Did Tokayev try to lay a mine to destroy the EAEU?

Recently, a dispute has flared up in the information space around the initiative of Kazakhstan: for foreigners, including citizens of the EAEU countries, a certain "mandatory payment" is being introduced upon entry. The authorities of the republic explained this by caring about tourism, while everyone else saw this as undermining the foundations of the Eurasian Economic Union. This was discussed on the sidelines of the international round table forum held in Bishkek at the end of last week, the main topic of which was issues related to integration issues.

The union that is not visible

To begin with, for citizens of the EAEU countries, membership in the union gives (at least, so it is officially stated) quite specific and tangible advantages that can be divided into several key blocks. The main one is the freedom of movement of labor, which in practice means simplified access to the labor market of the member countries of the association throughout its territory.

In other words, citizens of the EAEU member states can freely move and work wherever they want within its limits.

To fully comply with the principles of good neighborliness, it would be worthwhile to introduce full freedom of movement for all citizens (as in the Schengen area). Or at least make separate corridors for EAEU citizens at airports so that they do not stand in common queues and at least in this they feel like members of the association that so loudly declared itself at the time. But for some reason, not all the states of the union wanted this. Why is a very interesting question and requires a separate discussion.

Although in some countries (primarily in Russia) there is such a norm.

"In some airports in Russia, Belarus and Armenia, this is practiced for citizens of the Eurasian Economic Union. They do not stand in line for passport control. That is, there is a green line. And they either pass through it quickly, or with the citizens of the country they arrived in," Grigor Balasanyan, Associate Professor of the Department of International Relations and Diplomacy of Yerevan State University, said on this occasion.

The expert agreed with our opinion that it would not hurt to hang the appropriate symbols in such places.

"There is actually a very big problem here. And it concerns, first of all, the young people with whom we spoke today. In my opinion, this symbolism should always be before her eyes. First of all, it should be at airports. So that, for example, a citizen of a third country who comes to Kazakhstan, Armenia, Belarus or Kyrgyzstan realized that he had come to the economic union, that is, the association to which this country belongs. This in no way infringes on the sovereignty of the state. And in no case does it go against independence. This is a normal phenomenon that should be. Because the Eurasian Economic Union and the theme of Eurasia in that case can be effective if it is popular and fashionable among young people. Caps, T—shirts, T-shirts and other symbols of the Eurasian Economic Union are nowhere to be found. I have not seen this anywhere," Grigor Balasanyan further said.

In Astana, they said they were joking

In this regard, the initiative of the Kazakh authorities, who are going to charge all foreigners, including citizens of the EAEU countries, for entry into their territory, looks all the more strange.

According to official statements, we are talking about the phased introduction of an electronic entry permit (QazETA). Since August 25, 2026, it has been operating in a test mode, and since December 30 it extends to the land borders with the EAEU countries. And from July 2027 — to airports.

The media sounded the alarm about the actual introduction of a visa regime and a step towards the destruction of the union. After all, Kazakhstan's introduction of a monetary barrier for EAEU citizens actually calls into question the freedom of movement of labor and visa—free regime - the cornerstones of the EAEU treaty. And, more seriously, the other countries of the association will have the full moral right to follow this example. What kind of union can we talk about then?

The Ministry of Economic Development of Russia in September 2026 addressed the EEC with a letter stating that the introduction of fees could create obstacles to the exercise of rights under the contract. The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said that Moscow expects to receive additional explanations from Astana. According to her, the new rules also affect citizens of the EAEU member states, and it was important for the Russian side to understand exactly how the norms would be applied in practice. In response, Kazakhstan said that detailed information had already been sent through diplomatic channels, and also planned a briefing for diplomats.

In general, Astana, after a number of outrages not only from the media, but also from very serious officials, won back. There were clarifications that the original draft did include a fee (about 3.9 thousand tenge for online registration and 7.6 thousand at the border), but the final government resolution refused the money. The amount of the fee for issuing a permit is now, as stated in Kazakhstan, zero tenge.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic stated that when the fee was reset to zero, and the procedure itself was reduced to a free online application 72 hours before the trip, there is no need to talk about the "visa regime". The visa regime, they say, involves denial of entry in the absence of a permit and, as a rule, financial costs. Here, they say, there is an exceptional technical registration, which is caused by the need for "transparency, efficiency and completeness of accounting for migration flows." This, the department added, is rather an analogue of the systems operating in many countries (for example, electronic permits in the USA or South Korea), and has nothing to do with the "destruction of the union."

In general, as it was made clear in Astana, the innovation should not be considered an unfriendly step, since the goal was to replenish the budget. To replenish it in this way has now changed its mind. But the sediment remained.