Unearthing a Nuclear Goldmine: Why Western Companies MUST Invest in Kazakhstan's SMR Future

05.24.2025

By Nurul Rakhimbek

Central Asia, a region long defined by its delicate geopolitical balance and vast energy reserves, is now charting a bold new course: a decisive pivot towards nuclear power. At the heart of this transformation lies Kazakhstan, a nation strategically poised to redefine its energy future. For shrewd Western companies, particularly those pioneering Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), this isn't merely a business opportunity; it's a critical moment to secure a strategic foothold, tap into a literal and figurative nuclear goldmine, and subtly re-shape regional power dynamics in a rapidly evolving energy landscape.

Kazakhstan: From Uranium Titan to Nuclear Powerhouse

Kazakhstan's journey with uranium is etched deep into its modern history. Beginning in the 1950s, the vast deposits discovered, particularly in the Chu-Syrdarya region, made it a cornerstone of the Soviet Union's nuclear program. This legacy not only established a robust mining industry but also forged intricate operational ties with Moscow's nuclear complex. Today, Kazakhstan stands as the undisputed global leader in uranium mining, holding a staggering 14% of the world's resources and consistently producing over 40% of its global supply. Its state-owned Kazatomprom, one of the world's largest uranium producers, frequently operates through joint ventures with international partners, including those from Russia and China.

Yet, despite this immense subsurface wealth, Kazakhstan’s domestic energy landscape tells a starkly different story. It relies heavily on an aging and environmentally challenging coal-dominated grid, with coal accounting for approximately 65% of its power generation. The urgency for change is palpable: its power stations operate with an alarming 70% average "wear and tear," and the nation faces a projected energy deficit reaching 17.4 billion kWh by 2035, a stark contrast to its current consumption of 120 billion kWh against 117.9 billion kWh generation in 2024. This shortfall, currently offset by imports primarily from Russia, directly threatens Kazakhstan's economic growth and stability.

The strategic shift towards nuclear power is now undeniable and deeply rooted in popular will. A national referendum in October 2024 saw a resounding 70% of Kazakh voters back new nuclear energy, providing President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev with a powerful mandate. He has since established a dedicated national nuclear energy agency, declaring the ambition to build "not one, but three nuclear power plants to establish a full-fledged nuclear cluster." This isn't just about plugging an energy gap; it’s about leveraging its immense uranium wealth to elevate its geopolitical standing and secure long-term energy resilience. This is where Western SMR technology steps into the spotlight.

The SMR Revolution: A Pragmatic Fit for Kazakhstan’s Uranium-Powered Future

The traditional model of large-scale nuclear power plants, with their multi-billion dollar price tags, decade-plus construction timelines, and complex public perception challenges, often deters new entrants. However, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), typically producing up to 300 megawatts of electricity per unit, offer a fundamentally different, more agile, and politically palatable solution perfectly suited to Kazakhstan's unique circumstances.

Crucially, SMRs present a direct and immediate opportunity to realize Kazakhstan's ambition of transforming its raw uranium wealth into domestic energy security. Imagine the strategic advantage of generating power using its own abundant fuel, produced by its own mines. This move up the value chain strengthens national sovereignty and reduces reliance on external energy sources, aligning precisely with Western goals of fostering energy independence in key regions.

SMRs are designed for factory fabrication and modular assembly, dramatically reducing on-site construction times and costs, which translates into quicker power generation. This "plug-and-play" capability allows Kazakhstan to scale its energy capacity precisely as demand grows, even in geographically dispersed regions far from existing grid infrastructure. This is vital for a vast country where remote industrial centers and population hubs are often underserved, and where SMRs can provide decentralized power, supporting regional development, and powering isolated mining operations directly with the very uranium they extract.

Furthermore, SMRs embody a new era of nuclear safety. Their modern designs incorporate advanced passive safety systems that rely on natural forces to maintain safe conditions, inherently reducing the risk of meltdowns and radioactive releases. This enhanced safety is particularly sensitive and important in Kazakhstan, a nation deeply aware of its nuclear past due to the legacy of the Soviet-era Semipalatinsk Test Site. Building crucial public trust in nuclear energy is paramount, and Western SMR designs are built to earn it.

From an environmental perspective, SMRs offer a powerful tool for decarbonization. As Kazakhstan targets carbon neutrality by 2060, SMRs produce near-zero carbon emissions, providing reliable, baseload power that perfectly complements intermittent renewable sources like solar and wind, enabling a practical and sustainable transition away from coal without sacrificing grid stability.

Why Western Investors? A Strategic Imperative Beyond Profit

The geopolitical stakes in Central Asia are undeniably high. Russia and China have long held significant sway, often using large-scale energy projects as tools of influence, sometimes accompanied by less transparent terms or long-term dependencies. For Western companies, investing in Kazakhstan's SMR future transcends mere commercial interest; it becomes a critical strategic imperative:

By providing cutting-edge SMR technology, rigorous regulatory expertise, and unparalleled safety assurances, Western nations can offer a compelling and transparent alternative to Russian and Chinese nuclear offerings. This directly supports Kazakhstan's declared "multi-vector" foreign policy, allowing it to genuinely diversify its strategic partnerships and reduce over-reliance on any single power. Western nuclear projects are synonymous with stringent safety standards, robust regulatory oversight, and transparent contractual frameworks. This fosters deeper trust, not only in the technology itself but also in the long-term partnership, creating a powerful differentiator from less open agreements that could lead to unforeseen obligations.

The United States, with companies like Westinghouse, NuScale Power, Holtec International, and TerraPower, leads the world in advanced SMR development. By championing these proven technologies in Kazakhstan, Western companies can solidify their leadership in a burgeoning global market, driving innovation and shaping the future of nuclear energy on a global scale. Beyond initial construction, SMR projects create enduring economic ties through long-term operational and maintenance contracts, secure fuel supply agreements that could integrate Kazakh uranium, and opportunities for joint research and development. This establishes a sustainable economic footprint that benefits both partners for decades.

Seizing the Moment: A Call to Action for Western Firms

The recent net outflow of $870 million in U.S. investment from Kazakhstan in 2024—the first such occurrence since 2005—serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for renewed strategic engagement. The window of opportunity in Kazakhstan's evolving energy market is wide open, but geopolitical shifts are dynamic, and it will not remain so indefinitely.

To effectively capitalize on this, Western governments and companies must:

• Prioritize SMR Investment with Robust Public-Private Support: Actively promote and financially support SMR projects, leveraging institutions like the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) or European equivalents. This public-private partnership model can significantly de-risk investments and demonstrate a tangible, high-level commitment to Kazakhstan's energy future and resilience.

• Strengthen Diplomatic Bridges and Commercial Facilitation: Engage in robust and consistent diplomatic efforts, not just at the ministerial level, but also through dedicated commercial attachés focused on energy. This fosters mutual trust, helps navigate bureaucratic hurdles, and demonstrates a long-term partnership that transcends mere commercial transactions.

• Invest in Human Capital Through Joint Programs: Collaborate on comprehensive training programs, scholarships, and educational initiatives with Kazakh universities and technical schools. This will build a highly skilled local workforce capable of operating, maintaining, and eventually even designing advanced SMR technologies.

• Showcase Proven Success and Pilot Projects: Highlight successful SMR deployments or advanced-stage projects in other stable, emerging markets. A successful pilot project in Kazakhstan, perhaps with a smaller, industrially focused SMR, could serve as a powerful proof of concept, demonstrating the technology's reliability and accelerating broader adoption.

What Kazakhstan Must Do: Building Trust and Navigating Geopolitics

While the advantages for Western companies are clear, Kazakhstan also bears significant responsibility in making itself an irresistible destination for SMR investment. Attracting and retaining top-tier Western nuclear players requires a proactive, predictable, and politically astute approach, particularly considering past challenges and its unique geopolitical position.

Firstly, cultivating a clear, stable, and predictable regulatory framework for SMRs is the bedrock of investor confidence. Western nuclear companies operate within highly stringent regulatory environments. Kazakhstan needs to expedite the development and implementation of a robust, transparent, and internationally harmonized regulatory framework specifically tailored for small modular reactors (SMRs). This includes clear, efficient licensing procedures, safety standards aligned with IAEA recommendations, and predictable pathways for project approval that do not suffer from sudden, unexpected changes. The newly established national nuclear energy agency should prioritize this as its foundational task, consulting extensively with experienced international nuclear regulators.

Secondly, ensuring ironclad legal certainty and robust investor protection is paramount. High-profile cases, such as the ongoing arbitration dispute over the Kashagan Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) where Kazakh authorities are reportedly claiming a staggering $160 billion from international oil companies, alleging they took 98% of oil revenue, send significant ripples of concern through the investor community. While the Kazakh government may assert legitimate grievances stemming from agreements signed decades ago, the perception of risk regarding contractual stability is a critical barrier to new, long-term investments.

To mitigate this:

• Kazakhstan must consistently uphold the sanctity of contracts for new agreements. While legacy contracts may be subject to renegotiation, the process must be transparent, fair, and rigorously adhere to international legal norms. For new SMR investments, absolute assurance that agreed-upon terms will be respected throughout the project's lifecycle – potentially spanning 60-80 years for nuclear plants – is essential.

• It must strengthen and actively promote accessible dispute resolution mechanisms. While Kazakhstan utilizes international arbitration, consistently demonstrating respect for arbitral awards is crucial. The Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC), with its English common law principles and independent court system, offers a promising, investor-friendly alternative for dispute resolution, and Kazakhstan should actively promote its use for complex SMR investment agreements.

• Proactive and transparent communication from Kazakh authorities is vital when revisiting long-term agreements. Ambiguity is the greatest deterrent; clear, consistent messaging builds confidence.

