The millions of Central Asian migrant workers in Russia have long been one of the most vulnerable groups, both economically and legally. Having existed as invisible laborers in Moscow's labour market, they have become part of a completely different dynamic since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.
Through legal loopholes, promises of citizenship and fear of deportation, the Kremlin uses migrants as a human resource depot, directing them directly to the frontline or to construction work in occupied territories. This process results in humanitarian tragedies and diplomatic and political dilemmas for Central Asian countries.
This instrumentalization of Central Asian migrant workers also reveals the link between Russia's domestic politics and the regional balance of power. While keeping the war as “distant” as possible from its own society, the Kremlin sees migrants as both cheap labour and easily sacrificed soldiers. This situation strikingly reveals how vulnerable groups are turned into political tools in today's wars.
In the war in Ukraine, Russia has made migrants a priority target to protect its society from the pressure of a new “general mobilization.” In particular, the Kremlin recruits Central Asian migrants, the most economically and legally vulnerable groups, with promises of low wages, fast citizenship or expungement of criminal records. However, most of these promises are either not fulfilled or only partially implemented.
According to human rights organizations, migrants are often recruited from migration centres, prisons or informal workplaces in Moscow and either driven directly to the front line or used to build military infrastructure on occupied Ukrainian territory.
This strategy provides a double win for the Kremlin. First, it protects Russia's central social segments (especially the Slavic population in cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg) from the heavy casualties of the war, thus preventing a social backlash in domestic politics.
Secondly, it sees migrants, whose legal status is weak and who often live under the threat of deportation, as an “expendable resource” and uses them on the most risky front lines. Indeed, data shows that Uzbek, Tajik and Kyrgyz migrants are often sent to the deadliest combat zones, and that don-senso military contracts have in reality turned into a one-way ticket.
This instrumentalization has radically changed the role of migrant labor in Russia's war strategy. Central Asians, who were previously used as invisible labour in construction, cleaning or low-skilled jobs, have now directly become the Kremlin's “security tool” in the logistical and military dimension of the war. In this way, Russia both suppresses the dissatisfaction of its own society and conceals the cost of the war to the international community. However, this situation reveals that Central Asian migrants are used not only at the economic but also at the geopolitical level, making them invisible victims of a war being waged against their will.
Although Central Asian governments state in their official discourse that they oppose their citizens participating in conflicts on foreign soil, the impact of these policies appears to be limited. While fighting in foreign armies is prohibited by law, in practice these prohibitions are largely symbolic. The different approaches taken by individuals participating in conflicts, particularly the frequent disregard for the thousands fighting on certain sides, highlight the "strategic silence" pursued by the region's countries in foreign policy and their fragile position vis-a-vis Moscow.
Behind this silence lie both economic and geopolitical reasons. Regional economies are heavily dependent on remittances sent by migrant workers abroad. This flow constitutes an important balancing factor in national budgets, and the possibility of political tension leading to a reduction in these resources and economic instability is prompting governments to adopt a cautious policy.
However, this silence carries significant long-term risks to national security and sovereignty. The families of citizens killed or missing in action often cannot access information, while diaspora communities are organising via social media to put pressure on both Moscow and their own governments. More importantly, the potential for radicalisation among individuals who have gained combat experience on the front lines could directly threaten the region's internal security. Therefore, although the policy of silence may yield short-term economic benefits, it is likely to create a problematic situation for social stability in the long term.
