The head of Rossotrudnichestvo, Russia’s international assistance agency, has an ambitious plan for the Kremlin soft-power entity to fill development gaps created by the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). For that to happen, however, Rossotrudnichestvo will have to surmount major financing and image-related hurdles.

In a wide-ranging interview published by the Russian outlet RBC, the agency’s chief, Yevgeny Primakov, revealed that he is seeking to revamp and expand activities, taking advantage of USAID’s demise to build Russia’s global influence via the provision of development assistance. Despite being engulfed in a costly war, Russia needs to spend on soft-power initiatives, he argued, adding that it is imperative for Russian national security to maintain its cultural and economic position in the near-abroad, or the former constituent republics of the Soviet Union.

“We live in an active world, and we must be active,” he said. “We are a great power that has its own national interests abroad and that competes with other states, we must ensure the perimeter of our national interests, ensure that no one’s hostile military blocs, bases, etc. appear in it. …This is not charity – this is beneficial for the country.”

Created in 2008, Rossotrudnichestvo ostensibly has had a dual mission – to keep emigres connected to the “motherland” and to generate goodwill via the provision of humanitarian assistance. It operates in 70 countries around the world with a primary focus on former Soviet states and the European Union. The most visible aspect of the agency’s work is the operation of cultural centres, or Russia Houses. 

While he wants to reshape his agency along the lines of USAID, Primakov admitted that in a best-case scenario, a reorganised Rossotrudnichestvo would possess only a fraction of USAID’s budget and global reach. “Even matching nations such as Finland... would be a significant accomplishment,” he said.

Primakov appears to be seeking a massive budget increase for the agency – from its present $77mn annual allocation to upwards of $1.5bn. Whether the Russian government funds Primakov’s ambitions is an open question, and even if a large budget increase is approved, it is uncertain if Rossotrudnichestvo is capable of spending the money effectively and efficiently. 

Primakov acknowledged that only 25% of the agency’s current budget is spent on actual projects; the rest goes to administrative costs. For US non-profit organisations, the ratio is reversed: those deemed having efficient operations tend to have administrative costs under 25% of overall operating expenses.

And then there is the image issue.

Rossotrudnichestvo is widely viewed as providing cover for intelligence-gathering activities and mischief-making. For example, an analysis of Russia House operations in Czech capital Prague published in late 2024 by the Warsaw Institute characterised Rossotrudnichestvo as a front for spying.

“Its main tasks are to promote the Russian language and culture, support Russians living abroad or cooperate with scientific institutions in partner countries,” the analysis stated. “However, representatives of the institution are accused of propaganda and even intelligence activities. Similar suspicions are also confirmed by the intelligence services of the Czech Republic, which is why some local experts are advising the government to close the Russian House in Prague, which continues to operate without restrictions.”

Azerbaijan, which is currently locked in an increasingly bitter feud with the Kremlin, shut down the Russia House in Baku in early 2025. Meanwhile, officials in Kyrgyzstan detained a Russia House employee in April in the southern city of Osh on suspicion of trying to illegally recruit Kyrgyz nationals to serve as mercenaries in the Russian army fighting in Ukraine.

While he fleetingly acknowledged the image issue for Rossotrudnichestvo, Primakov framed it as a ‘them’ problem. He dismissed reports in the Azerbaijani press that Russia House employees were gathering intelligence as “stupid accusations.”

He also downplayed the notion that Russian actions constituted a major cause of rifts between Russia and other formerly Soviet republics, including Azerbaijan, Armenia and Moldova. He primarily blamed “grandiose forces,” code for Western agitation, for sowing dissension. “In addition, there is the work of local elites, often educated in Oxford and Cambridge, which is aimed at establishing their sovereignty according to the principle ‘we are not Russia, but anti-Russia,’” he added.

Primakov openly admitted that the agency’s agenda is aligned with Russian foreign policy priorities. The concept that a government-funded entity could act independently seemed utterly alien to him, even though the very agency he wants to emulate, USAID, had an independent mandate, funded by the government, but not taking orders from the State Department. “It is strange to expect from a federal executive body that it can operate outside of politics,” he stated.

His candour underscores perhaps the chief obstacle facing Rossotrudnichestvo, something that observers in Azerbaijan and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union describe as an imperial mindset that does more to alienate than attract admiration of Russia. At several points during his interview, flashes of imperial attitudes in Primakov surfaced. He complained, for instance, that ethnic Russians living in Azerbaijan were not loyal enough to Kremlin policies.

“The Russian community in Azerbaijan has made several statements, but not in support of Russia, but of their state — Azerbaijan,” he noted. “We would like our compatriots to show more sympathy towards the Motherland. I believe that Russia deserves that our compatriots, while maintaining clear loyalty to their own states, still treat Russia well.”

No matter the size of Rossotrudnichestvo’s budget in the coming years, Primakov specified that retaining Russian influence within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) will be the agency’s top priority.

The CIS “was, is and will be in our priority,” Primakov said. “I have always said that if we suddenly start to lose influence, for example in Luxembourg, we will manage it somehow. And if we start to lose influence in the neighbouring countries, which is what is happening now unfortunately, it will be catastrophic.”

This article first appeared on Eurasianet here.