Beyond legal frameworks, Kazakhstan must offer genuinely competitive and predictable incentives that effectively de-risk investment, ensuring they are clearly defined and consistently applied. Simultaneously, investing in local supply chain development and robust workforce capacity building is crucial, as Western companies seek not just a market, but a sustainable ecosystem. Finally, impeccable transparency in procurement and project governance is non-negotiable. Past concerns about procurement transparency in large infrastructure projects need to be addressed to foster trust and mitigate perceived risks for foreign investors.

Calming the Giants: A Realistic Approach to Russia and China

Navigating the concerns of major neighbors like Russia and China, who hold significant stakes in Kazakhstan's resource sector, particularly uranium, is the most delicate aspect of this strategic pivot. Kazakhstan's "multi-vector" foreign policy is a pragmatic necessity. Kazatomprom already has numerous joint ventures with Russian (e.g., Uranium One, part of Rosatom) and Chinese (e.g., CNNC, CGN) entities for uranium mining. The recent sale of Russian stakes in Kazakh uranium joint ventures to Chinese companies further intertwines their interests in the Kazakh uranium supply chain.

Successfully integrating Western SMR technology while maintaining this diplomatic balance requires a sophisticated and politically astute strategy from Astana:

The primary message from Kazakhstan must consistently be domestic energy security and climate action, not geopolitical competition. The narrative should center on its growing internal energy deficit and its legal commitment to carbon neutrality by 2060. This frames the SMR pursuit as a response to urgent national necessity and a shared global objective (clean energy) that all partners can contribute to, rather than a direct challenge to existing arrangements. The vast projected energy shortfall by 2035 provides a powerful, undeniable domestic justification.

Kazakhstan can emphasize the distinct value proposition of SMRs for specific needs. SMRs' modularity, suitability for decentralized power (e.g., for remote industrial sites or specific regional grids), and rapid deployment capabilities can be presented as complementary technologies, rather than directly displacing existing large-scale projects or established uranium extraction joint ventures. This creates a specific "niche" for Western SMRs within Kazakhstan's broader, diverse energy strategy, which can reduce direct friction.

While prioritizing Western SMRs for strategic reasons (safety, technology, geopolitical alignment), Kazakhstan must ensure that any vendor selection processes remain transparent and competitive. If Russian or Chinese entities choose to develop and offer SMR solutions that meet Kazakhstan's rigorous safety, technical, and economic requirements, they should be given a fair chance to bid. This signals neutrality and adherence to market principles, even as strategic preferences may exist, helping to avoid a perception of arbitrary exclusion that could provoke strong negative reactions.

Critically, maintaining robust and consistent diplomatic dialogue with Moscow and Beijing is paramount. Kazakh leaders should clearly articulate their energy strategy, the rationale for pursuing SMRs (emphasizing domestic needs and the distinct benefits of SMR technology), and provide reassurances about the stability of existing long-term uranium supply contracts for export. This proactive communication helps manage expectations and prevent misinterpretations or escalations of geopolitical tensions. Finally, Kazakhstan can strategically leverage its domestic uranium use incrementally, not abruptly. By using a portion of its vast uranium reserves for domestic SMR power generation, it enhances its energy independence and adds value. This internal shift can subtly influence the global uranium market without directly confronting existing export commitments or joint ventures, focusing instead on meeting its own critical energy needs.

The nuclear frontier in Central Asia is not merely about kilowatt-hours, many megawatts; it is about influence, stability, and strategic alignment in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape. For Western companies, especially those in the SMR sector, Kazakhstan represents an unparalleled opportunity to unearth a new kind of goldmine, one that promises not just profits but a pivotal role in shaping a more secure, sustainable, and diversified global energy future. The time for Western companies to act decisively is now, and with these proactive and politically astute steps, Kazakhstan can truly cement its position as a global nuclear energy hub while skillfully navigating its complex regional dynamics.

The Murder of Dialogue: Political Violence in the Age of Civilizational Transition

05.23.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

It will soon be a year since Kazakh journalist and opposition figure Aidos Sadykov was killed in Kyiv on July 2, 2024. On the evening of May 21 this year, at approximately 9:08 p.m., 31-year-old Elias Rodriguez from Chicago opened fire outside the Capitol Jewish Museum, killing Yaron Liszczynski (30) and Sarah Milgrim (26), employees of the Israeli embassy and a couple preparing for their engagement. They were attending an event dedicated to interfaith dialogue and humanitarian aid to Gaza.

I believe these two events are deeply connected. They are alarming signals of ongoing—and in many cases escalating—violence around the world. The murders of diplomats, opposition figures, journalists, and activists are not just individual tragedies, but symptoms of a deeper systemic instability: the degradation of international and domestic norms.

Each such crime erodes trust in both security and the rule of law, especially when it involves diplomats, who should be protected under international law, or opposition figures, whose existence is vital for political pluralism. In general, the murder of iconic public figures should be viewed as a sign of crisis in the global system of checks and balances. When politically motivated killings occur even in the capitals of countries like the United States, it calls into question the effectiveness and universality of international norms.

Clearly, the murder of public figures reflects a growing intensity in geopolitical and ideological confrontations, where state and non-state actors increasingly use physical elimination as a strategic tool. Taken together, these events confirm that the world is entering a transitional phase—one where traditional mechanisms for conflict regulation, such as diplomacy, the United Nations, and international law, are proving ineffective in the face of new forms of violence.

This demands a reevaluation of violence management methods. Each historical regime—modernity, postmodernity, and now the age of civilizational texturing—develops its systems of managing violence that align with the logic of the era, its institutions, and its anthropological sensitivity.

During the era of modernity (17th–20th centuries), violence was managed through centralization and a monopoly on force (as described by Weber). The state became the sole legitimate actor of violence, establishing armies, police forces, and courts in a vertical structure of control. International law served as a tool of war and peace, exemplified by the Westphalian system that eventually led to the formation of the UN. Racism and colonialism were institutionalized forms of external violence. Thus, violence was legalized through the state and the empire.

In the postmodern era (late 20th to early 21st century), the logic of governance underwent significant changes. Metanarratives lost legitimacy, and the subjects of violence became fragmented. New actors — terrorists, corporations, private military companies, and hackers—emerged. Information violence gave rise to simulacra of fear (as Baudrillard argued). States lost their monopoly on violence, and global zones of instability emerged. While human rights ideologies aimed to counter systemic violence, they often became tools for new political interventions—recall the assassination attempt on Donald Trump and the rise of radical right-wing ideologies. Violence became dispersed, borderless, and networked, manifesting through extremist groups, proxies, terrorist parties (like Hamas), and organized cyberattacks by states, groups, and individuals.

Now, in the era of civilizational texturing — the post-global 21st century—the logic of violence management must evolve into a synergy of ethical, cultural, and technological tools for reprogramming the structure of conflict itself.

I propose the following new principles for managing violence:

1. Decentralized Ethical and Cultural Architecture: Each civilization must develop its own means of neutralizing violence based on internal codes. The principle should not be the universalization of force, but the universalization of peacekeeping culture.

2. Cognopolitics and Conflict Management through Cognitive Environments: Artificial intelligence, neural networks, media, and algorithms must be governed by the ethics of dialogue, not manipulation. We must create peacekeeping AI capable of predicting and preventing conflict before it escalates.

3. Civilizational Ombudsmen and Violence Interceptors: Transnational structures of civil moderators—spiritual leaders, philosophers, and artists—should be involved in negotiations on equal footing with politicians.

4. The Culture of Nonviolence as an Educational Paradigm: "Violence is a thinking error." Future education should teach individuals to see aggression as a failure of identity, a response to trauma or fear, not a display of power.

5. Global Biosocial Security: Based on the principle, “Without peace between humans and nature, there can be no peace between civilizations.” The destruction of ecosystems is also a form of violence. Ecological protection ("econation") must become part of anti-war policy.

In this new era, the management of violence must no longer be the sole responsibility of the state or security forces. It becomes a “textural” function of civilization, embedded in its philosophy, culture, technology, and ethics. We cannot manage 21st-century violence with 20th-century tools. The fabric of the world has changed. We need a new ethical and ontological framework in which violence is not simply controlled but understood as a trauma to be healed.

As for political assassinations, they are especially unacceptable in our time. They destroy faith in the very idea of dialogue. Politics is the language of words, persuasion, and compromise. When it is replaced by a bullet, the space for differences disappears. Murder cancels the future—the future in which negotiation, change, and alternatives are still possible.

These acts set a precedent for impunity. If opposition figures can be murdered, then dissent itself can be erased. This leads to self-censorship, stagnation of thought, and societal decay. Fear becomes the foundation of power, not law or legitimacy. This is the road to political necrostructures, where violence outlives ideas.

In a multipolar and culturally complex world, the right to dissent is the cornerstone of civilizational coexistence. Political assassination must be recognized not just as a crime, but as a rejection of our shared civilizational contract and the dream of global ethical consensus.

Firstly, Political murder must be declared a crime against civilization, not just condemned but treated with the same institutional severity as crimes against humanity. Secondly, A Global Registry of Political Crimes must be established—an independent body tracking the killings of oppositionists, activists, journalists, and diplomats. Thirdly, Automated Sanctions Mechanisms must be implemented—any state implicated in a political assassination should immediately lose its right to participate in international forums until the case is fully investigated. Fourthly, an Ethical Code for Global Leaders must become binding—each head of state should sign a declaration rejecting political violence, with violations resulting in loss of international legitimacy. And lastly, political murder must be a core part of global civic education. The world must understand: when a thought is murdered through the murder of its speaker, meaning itself is destroyed.

"Trump the Tectonic Agent: Redefining Global Power Through Contradiction"

05.16.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

Trade agreements and new geopolitical alignments are not just policy shifts—they are signs of texturation, a profound transformation in the structure of international relations. Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Donald Trump, we are witnessing the emergence of Tectonopoly: a transitional phase from postmodernism to texturalism.

