steady growth (by 7 and 17 percentage points, respectively). This trend is undoubtedly driven by deep economic integration within the Union State, joint import-substitution projects, and a common transport and energy space.

Kazakhstan: success without a “trust capital”

Kazakhstan holds second place across both indicators. However, despite a persistently high level of perceived success and stability (47%), there is a significant gap between the recognition of its economic achievements and assessments of its predictability: today only 24% of respondents view the country as a reliable partner (a more than twofold decrease compared to 2016). In respondents’ view, Kazakhstan is moving from being an “unconditional ally” to being a “pragmatic neighbor” and is increasingly perceived as an autonomous actor whose interests may not always be consistent with the direction of a common economic space.

Uzbekistan: an upward trend

Uzbekistan has secured its position among the top three leaders and shows steady growth. Perceptions of its success have increased significantly in recent years (from 10% in 2018 to the current 17%). At the same time, perceptions of its reliability as a partner have remained stable (at 8–11% over a decade). Today, Russians view Uzbekistan as a dynamic and predictable market, while humanitarian relations and political trust are also strengthening.

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia: a turbulent zone

The Caucasian countries form a group with the most dynamic and ambivalent indicators. Since 2018, public perceptions of their reliability as partners have decreased by more than twofold, down to 3–4%, while perceptions of success and stability remain relatively high, albeit volatile (10–13%).

• Georgia. Despite its image as a popular tourism hub and the normalization of economic ties, as indicated by the upward trend in perceived success, internationally it is still not perceived as a reliable partner.
• Armenia and Azerbaijan. In Russians’ perception, these countries are gradually moving into the category of “complex” partners. A significant decline in perceived reliability (from 13% in 2018 to 4% in 2026 for Armenia, and from 9% to 4% for Azerbaijan) is driven by a lack of long-term strategic guarantees and predictability.

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan: “quiet” neighbors

These countries occupy a “grey zone” in public perception, with indicators of success and reliability fluctuating in the range of 4–8%, showing no significant change over the last ten years. In the perception of Russians, these states are largely outside the public spotlight. Despite Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan being members of key integration blocs (the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization), these countries are not yet perceived as standalone centers of success or reliability.

Ukraine and Moldova: distancing

These countries rank at the bottom of the list, showing the lowest indicators across key dimensions: perceptions of success and reliability fluctuate within the 0–3% range. Their position at the bottom of the ranking is driven by the erosion of a shared socio-economic foundation and the weakening of institutional ties. In public perception, these states have lost their status as partners, moving beyond the scope of the integration agenda.

A generational gap in perceptions of the Caucasus

A striking generational divide is observed in perceptions of Armenia and Georgia. While the older generation points to a deficit of trust in partnership and is less likely to recognize the countries’ success, the “digital generation” (young people under 25) extends a degree of trust to these states. Georgia is perceived by Gen Z as a successful country in 29% of cases—almost five times more often than the “Thaw generation” (6%). Similarly, the younger the respondents, the more likely they are to regard Armenia as a successful country (35% among the “digital generation” versus 3% among the “Thaw generation”). This pattern can be explained by the emergence of a parallel system of connections: while official partnership institutions in the Caucasus are experiencing a crisis, young people are building their own form of integration based on tourism, technology, and horizontal communication.

Russian nationwide telephone “VCIOM-Sputnik” survey was conducted April 3, 2026. A total of 1,600 respondents aged 18 and older took part in the survey. Survey method: telephone interview, stratified random sample based on a complete list of mobile phone numbers in use in Russia. The data were weighted for socio-demographic characteristics. The margin of error at a 95% confidence level does not exceed 2.5%. In addition to sampling error, minor changes to the wording of questions and different circumstances arising during the fieldwork can introduce bias into the survey.

Key effectiveness indicators, survey of April 3, 2026: cooperation rate (CR)* = 0.7113; minimum response rate (MRR)** = 0.0243; response rate (RR)*** = 0.0606.

Calculations are based on corporate standard:

* CR: the number of complete interviews divided by the sum of: а) complete interviews and b) non-interviews with eligible respondents.

** MRR: the number of complete interviews divided by the sum of: а) complete interviews, b) interrupted interviews after successful screening and c) all the respondents where it is unknown whether they meet the selected criteria or not.

** RR is calculated in the same way as MRR, with the only difference that the number of respondents with unknown eligibility decreases proportional to the percentage of eligible cases in the total number of respondents with identified eligibility or non-eligibility.

* Until 2016 the question was as follows: ‘Which CIS countries do you currently consider the most successful?’

** Until 2017, surveys were conducted through household face-to-face interviews (‘Express’ project); stratified multi-stage sample, with quotas based on socio-demographic parameters; representative of the Russian population aged 18+, according to type of settlement, gender, age, education and federal district. Sample size: 1,600 respondents.
 

* Until 2016 the question was as follows: ‘Which CIS country do you consider Russia’s most reliable partner?’

** Until 2017, surveys were conducted through household face-to-face interviews (‘Express’ project); stratified multi-stage sample, with quotas based on socio-demographic parameters; representative of the Russian population aged 18+, according to type of settlement, gender, age, education and federal district. Sample size: 1,600 respondents.
 

Author: Ilona Gezalyan