Trump is the leading agent of texturation in today’s world. His actions—whether normalizing ties with unconventional actors, reconfiguring alliances, or reshaping trade regimes—reveal the figure of an architect facilitating the transition from postmodern fragmentation to a textured, pragmatic order. He disrupts binary oppositions (good/evil, terrorist/statist, ally/enemy) and introduces a new mechanics of political meaning—dynamic, situational, and non-ideological.

Consider the event in Riyadh, where Trump met with Ahmed al-Sharaa. This was not merely a diplomatic gesture; it signaled a tectonic shift in the ontology of global politics. It transcended the Syrian conflict and reverberated across the Muslim-Arab world. Tectonopoly does not arise from global consensus. It is born from the fusion of contradictions—from the coupling of fragments once thought irreconcilable. This new order is not hierarchical but dense: it textures political space through acts of pragmatic will rather than appeals to normative truth.

This meeting also set a precedent: the legitimization of former radicals and terrorists. It demonstrated that the United States, under Trump, is willing to revise political labels if on-the-ground realities shift. In this framework, Realpolitik Trump’s ideological or moral judgment. What matters is not a leader’s past, but their potential to bring stability and utility.

Previously, I wrote about a different expression of this political meta-realism—for instance, Kazakhstan and the Turkic states’ stance on the Russia-Ukraine war. Their strategic neutrality, maintaining relations with Russia while respecting sanctions, was once conducted discreetly, almost silently, so as not to provoke. Now, under Trump’s influence, such behavior becomes explicit and generalized. Trump is unafraid to forge "impossible" agreements. He may well travel to Turkey to bring Putin and Zelensky to the negotiating table.

In this light, Trump is not a contradiction to the liberal world order. He is a figure of transition—not an architect of a new global design, but a tectonic agent, the bearer of a fundamental shift.

Disclaimer: The article represents a personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the Center’s official position.

The Ribbon and the Regiment: Memory, Nostalgia, and the Quiet War for the Past

05.10.2025

By Nurul Rakhimbek

In the former Soviet world, memory is no longer a private thing. It walks in the streets each spring, worn on jackets, raised on banners, held in trembling hands. But look a little closer, and you’ll see: these aren’t just symbols of the past. They are tools of persuasion. A soft power, disguised as sentiment.

The “St. George’s ribbon”, the “Immortal Regiment” marches, the annual “Victory Day commemorations” — these rituals, once rooted in mourning and gratitude, have been quietly repurposed. They no longer serve only to remember World War II. They have become instruments of modern geopolitics. And in the shadows of these performances, a deeper struggle is taking place — not over history itself, but over who gets to tell it.

The Past as a Dividing Line

Across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, this subtle reweaving of memory has had very real consequences.

In Eastern Ukraine, the ribbon became a badge of allegiance — one that marked out loyalties more sharply than any passport. In Transnistria, it wrapped itself around the heart of the Moldovan identity struggle. In Georgia’s South Ossetia, Russian nostalgia has been deployed like a soft-spoken soldier, reinforcing Moscow’s presence with the quiet authority of “shared heritage.”

These aren’t isolated cases. They’re part of a pattern—a strategy that replaces tanks with traditions, and maps with myths. And yet, the strategy works because it speaks in the language of longing.

Nostalgia’s Quiet Power

What makes these symbols so effective is not that they lie. It’s that they remember selectively.

For millions, the Soviet era still evokes a sense of structure, purpose, and pride. The post-Soviet years brought chaos and fragmentation. In that vacuum, many reach for the old world — not because it was perfect, but because it was “theirs”. The black-and-orange ribbon offers a thread back to a time when things felt clearer.

That emotional pull is hard to resist. Which is why resistance, when it comes, often looks quiet — like someone simply choosing not to wear a ribbon, or a community gently stepping away from the familiar march.

A Different Path Through the Past

In Kazakhstan, that quiet resistance began to take shape years ago. Some intellectuals, cultural figures, and civic leaders began to question whether these imported rituals still served the country’s values, or if they were stitching Kazakhstan’s future to someone else’s past.

In 2015, a pivotal moment came when several voices, including the author, quiet but firm, called for the removal of the St. George’s ribbon from national commemoration practices. They argued not against memory itself, but against memory being borrowed, politicized, and weaponized. Their efforts stirred public debate, but ultimately, the ribbon was withdrawn from official events.

A decade later, in 2025, the conversation matured into action: the Immortal Regiment marches were discontinued nationwide. The reasoning was clear. Kazakhstan was not erasing the past, but choosing to remember it on its own terms. To honor sacrifice without importing the narratives that now accompany it elsewhere.

This wasn’t the work of a single figure or decree. It was the slow, deliberate work of cultural and political conscience—of a society beginning to ask: whose memory are we keeping? Whose story are we retelling?

Healing Without Illusion

True remembrance isn’t about nostalgia. It’s about clarity. Kazakhstan has begun the difficult work of creating new symbols—ones that speak to its own wounds and triumphs. Commemorations now look more inward: toward stories of repression under Stalin, toward Kazakh soldiers who fought in the war but never fit into the Russian narrative, toward communities that lost far more than they gained in the Soviet experiment.

The shift is subtle, but profound. It's not about replacing one set of symbols with another, but about **recovering agency over meaning**. About creating a space where history can be remembered, not re-enacted.

A Future Rooted in Honest Memory

Russia still tries to lead with sentiment. It tells its neighbors: remember how close we once were? Remember who we were, together?

But in places like Kazakhstan, the answer is no longer silence — or submission. It’s careful reflection. It’s the quiet decision not to pin on a ribbon. It’s the understanding that the future demands more than memory — it demands ownership of memory.

And sometimes, the most powerful resistance is simply choosing what not to carry forward.

Crisis of Postmodernism and the Challenge of National Texturization

05.10.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

Today, I want to briefly reflect on the unfolding crisis of postmodernism through the lens of “national texturization” — the process through which countries shape and maintain cohesive civilizational identities.

1. The Need for an Ethnocultural Core

True texturization, as a long-term civilizational process, is difficult to sustain without a strong “ethnocultural core.” Countries like Kazakhstan or Japan possess such a core, providing symbolic gravity and cultural continuity. In contrast, the United States lacks a unifying cultural nucleus, making its national identity far more dependent on economic and political frameworks. This leads to instability and fragmentation in its cultural fabric.

2. Trumpism as a Civilizational Reboot

Donald Trump’s political movement should not be viewed merely as an electoral phenomenon. It represents an ideological attempt to reboot American identity, centered on the white Christian ethnocultural narrative that historically underpinned the United States. In Trump’s worldview, this core has been diluted by globalism, multiculturalism, and a liberal ideology that has arguably outlived its coherence.

We are witnessing deep **civilizational frictions** within the U.S.: between “white America,” African-American identity, Latin American cultural influence, and the rising presence of Asian-American perspectives. These overlapping yet competing loyalties have weakened the integrative power once held by the idea of the “American Dream,” which no longer resonates as a unifying myth across all communities.

3. Fragmentation Over Integration

Cultural fragmentation is replacing national integration. In some cases, this results in explicit calls for autonomy, such as the recurring discussions of “Californian secession.” In this fractured landscape, the fierce opposition to Trump from Democrats is not just political—it is cultural and civilizational.

Historically, the U.S. was a leading model of civilizational texturing, especially during the 20th century. But that model is now **overloaded** and under pressure from within. The country lacks a stable cultural center amid growing identity conflicts.

4. A Return to the “Golden Age”

Trump’s nostalgic vision of the “1950s–70s America” — a period dominated by Anglo-Protestant values, capitalist certainty, and cultural homogeneity—is central to his political messaging. His immigration policies, harsh as they may be, are part of a broader “rejection of multiculturalism” and an effort to reinstate a cultural hierarchy where traditional “white America” holds primacy.

This can be interpreted as a “civilizational counterattack” against Latin American expansion, African-American cultural assertion, Muslim and Asian influence, and progressive ideologies such as feminism, postcolonialism, and LGBTQ+ rights. His stance is not just nationalistic—it is tectonic, reshaping the ideological boundaries of American identity.

5. Language, Borders, and Civilizational Boundaries

Trump’s emphasis on English as the official language, strict immigration controls, and the militarization of borders (especially with Mexico) are symbolic efforts to reassert both cultural and territorial boundaries. This aligns with our theory of “Tectonopoly” — a transformational period in which civilizations redefine their internal and external limits to shape the “Genosphere”, or the global sphere of meanings and identities.

6. The United States: Still a Laboratory, But Not a Model

The U.S. remains a powerful “laboratory of texturing”, but it is no longer a universal template. Its internal contradictions have reached a point where it cannot offer a globally sustainable model for civilizational development.

By contrast, Kazakhstan, when seen through the lens of our metaphysical and conceptual framework, has the potential to offer a more balanced approach. We propose a model where an ethnocultural center coexists with multiethnic pluralism, supported by a shared language, coherent symbols, and a forward-looking civilizational vision.

Disclaimer: The article represents a personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the Center’s official position.

The Logic of Power Within Tectonopoly: Russia's Strategic Stance

05.09.2025

The Logic of Power Within Tectonopoly: Russia's Strategic Stance

Within the framework of tectonopoly—a global system where each major power operates as a civilizational tectonic plate—President Vladimir Putin’s strategy is not one of concession, but of strategic endurance. His position is defined not by transactional diplomacy, but by a deeper commitment to Russia’s civilizational sovereignty and historical agency.

From this perspective, Putin is unlikely to offer concessions to either the United States or Ukraine. For the Russian leadership, concessions are not merely political compromises; they are perceived as strategic retreats—erosions of Russia’s civilizational density. In a world where Russia feels pressure from multiple fronts—NATO's encroachment, China's growing influence, and shifting dynamics among domestic elites—a retreat would signal weakness and invite further strain on the system.

For Putin, the stakes transcend territorial claims. What is at play is Russia’s historical subjectivity—its right to define its own destiny and remain a sovereign pole in the global civilizational structure. In tectonopoly, any unilateral concession—especially one lacking reciprocal benefit—would constitute a dangerous deformation of this civilizational plate. It would risk undermining internal cohesion and embolden external pressure.

Even if informal dialogue continues between Moscow and Washington—perhaps through backchannel diplomacy or a speculative "grand bargain"—such engagement is more likely to take the form of cautious mutual probing rather than genuine rapprochement or capitulation. Both sides understand the symbolic and strategic costs of perceived weakness.

On the issue of sanctions, while new measures will undoubtedly be introduced, their marginal effectiveness is waning. Financial and technological restrictions are increasingly absorbed by Russia's pivot toward alternative partners—chiefly China, India, and the Middle East. As traditional sanctions plateau, we are entering the era of Sanctions 3.0: cognitive and informational containment. This includes limitations on knowledge exchange, artificial intelligence collaboration, academic partnerships, and access to advanced research ecosystems.

Within this evolving architecture, Putin cannot afford to back down. To do so would not simply signal political compromise, but would trigger a tectonic shift with deep implications for Russia’s internal stability and external posture. The United States appears to recognize this strategic calculus. Accordingly, its long-term approach is less about forcing immediate concessions and more about applying sustained pressure—creating the conditions for an internal recalibration of power within Russia itself.

This suggests a protracted conflict. The war will likely persist—not because compromise is impossible in theory, but because, under current paradigms, it is structurally incompatible with Russia's chosen civilizational stance. The eventual collapse of the Putin regime is increasingly seen by some as the only scenario under which substantive change can occur—and it may come sooner than many anticipate.

A Message for a New Era: Towards the Genosphere

05.09.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

The newly elected Pope Leo XIV has issued a powerful appeal for unity, calling on humanity to "be one people." In his address, he acknowledged the enduring resonance of Pope Francis's voice, even in the final days of his life, and emphasized the importance of building bridges—a message that deeply echoes the vision put forth by Xi Jinping in 2012, when he proposed the creation of a "Community of Shared Destiny for Humanity."

These parallel calls for unity align closely with our own concept of the Genosphere—a comprehensive and structured framework for constructing a common human civilization. The Genosphere outlines specific causes, pathways, and directions by which civilizations can coexist through mutual enrichment, while preserving their inclusivity and sovereignty.

The future of humanity, we believe, will be composed of multiple civilizations—interacting on equal terms across many levels. While current tensions at the borders of these civilizational zones remain a reality, we hold that within the span of a single human generation, these conflicts will be addressed through mutual understanding and cooperation.

This applies most urgently to the major geopolitical flashpoints of our time: the war between Ukraine and Russia, conflicts in the Middle East, and tensions between India and Pakistan—all of which represent civilizational clashes of significant magnitude. In resolving these, historical truth, moral considerations, and metaphysical contexts will ultimately play decisive roles.

Indeed, recent developments—such as the cultural reintegration of Kakrabah—underscore the importance of moral, cultural-historical, and anthropological foundations in shaping peaceful outcomes. We foresee similar resolutions in long-standing tensions such as those between Moldova and Transnistria, Georgia and South Ossetia, and Georgia and Abkhazia. Unlike the first group of conflicts, these are less likely to escalate into full-scale war, and more likely to evolve into zones of cultural resonance and ontological convergence.

If we were to depict the emerging world order as a tectonic map, the main civilizational "plates" would include: the United States, China, India, the European Union, the Islamic world, the Turkic world, Russia, Africa, and global digital corporations. Friction zones—where civilizational pressures intersect—will include Taiwan, the Arctic, Central Asia (particularly if a Turkic Union fails to materialize), the Balkans, and Cyberspace.

In navigating this transitional period, the following principles of Toponopoly—or geopolitical pluralism—will be essential:

1. Plurality without universalism

2. Sovereignty without isolation

3. Competition without hostility

4. Technological supremacy as a new axis of power

5. The cognitive realm as a key arena of influence

We are entering a prolonged phase of tectonic adjustment—where universalist ideologies will gradually lose traction, giving way to a new balance founded on pluralistic multilateralism. This balance will not be born from compromise, but from a conscious weaving together of diverse threads: political, civilizational, and ideological.

In this emerging Genosphere, artificial intelligence, ecology, metascience, and predictive modeling will not be imposed, but will arise organically as the neural architecture of a new world order. We envision a future shaped not by the clash of civilizations, but by their co-creation; not by hierarchy, but by resonance; not by domination, but by collaboration.

In metaphysical and intellectual terms, this vision reflects what Vladimir Vernadsky once called the Noosphere—a realm where human consciousness and the biosphere evolve together.

What do you think of this vision, friends?

The Age of Tectonopoly: From Global Deconstruction to Civilizational Texturing

05.08.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

We are living in an extraordinary time. With what might be called the "light hand" of Donald Trump, the global deconstruction of the old world order has begun. The era of Modernity—characterized by universalist projects such as reason, progress, science, and a singular historical subject— has reached its conclusion. Not because it failed, but because it fulfilled its trajectory. Its logic is complete.

Postmodernity, which followed, did not offer peace or a coherent alternative. Instead, it dismantled the old narrative — deconstructing it, ironizing it, fragmenting it — without constructing anything in its place. That phase, too, is now exhausted.

Trump’s geopolitical interventions, as I have previously argued, have ushered the world into a new phase — a stage of “reassembly”. In this context, conventional categories such as “globalization,” “universalism,” “center and periphery,” “unipolarity,” and even “multipolarity” have become insufficient to describe the new reality.

This reassembly is not a return to tradition, nor a conservative turn, nor a resurgence of nationalism. It is not reactionary. It is something entirely new — “a new genesis”, a global emergence of multiplicity, where each civilization not only preserves itself but becomes a fully-fledged *form of the world*.

We are entering the Era of Texturing: not a chaotic diversity, but a structured multiplicity of civilizations. In this new paradigm, civilizations are not merely “cultures” or “states”—they are *ontological projects*: distinct conceptions of humanity, being, time, justice, and the future.

This is not a new Cold War. There are no clear ideological binaries, no complete systemic divides. Conflicts today are no longer shaped by rigid blocs. They are *textured*—diverse, multidimensional. The digital and cognitive realms have moved to the forefront of global tension.

States and civilizations are no longer simply enemies or allies. They are “tectons” — neighboring plates of reality. Sometimes they converge, sometimes they collide, but they no longer merge into a singular whole, nor do they seek total annihilation. Hostility has been replaced by tense coexistence. Alliances are formed through pragmatic interests, not enduring ideological commitments.

The wars of our time — Ukraine and Russia, Indo-Pakistani tensions, conflicts in the Middle East — are better understood as extended confrontations along civilizational fault lines. These are not wars with a clear end, but tectonic shifts — gradual, grinding movements in the foundations of global order.

The World of Tectonopoly

This leads us to a new conceptual framework I propose: **Tectonopoly**.

Tecto - (from the Greek *tekton*, meaning "builder" or "structure") points to tectonic shifts in geopolitics and civilization.

-poly reflects the plurality and diversity of fields, realities, and powers—not battlefields, but terrain of coexistence and competition.

Tectonopoly defines our era: a world of simultaneous conflict and coexistence, competition and cooperation, in which states, civilizations, and digital structures interact in layered, dynamic, and often tense ways. There is no longer a single ideological front. Instead, there is a saturated contest over technological, cognitive, and cultural influence.

In this framework:

“Ideology” becomes localized and instrumental.

“Geopolitics” becomes a mosaic of asymmetrical confrontations.

“Economics” becomes a paradox of interdependence: sanctions and deals exist simultaneously.

“Technology” becomes the primary battleground—AI, semiconductors, data, and cyberspace lead the charge.

“Civilizational self-assertion” becomes a central form of influence and sovereignty.

The “digital sphere” evolves into a space of cognitive warfare, neurocultural expansion, and broad informational transformation.

Alliances are situational and transactional. Conflicts are chronic but controlled—what I call “deconfliction aggression".

The major tectonic plates of today — the U.S., China, Russia, the EU, India, the Islamic world, Africa, and digital corporations — are separated by active fault lines: Taiwan, the South China Sea, the Arctic, Central Asia, the Sahel, the Balkans, and cyberspace**. Pressure is applied through:

Information (AI and cognitive operations),

Energy (green transition vs. fossil resources),

Infrastructure (BRI and global logistics vs. Western systems).

Thus, “Tectonopoly” represents an era of “unstable equilibrium”, cultural fragmentation, and technological rivalry. It is a transitional phase without universal foundations—only shifting balances, pressure points, and competing fields of influence.

Toward the Genosphere

Yet this transitional era will not end in apocalyptic war. It will end in “fabric” — in the emergence of civilizational texturing. In this future, worlds do not collide, they are woven together into the “Genosphere”: a multidimensional civilizational order where no single center dominates, but multiple centers **resonate** in harmony.

A Word on Timing

The Age of Tectonopoly, in my view, cannot be fixed to a precise calendar. It is a “threshold epoch” — a bridge between paradigms. Its conclusion will be marked not by a singular event, but by the maturation of this new global structure, when multiplicity becomes form, and texture replaces hierarchy.

Entering the Genosphere: A New Civilizational Epoch

05.07.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

First, I want to express my sincere thanks to my friends and colleagues for your thoughtful feedback. I hope the recent post exploring how President Trump reshaped the geopolitical landscape—through geoeconomic actions, restructured NATO budget frameworks, trade and investment campaigns, and new long-term engagement formats with global stakeholders continues to stimulate discussion.

However, beyond these geopolitical shifts lies a deeper, philosophical transformation. Trump’s actions have catalyzed a global transition toward a conscious, purpose-driven form of multilateralism. This marks what I describe as the beginning of civilizational structuring and texturing: a departure from the era of postmodern deconstruction and the emergence of a new genesis—the birth of multiple, fully realized civilizational worlds.

The core concept I propose here is the “Genosphere”. This term derived from the Greek “genesis” (origin, birth) and “sphaira” (sphere, environment) refers to a planetary space where distinct civilizational ontologies arise and interact. Each of these civilizations possesses its own time, rhythm, logos, and vision of the future.

Unlike the homogenizing terms "globe," "world," or "planet," the Genosphere celebrates multiplicity. It is an ecology of differences, where every civilization can become the center of the world without negating the centrality of others. Whereas the “biosphere” unites organic life, and the technosphere revolves around technological systems, the “genosphere” is centered on “civilizational logoi” — semantic fields that shape ways of being, knowledge systems, justice, time, and measurement.

Importantly, the Genosphere is not equivalent to globalism. It does not enforce a singular direction but instead organizes diversity into a meaningful, coherent structure. The Genosphere is the textured universe of civilizations, and texturing is its primary ontological operation.

Core Principles of the Genosphere’s Texturing

I identify several foundational principles that guide the texturing process within the Genosphere:

1. Civilizational Plurality

Plurality is an axiom, not a threat. Every culture carries a unique civilizational genome.

2. Ethics of Conjugation, Not Subordination

This principle promotes interconnectedness without hierarchy—a symphony without a conductor.

3. Transition from Relativism to Coherent Pluralism

Not everything is equally true, but everything can be woven into the broader fabric of meaning.

4. Methodology of Deep Proportionality

Different ontologies can resonate through cultural analogies—for instance, parallels between Turkic steppe cosmology and Islamic desert metaphysics.

5. Memory as a Structure of Conjugation

Historical memory should not be a source of conflict, but a foundation for shared existence, through healing traumas and honoring differences.

Civilizational Textures of the Genosphere

Here are examples of civilizations that illustrate the Genosphere’s potential:

* Turkic Civilization: A connective steppe culture, mediating between East and West.

* Indian Civilization: A model of metaphysical depth and tolerant meta-logic.

* Latin American Civilization: A dynamic, existential energy of cultural syncretism.

* African Civilization: A rhythmically grounded ontology rooted in collective coherence.

In this new era, the metanarrative is replaced by a metafabric—not a singular human history, but a mosaic of interconnected civilizational histories. Each "we" remains distinct yet contributes to an “all-essential we.”

The New Role of the Philosopher

In the age of the Genosphere, the philosopher’s mission transforms. No longer is it to deconstruct meaning, but to weave together structures of being. The philosopher must not act as an “archaeologist of meanings,” but rather as a “weaver of civilizational conjugations” — working with difference as the raw material for new worlds.

Trump and the Global Post-Universalist Shift

05.02.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

It seems increasingly evident to me that Donald Trump, by virtue of his background and temperament, emerged as a key initiator of the active phase of global deconstruction. This phase has primarily affected religious, ethical, and political-ideological dimensions, along with the value systems built upon them. More than a political disruption, Trump’s rise marked a deeper, structural unraveling of the global order. In many ways, he acted as a *catalyst* for a far-reaching reconfiguration of established global coordinates.

Trump’s ascent to power in 2016 can be viewed as a historical *bifurcation point*—a moment when several foundational pillars began to fragment:

- Religious Consensus: His administration amplified Christian fundamentalist rhetoric within the United States, undermining the globalist vision of interfaith tolerance and weakening the universality of liberal religious ethics.

- Ethical Standards: In public policy and discourse, conventional norms—decency, honesty, and principled leadership—gave way to a “post-ethical” ethos, where loyalty and efficiency were elevated above values.

- The Political-Ideological Core of Pax Americana: International alliances and liberal institutions, long considered the backbone of global stability, were increasingly portrayed as burdens rather than assets.

In Trump, we witnessed a convergence of political neo-realism, populism, and digital affective politics, which enabled a direct and visible delegitimization of liberal universalism and the Western civilizational narrative. His presidency did not merely disturb the architecture of the liberal world order—it activated latent processes of civilizational self-definition that had long been suppressed under the weight of globalist assumptions.

What followed was a profound transformation in the global structure:

1. The End of Universalism:

By emphasizing the exceptionalism and greatness of America, Trump shattered the postmodern myth of a single, universal global order based on democracy, human rights, and free markets. In doing so, he opened space for the *normalization of difference*—the idea that civilizations could define their own paths without adhering to a dominant universal paradigm.

2. The Rise of Civilizational Multi-Vectorality:

- The West is gravitating back toward forms of "sovereign realism," as Europe balances uneasily between U.S. leadership and Eastern alternatives.

- The  East—with China, India, and Türkiye—advances its own projects of historical subjectivity and geopolitical agency.

- The Global South—Africa and Latin America—has begun to step out of its passive role, asserting alternative values and development models.

- The Turkic world, or what may be called the Trans-Caspian or “Middle” Civilization, is increasingly acting as an inter-civilizational project in its own right.

3. The Emergence of Geo-Ontology:

A new philosophical structure is forming—what I call *Geo-ontology*. In this paradigm, the world is not merely a geopolitical battleground, but a mosaic of civilizational projects, each of which defines itself through its own ontological narratives: its conceptions of humanity, the state, time, and the future.

4. From Unipolarity to Poly-Civilizationality:

The world is no longer unipolar or merely multipolar. We are entering an age of poly-civilizationality—a plurality of autonomous civilizational projects that compete not necessarily through military or economic confrontation, but through their distinct developmental logics and philosophical visions.

In essence, Donald Trump’s presidency marked the beginning of a post-universalist turn in global history. The liberal-hegemonic world order is giving way to a decentralized, networked architecture of civilizational self-determination. The implications of this transformation are profound—and in upcoming writings, I will explore these emerging civilizational trajectories in greater detail.

The Ukraine–U.S. Minerals Agreement: A Strategic Breakthrough with Global Implications

05.01.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

The Ukraine–U.S. Minerals Agreement: A Strategic Breakthrough with Global Implications

The signing of the minerals agreement between Ukraine and the United States marks a significant and promising breakthrough—a move with deep strategic implications. Notably, this milestone was achieved within the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term. While experts will continue to analyze the causes and consequences of this agreement, it is already clear that the deal offers substantial benefits to all parties involved.

Beyond the potential continuation of military aid and the geopolitical message directed at Russia, several key aspects deserve attention:

1. Critical Minerals and Supply Chains
   Critical minerals are fast becoming essential to the modern economy. Ukraine possesses substantial reserves of titanium, lithium, nickel, graphite, and rare earth elements—materials vital for batteries, electronics, defense systems, and renewable energy technologies. The U.S. aims to diversify its supply chains, reduce dependence on China, and strengthen its position in the green and defense industries. This agreement directly supports those goals.

2. Investment and Infrastructure Development
   This partnership opens the Ukrainian mining sector to American investment, technology, and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards. This not only deepens bilateral cooperation but also sets the stage for long-term collaboration in resource exploration, development, and processing.

3. Post-War Economic Reconstruction
   The deal aligns with Ukraine’s post-war economic strategy, which focuses on industrial growth, exports, and the adoption of advanced technologies. Establishing mining clusters geared toward both domestic needs and export to the EU and U.S. will serve as a foundation for sustainable reconstruction.

4. Geo-Economic Alliance
   The partnership strengthens the Kyiv–Washington economic axis and supports the broader Western strategy of increasing influence in Eastern Europe. Ukraine, in this context, emerges as a geo-economic buffer against Chinese and Russian dominance in the strategic resource sector.

5. Military-Industrial and Energy Security
   Shared interests in securing defense industries, such as those producing drones, missiles, and armored vehicles, further cement the alliance. The agreement provides Ukraine with an opportunity to develop its own processing capabilities, reducing reliance on raw material exports to China and other nations.

6. A Strong Political Signal to the West
   This agreement is a clear signal to the EU and the broader West of the U.S.’s commitment not just to military cooperation but also to the economic reconstruction of Ukraine. For investors, it opens opportunities under the protective umbrella of American interests, signaling stability and long-term engagement.

To build on this momentum, several steps can be taken:

• Establish a bilateral Ukraine–U.S. platform on critical minerals involving both business leaders and regulators.

• Develop a detailed roadmap for localizing production and processing in Ukraine.

• Integrate relevant projects into post-war reconstruction plans supported by the IMF, World Bank, and EU.

• Conduct ESG risk assessments and implement transparency mechanisms in line with OECD standards.

In essence, this minerals agreement marks the beginning of a new phase in the Ukraine–U.S. strategic alliance—one that extends beyond security into sustainable development, technological advancement, and geo-economic leadership.

Extending the Model to Central Asia

This strategic model could also be successfully extended to U.S. relations with Central Asia. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan possess substantial reserves of uranium, rare earth elements, and other strategic minerals. As the U.S. and EU seek to reduce reliance on Chinese and Russian supplies, Central Asia emerges as a natural partner for the green and digital transformation of their economies.

Such partnerships would not only support global supply diversification but also promote sustainable development in the region. By fostering investment, technology transfer, and reforms (including ESG standards and anti-corruption measures), these alliances can enhance long-term political and economic stability across Central Asia.

Moreover, integrating Central Asian countries into global value chains will increase their strategic importance. Like Ukraine, these nations aim to go beyond exporting raw materials—they seek to build processing infrastructure, localize production, and adopt advanced technologies.

Finally, and most importantly, these initiatives would send a strong geopolitical signal: the United States is committed to multilateral engagement, technological progress, and the long-term strengthening of civilizational partnerships. This, in turn, would support Central Asia’s pursuit of a balanced foreign policy and reinforce its position in navigating relationships with both Russia and China.

Pope Francis's Vision: A 'Piecemeal' Third World War and its Projected Mid-2020s Turning Point

04.27.2025

By Valikah Tuleshov

Pope Francis, head of the Roman Catholic Church, has been recognized not only as a voice for progressive global aspirations but also as an astute geopolitical observer.1 In 2014, he notably stated that a third world war had commenced, projecting its culmination around the mid-2020s.

Defining the 'Piecemeal' Conflict:

When Pope Francis first spoke of the "Third World War" in 2014, he clarified he meant a hybrid, "dismembered" conflict. Unlike the singular global battles of the First and Second World Wars, he described it as a chain of numerous local and regional conflicts – citing examples such as Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Libya, and crises across Africa and Latin America – unified by the underlying logic of global confrontation and crisis.

Francis insightfully observed that this war was being waged "piecemeal," manifesting through interconnected economic, informational, political, ethnic, religious, and military clashes. He perceived these not as isolated incidents but as symptoms of a global systemic instability, collectively resembling a new world war, albeit one without a formal declaration.

The Scope of the 'Parts':

His reference to the conflict being waged "in parts" encompassed more than the wars in Syria and Ukraine. It included the destabilization of Libya, various wars in Africa, acts of terrorism and religious extremism, economic injustices characterized as a "war for resources," pervasive information wars, and what he termed a "crisis of the culture of dialogue." He viewed all these phenomena as manifestations of the same global destabilization.

Modern Warfare Beyond Military Means:

Pope Francis repeatedly underscored that contemporary warfare extends beyond conventional military action. He identified several key dimensions:

• Economic Pressure: The "enslavement" of poorer countries through debt and unequal markets, including tariff wars and direct economic-political leverage.

• Information Warfare: Widespread manipulation of information and public consciousness via media and social networks, sometimes linked, according to the original analysis, to efforts by powerful state actors to revise historical narratives.2

• Cultural Aggression: The forceful imposition of external values and attempts by ascendant groups to overhaul societal value systems.

• Religious Exploitation: The misuse of faith to legitimize violence, terror, and expansionist aims.

• Ecological Catastrophe: Framing environmental destruction as a form of war against future generations, leading paradoxically to reduced living space and potential population impacts.

Interpreting the Mid-2020s Timeline:

Regarding the mid-2020s, particularly the year 2025 which some analysts connect to the conclusion of this conflict phase, Pope Francis himself did not issue official prophecies. However, interpretations arose, especially within Catholic circles, suggesting the world might navigate the most acute phase of this "war in parts" by this timeframe – particularly following the impacts of COVID-19, the Ukraine crisis, and intensified US-China-Russia tensions.

Other political analysts associate this potential end date with speculated agendas among global actors ("world behind the scenes") aiming to institute a new digitalized financial and monetary order, or efforts to maintain global leadership within a new technological paradigm. It is suggested that Pope Francis and his foreign policy advisors likely understood these undercurrents and sought to mediate contradictions between world power centers, emphasizing that "Globalization in itself is not evil, but it becomes evil when it turns into the globalization of indifference and war."

The Vatican's Proposed Path Forward:

The Vatican's global project, represented by the Pope, sought constructive solutions to this world war scenario, calling for:

• Multilateral Dialogue: Instead of ultimatums.

• An Economy of Justice: Moving beyond a relentless pursuit of profit.

• A New Humanism: Prioritizing human dignity over economics and ideologies.

• Respect for Cultures and Identities: Resisting suppression.

• Peace Through Education and Culture: As an alternative to repression.

Fraternity and Dialogue as Antidotes:

In his encyclical Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis stated directly: "Every war destroys our project of fraternity. War begins not when guns are fired, but when dialogue breaks down and the dignity of the other is despised." He also pointed to the COVID-19 pandemic as an event that starkly revealed global vulnerability and fragmentation.

His hope was that humanity would recognize its profound interconnectedness before sliding into greater catastrophe. The mid-2020s timeframe, particularly 2025, appeared in some discourse as a potential "window of opportunity" for global reassessment – contingent on dedicated efforts towards peace.

Potential Future Scenario:

Following the logic attributed to Pope Francis, a possible future trajectory could emerge. Factors such as Russia's position shifting due to the war in Ukraine, a re-establishment of US-EU relations, recovery from the pandemic's consequences, and navigating the acute phase of trade conflicts might foster conditions for a new global consensus. Such a consensus could allow humanity the opportunity to live and interact more multilaterally and embrace polysociocultural diversity across all aspects of existence.

Kashagan: Kazakh bold shift to nowhere?

04.22.2025

By: Valikhah Tuleshov

A significant legal and political dispute is currently unfolding at the Kashagan oil field in Kazakhstan between the government and international oil companies. The Kazakh authorities are seeking to revise the terms of the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) signed in 1997 under the leadership of then-President Nursultan Nazarbayev, arguing that the current terms are highly unfavorable to the country. At present, approximately 98% of the revenues from oil production at Kashagan are allocated to foreign corporations within the NCOC consortium.

This standoff marks a turning point in Kazakhstan's approach to foreign investment, particularly in the context of its early post-independence strategy. At the time, the government pursued a multi-vector foreign policy aimed at reducing Russia's overwhelming influence in the post-Soviet space—especially in the economic sphere. To assert its autonomy and promote technological and social development, Kazakhstan actively sought foreign investment, particularly from American companies, offering highly advantageous terms to attract them.

While foreign investors have played a significant role in developing Kazakhstan’s economy—especially the oil and gas sector—they have also profited immensely under the existing agreements. Now, with the successful implementation of the multi-vector policy and Kazakhstan’s emergence as a regional power and an influential actor in international affairs, the government sees a need to recalibrate the terms of cooperation with foreign partners.

In March 2025, Kazakhstan initiated proceedings in international arbitration, seeking to revise the PSA and claiming approximately $160 billion in compensation for lost profits and tax deductions. However, by that time, oil companies had already secured several favorable rulings in arbitration, including a prohibition on tax audits without prior approval from the Ministry of Energy of Kazakhstan.

Additionally, in the same month, the state-owned company PSA filed a civil lawsuit in Switzerland, accusing intermediaries of corruption and embezzlement in connection with the Kashagan and Karachaganak fields between 2006 and 2011. Although the lawsuit does not explicitly name Eni or NCOC, it has further strained relations between Kazakhstan and its international partners.

Despite these tensions, Kazakhstan remains committed to resolving the dispute through civilized, mutually beneficial means in accordance with international arbitration procedures. As a staunch supporter of international legal norms and institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, Kazakhstan aims to ensure that the interests of all parties are considered and that the final resolution is based on consensus and reciprocity. The possibility of compromises and legal precedents is not excluded, as Kazakhstan continues to strengthen its legal system and its integration with international legal frameworks.

The arbitration process is expected to continue until 2028. Throughout this period, Kazakh authorities will continue to advocate for a more equitable distribution of revenues from one of the country’s most important natural resources.

The opinion expressed in the article does not reflect the position of the Center for Global Civic and Political Strategies, however we would like to add a couple of thoughts:

1. Reasserting Sovereignty and Economic Nationalism

Kazakhstan, like many resource-rich countries, is likely aiming to regain greater control over its natural wealth. The original PSA from 1997 was made under conditions of economic vulnerability—newly independent, resource-hungry for capital, and eager to attract Western investors. But now, with more political stability and economic maturity, the government wants to reassert ownership over its strategic assets. This is part of a broader global trend where resource-rich countries are renegotiating legacy deals seen as too favorable to foreign investors.

2. Domestic Political Signaling

This may also be about consolidating domestic support. Revisiting deals made under Nazarbayev—especially those seen as giveaways—sends a clear message from the current leadership that it’s charting a new course, more focused on national interest and equity. This is especially important in a region where political legitimacy often comes from standing up to external actors and prioritizing national sovereignty.

3. Geopolitical Rebalancing

Kazakhstan has long walked a tightrope between major powers: Russia, China, the U.S., and the EU. The timing here—amid global shifts, Western disengagement in some regions, and Russia's current geopolitical isolation—offers Kazakhstan an opportunity to recalibrate its international partnerships. By challenging Western oil companies legally, Kazakhstan might also be creating space to deepen ties with other players, like China or Gulf states, potentially negotiating new energy deals under better terms.

4. Strategic Leverage

The $160 billion claim may also be a negotiation tactic. It's unlikely that Kazakhstan expects to win that full amount in arbitration, but such a massive claim creates pressure and opens room for compromise—perhaps leading to revisions of the PSA, greater tax revenues, or more favorable terms in future projects.

5. Institutional and Legal Evolution

There’s a subtle message here about legal modernization. By emphasizing adherence to international arbitration and not unilateral action, Kazakhstan is also trying to present itself as a mature, rules-based actor—potentially to attract more diversified and long-term investment from other sectors and jurisdictions.

The Tariff Pause in a Multipolar Age: The U.S. Between Hegemony and Isolation

By Valikhan Tuleshov

04/18/2025

The recent introduction of new U.S. trade tariffs, framed as a move to protect national industries, reveals deeper structural anxieties about the country’s global position. While intended to restore industrial self-reliance and mitigate dependency on rivals—especially China—these tariffs risk triggering inflation, reducing the pace of innovation, and undermining the global cooperative fabric that once supported American leadership.

In an era of growing multipolarity, the tariff-first strategy may ultimately become a symbol of retreat, not resurgence.

1. Tariffs as a Symptom of Strategic Uncertainty

Trade barriers were once tools of asymmetric advantage, used by dominant powers to reinforce structural control. Today, however, they appear as a reactive measure by a hegemon under competitive pressure. The very need to resort to broad protectionism reflects a loss of confidence in the efficacy of open systems that the U.S. once championed.

Instead of reasserting leadership, tariffs may hasten the global transition to multipolarity by weakening trust in U.S. commitments and pushing allies toward greater strategic autonomy.

2. Inflation, Supply Disruptions, and the Risk of Stagflation

Trade tariffs are inflationary by design. They:

• Increase the cost of imported goods and intermediate components;

• Strain global supply chains;

• Lower consumer purchasing power.

These dynamics threaten to push the U.S. into a stagflationary scenario, combining stagnant growth with persistent inflation—historically one of the most challenging macroeconomic environments.

3. The Hidden Toll on Innovation and Startups

Global economic cooperation accelerated innovation by:

• Reducing development and launch costs;

• Enabling cross-border R&D partnerships;

• Facilitating rapid capital flows into high-risk, high-reward sectors.

Tariff-driven de-globalization disrupts these dynamics. Innovation becomes slower, more expensive, and more siloed. For startups and new technologies, this means:

• Longer time-to-market;

• Lower valuations;

• Decreased access to global talent and manufacturing platforms.

The U.S. risks undermining its own innovation ecosystem—a key pillar of its strategic superiority.

4. Undermining the Architecture of Global Trust

Beyond economics, tariffs corrode the normative authority of the United States:

• They weaken the rules-based order, notably institutions like the WTO;

• Accelerate the formation of counter-coalitions (BRICS+, regional compacts);

• Encourage dedollarization and regional currency alternatives.

What was once a U.S.-led global system becomes a network of self-reliant spheres, where American influence is diffused, diluted, and increasingly questioned.

Between Hegemony and Strategic Retreat

Trade protectionism may offer short-term relief to select industries, but it jeopardizes the very foundations of long-term U.S. leadership. In an era defined by technological acceleration, demographic shifts, and geopolitical realignments, leadership requires more than domestic insulation—it demands cooperative leverage.

If current patterns persist, tariffs may be remembered not as a tool of renewal, but as a quiet signal of American deceleration.

Policy Recommendations

1. Reevaluate Tariff Strategy: Introduce selective tariffs only where strategic security is directly compromised, such as rare earths or defense-critical components.

2. Preserve Innovation Chains: Exempt startup-intensive sectors (e.g. AI, green energy, biotech) from broad tariff policies.

3. Strengthen Multilateral Platforms: Recommit to WTO reform and reinvest in regional trade alliances (e.g., CPTPP).

4. Encourage Nearshoring Over Isolationism: Support the development of diversified but cooperative supply chains in friendly regions, rather than complete decoupling.

5. Link Trade to Technological Diplomacy: Use trade engagement as a tool to maintain global innovation flows, while safeguarding key strategic sectors.

America’s Tariff Anxiety: Signs of a Hegemon in Retreat

04.17.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

The United States stands at a crossroads. Once the undisputed leader of a global economic order built on openness, innovation, and scale, it now appears increasingly unsure of how to maintain that dominance. Washington’s growing reliance on tariffs—often sweeping and erratic—signals more than just a trade dispute. It reveals a deeper strategic uncertainty about how to sustain hegemony in a world rapidly becoming more competitive, more regional, and more polycentric.

This shift is driven by three major concerns:

• A steadily deteriorating trade balance,

• Loss of technological leadership, especially in fields like artificial intelligence and green tech,

• Growing dependence on foreign production chains.

In this context, tariffs are not merely economic tools. They are symptoms of unease. Designed to shield U.S. industries from subsidized foreign competition—particularly from China—these measures aim to preserve American industrial and technological advantage. But they also risk undermining the very foundation of U.S. economic strength: global cooperation.

Protectionist policies raise the cost of imported goods, disrupt supply chains, and feed domestic inflation. They increase living costs and dampen consumer spending. Far from reinforcing American leadership, these measures could instead weaken it—pushing allies toward greater economic autonomy and encouraging adversaries to accelerate the development of their own supply networks and financial systems.

More fundamentally, the re-embrace of tariffs reflects not the confidence of a hegemon, but the caution of a power sensing the limits of its dominance. It is a reactive move—one that could inadvertently hasten the end of the very order it seeks to preserve.

In an increasingly complex and regionalized global economy, such a strategy risks dragging the United States into stagflation: the dangerous mix of slowing growth and high inflation. The fallout wouldn’t be limited to economic pain at home—it would erode the international legitimacy of American leadership and fracture the collaborative systems that once made U.S. innovation so formidable.

For decades, globalization wasn’t just about trade—it was about creating a shared platform for innovation. It allowed venture capital to scale startups overnight. It enabled new technologies to reach global markets in record time. It connected R&D, raw materials, manufacturing, and distribution in a seamless, cost-effective web.

This scale through cooperation was the engine of the innovation economy. Tariff walls threaten to break that engine apart.

The consequences are already visible:

• Rising costs of components and assembly,

• Slower product rollouts,

• Declining investor confidence in startups.

While tariffs might offer short-term protection for select industries, they risk becoming long-term roadblocks to competitiveness. More importantly, they signal a retreat from the very openness that made the U.S. a global innovation hub.

America still holds immense structural advantages—military strength, capital markets, and technological depth. But if it continues down the path of economic isolation, it won’t be securing its position—it will be stepping back from it.

In a world where leadership increasingly depends on agility, cooperation, and innovation, the U.S. cannot afford to wall itself off. Tariffs are not a plan. They are a warning.

The Role of Turkic Nations in a Tariff War

04.09.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

Friends, the Turkic nations, particularly Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Turkey, could not only navigate the evolving global landscape, but also emerge as pivotal players in the new geofinancial architecture.

As the U.S. and EU engage in open technological and financial confrontation, China and the BRICS nations are advancing their own alternatives: CIPS, the digital yuan, and blockchain platforms. With the global economy fracturing, the world urgently needs neutral platforms and trust infrastructures, unburdened by superpower allegiance.

Echoing this sentiment, Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank, has underscored the critical need to bolster control over Europe’s digital payment systems and reduce reliance on foreign platforms like Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and Alipay, as reported by exclusive.kz, citing frankmedia.ru. In a recent interview on Ireland’s "The Pat Kenny Show," Lagarde emphasized that the transfer of European citizens’ critical data outside the region necessitates the rapid development of indigenous payment infrastructure within Europe.

Lagarde highlighted the European reliance on non-European, primarily U.S. and Chinese, infrastructure for online payments, card transactions, and mobile payments. While acknowledging these companies' adherence to European standards, she stressed the EU’s imperative to establish its own alternatives to mitigate potential unforeseen circumstances.

This context underscores the urgent need for the resurgent Turkic Middle Civilization to articulate and present its own multilateral and polysociocultural digital project to the world. This initiative should encompass the establishment of a Turkic Clearing Center (TRC)—a multi-currency, geopolitically neutral platform for settlements, reserve storage, digital contracts, and the exchange of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) among Asian, European, and Global South nations.

This vision is attainable, given the fintech experimentation and robust IT infrastructure already present in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey.

• Kazakhstan offers a neutral jurisdiction with international standing (AIFC in Astana).

• The Turkic nations possess a geographically and politically balanced position between the West, East, and Global South.

• Turkey, a NATO member, actively fosters ties with China and Russia.

• The Turkic Council demonstrates a unified political will for strategic autonomy.

The TRC's advantage lies in providing a neutral alternative to BIS and SWIFT for East-West settlements. Serving as a trust platform for developing nations weary of geopolitical manipulation, it would offer a sanctuary of stability. The Digital Silk Road, facilitated through Turkey, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, would establish a vital financial link across Eurasia.

Such a center would mediate conflicts and crises through financial settlements, not military intervention, thereby consolidating the Turkic world’s economic and digital sovereignty. The influence of Turkic nations on the global stage would dramatically increase, transcending mere transit routes to become institutional architects.

Ultimately, this initiative would foster a new ideology grounded in digital humanism and technological neutrality.

Following up on the previous topic…

04.08.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

What if, in response to the software and fintech blockages, the EU were to stall the Basel Center for International Settlements (BIS) for the United States, which is essentially the "central bank of all central banks?”

For the sake of the context, I would add that, the BIS facilitates settlements between central banks, manages global reserves, and coordinates banking regulatory standards (like Basel III). The U.S. participates through the Federal Reserves, but the BIS is legally an international organization headquartered in Switzerland (not directly managed by the EU, but heavily influenced by it and the ECB).

Therefore, if the EU initiates a block on U.S. access to the BIS, it would cause a massive financial shock. Both the Feds and American banks could temporarily lose access to international settlement mechanisms through the BIS.

This would also severely impact dollar liquidity in the global system, especially in developing countries and international banks holding dollar reserves.

In the long term, it would undermine global confidence in the U.S., as the precedent of full or partial U.S. isolation would trigger a massive reallocation of reserves towards the euro, yuan, gold, or SDRs (IMF special rights), accelerating the de-dollarization trend.

Political escalation would reach its peak, as the U.S. might respond with sanctions against European banks, restrictions on SWIFT access, or dollar correspondent accounts.

There could be an attempt to create a "BIS 2.0" with participation from BRICS countries, Turkey, Arab nations, and others.

The likelihood of such a move is, of course, slim; it would be a "nuclear option." However, restrictions freezes, and demands for additional transparency are possible, especially if the U.S. begins to weaponize fintech and software. History has seen similar moves, such as the disconnection of Iran from SWIFT, which the EU initially supported but later tried to circumvent (INSTEX).

For the world, this would mean a fragmentation of the global financial system, with parallel settlement centers emerging in Shanghai, Dubai, Istanbul, and possibly Astana. And the development of SWIFT and BIS alternatives by BRICS and other alliances would accelerate.

Trust in gold, cryptocurrencies, and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) would significantly increase.

The principle of "technology = sovereignty" would become an axiom.

Ultimately, if the U.S. issues a digital ultimatum and the EU retaliates by targeting the BIS, it would not just be a trade war, but a shift towards a new geofinancial architecture with at least three centers: the U.S., the EU, and China (plus the Global South). Perhaps even four. I'll elaborate on this in my next piece.

The Center welcomes introduction of hard-hitting sanctions bill and stands ready to supply detailed information

The Center for Global Civic and Political Strategies welcomes the recent initiative by Senators Cramer, Graham, and Blumenthal who introduced Hard-Hitting Primary and Secondary Sanctions Legislation Against Russia. We stand by the US lawmakers and ready to continue to supply the required information.

APRIL 01, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Since taking office, President Donald Trump and his administration have prioritized negotiating a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine. While Ukraine announced its willingness to support a 30-day ceasefire proposal, Russia has not. 

U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) joined U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and 50 of their colleagues, to introduce the bipartisan Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025. This bill would impose primary and secondary sanctions against Russia and actors backing Russia’s aggression if the country refuses to engage in good-faith negotiations for a lasting peace with Ukraine or undermines the sovereignty of Ukraine after peace is negotiated.

The legislation also imposes a 500 percent tariff on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other products.

“The Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 will issue decisive consequences aimed at deterring Russian aggression,” said Cramer. “This bill sends a clear message: bullies have a price to pay for their actions. Vladimir Putin and Russia must face serious consequences for their destructive and unprovoked war on Ukraine.”

Members who cosigned the legislation include U.S. Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Katie Britt (R-AL), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Todd Young (R-IN), Angus King (I-ME), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Curtis (R-UT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Peter Welch (D-VT), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Chris Coons (D-DE), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Jon Husted (R-OH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), John Cornyn (R-TX), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), John Hoeven (R-ND), John Fetterman (D-PA), John Boozman (R-AR), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), James Lankford (R-OK), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Rick Scott (R-FL), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jim Justice (R-WV), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Steve Daines (R-MT) and Jack Reed (D-RI).

Source: https://www.cramer.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cramer-graham-blumenthal-introduce-hard-hitting-primary-and-secondary-sanctions-legislation-against-russia#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20Sanctioning%20Russia%20Act%20of,and%20unprovoked%20war%20on%20Ukraine.%E2%80%9D

Op-eds by Valikhan Tuleshov on shaping international political culture

04.07.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

Are tariffs good or bad for the US?

The initial effects of the trade war were disappointingly negative for the global economy. The sharp decline in stock market indices brought the world close to an economic downturn. The simplistic and flawed idea that trade imbalances can be fixed easily by imposing tariffs, without the hard work of creating new economic strategies for domestic businesses and developing promising future industries, is unlikely to yield positive results even in the medium term. While temporarily attracting foreign companies might seem beneficial, it won't be a long-term solution because of deeper factors at play in a global shift like a trade war.

Is it truly possible to quickly revive domestic steel production by reducing steel and aluminum imports from Canada through a 25% tariff? And more broadly, can a country increase its exports by simply rejecting or limiting imports from other nations? For the United States, rapidly replacing the vast amount of imported goods, worth trillions of dollars, with domestic production is far from guaranteed or straightforward. After all, import substitution isn't genuine innovation; it's more like a copy of another country's production, just within one's own borders.

Consider this: would the Chinese goods you buy at a dollar store be as cheap if they were made in the USA? What about French champagne and cognac, furniture, and fruits and vegetables from other countries? The list goes on. This approach could soon lead not only to a significant increase in the cost of living, a decrease in consumer spending, and the need to find funds to support massive import substitution efforts, but also to higher costs for labor, services, and capital within the country.

Even in the first week of the trade war, it became clear that national debt could rise again. The emerging global decline in confidence in the dollar, along with increased uncertainty, will likely cause investments to flow into government bonds, threatening a new surge in government debt and the dollar's status as the world's currency.

Over the next decade, this approach could position the United States as a declining global power. The pursuit of widespread import substitution will destroy the undeniable benefits of economic competition and integration, which have been crucial drivers of economic progress for the US and all other nations that have benefited from global societal advancement.

Tariffs and Global Governance: The Emerging Divide in Economic Strategies

04.04.2025

The tariffs that the U.S. is imposing as part of its strategy to correct the trade imbalance are more than just a response to an economic crisis; they signal a deeper political and economic shift. The ongoing trade tensions are indicative of a broader division between two economic approaches: socially-oriented economies and mercantilist ones. While the U.S. follows a purely mercantilist approach, emphasizing national interest over cooperative economic relationships, countries like Europe and China adopt a more socially-oriented strategy, which favors dialogue and negotiation rather than ultimatums.

This distinction between the U.S. and other global powers reflects not just economic imbalances but underlying geo-economic differences. While the division of economies into socially-oriented and liberal-mercantilist models is an interesting framework, it is essential to explore and refine this distinction further. After all, the U.S.'s decision to impose tariffs on nearly 180 countries demonstrates a unilateral approach that contrasts sharply with the multilateral stance championed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and nations that prefer diplomatic coordination.

This situation, then, can be framed as a confrontation between imperial nationalism and liberal nationalism—or, perhaps more accurately, between hegemonic nationalism and cultural-social nationalism. The question now arises: which form of nationalism will dominate in the context of global trade wars and the redistribution of economic power?

The U.S. vs. China: A Clash of Nationalisms

When examining the trade war between the U.S. and China, one could interpret it through the lens of imperial versus liberal nationalism. The U.S. embodies liberal nationalism, blending market principles with the protection of national industry. This model is reactive: the U.S. feels compelled to defend its economic standing amid global shifts in production capacity.

In contrast, China exemplifies imperial nationalism, combining market expansion with long-term state-directed planning. Projects such as the “One Belt, One Road” initiative illustrate China’s strategy to extend its influence through infrastructure development and global partnerships.

However, this framework becomes complicated when considering Europe and Japan, which do not neatly fit into the imperial-liberal dichotomy. These nations may be better categorized under cultural-social nationalism, which seeks a balance between global economic integration and the protection of domestic social standards.

The Three Economic Axes

This ideological divide between hegemonic and cultural-social nationalism suggests a world that may be shaped by three key economic axes:

1. Hegemonic Powers (U.S., China): These nations actively promote their interests through aggressive policies aimed at controlling global markets and technological supply chains.

2. Cultural-Social States (EU, Japan, South Korea): These countries rely on sustainable development and regulatory power, engaging in international trade with a focus on protecting social standards and domestic interests.

3. Hybrid Players (India, Brazil, Turkey, etc.): These nations navigate between the hegemonic powers and cultural-social states, adapting to both models as their interests dictate.

Yet, while the U.S. imposes tariffs on nearly everyone, China does not. Instead, China and other countries like those in the Turkic world foster multilateral ties, presenting an alternative to the U.S.’s unilateral approach. Whereas the U.S. attempts to control the global economy through tariffs, sanctions, and financial mechanisms, China, the EU, and others are building structural influence by integrating countries into their economic ecosystems.

Hegemonic Nationalism vs. Multilateral Nationalism

This differentiation points to a deeper rift between hegemonic and multilateral nationalism. The U.S. adopts a hegemonic model, using tough economic protectionism to maintain dominance. On the other hand, the EU, China, and several other nations follow a multilateral approach, realizing national interests through cooperation, infrastructure projects, and partnerships.

In essence, the U.S. is attempting to maintain a hegemonic position through force and coercion, while the EU and China pursue integration, creating interdependencies to ensure their influence. This represents a broader struggle between domination and collaboration in the global economic order.

The Battle for Global Dominance: Will U.S. Unilateralism Prevail?

The question remains: can U.S. unilateralism overcome the multilateralism of the rest of the world in the battle for global dominance?

Several factors will determine the outcome: economic power, military strength, diplomatic strategy, and the stability of international alliances.

Arguments in Favor of U.S. Unilateralism:

1. Financial and Military Hegemony: The U.S. dollar remains the world’s primary reserve currency, and the U.S. controls key international financial institutions such as SWIFT, the IMF, and the World Bank. Additionally, the U.S. has the world’s largest military, enabling it to dictate the global order, even in the face of resistance.

2. Flexibility and Decisiveness: The U.S. can act quickly and decisively, without the cumbersome bureaucratic structures that often delay action in the EU. This ability to impose sanctions, tariffs, and military interventions without consensus gives the U.S. a significant advantage.

3. Technological Dominance: The U.S. controls critical industries like AI, semiconductors, and biotechnology, granting it the ability to impose technological dependence on other countries. Restrictions on China and actions against Huawei exemplify this power.

However, these advantages are not without limitations, particularly in light of the growing global interconnectedness.

Arguments in Favor of Multilateralism:

1. Global Economic Interdependence: The U.S. economy is deeply intertwined with the rest of the world. Major powers like China, the EU, and Russia can coordinate policies to create alternatives to the dollar-centric financial system, reducing the U.S.’s global influence.

2. Erosion of Trust: The U.S.’s use of sanctions and tariffs has alienated many of its allies. Countries like Germany and France are seeking greater strategic autonomy, while others are exploring alternatives to the dollar and seeking new trade relationships.

3. China’s Independent Technological Development: China’s focus on developing independent technologies and building economic ties without strict political conditions (as seen in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East) positions it as a strong contender for global leadership. Projects like the One Belt, One Road initiative are fostering the creation of new infrastructure and economic dependencies.

Who Will Win the Battle for Global Leadership?

In the short term, the U.S. may retain its dominance through its economic and military strength. However, in the long term, if China, the EU, and other developing nations can create a sustainable multilateral system—focusing on finance, trade, and alternative global institutions—the U.S. may face significant challenges to its global hegemony.

Ultimately, the question is whether the U.S. can successfully undermine multilateral initiatives before they gain traction. As of now, the balance of power appears to be tilting towards competition between these two models, rather than a clear victory for one side. The current U.S. administration, under President Trump, has left the door open for potential shifts in policy, as evidenced by ongoing discussions in Congress and NATO. The question of tariffs and trade wars remains unresolved, but one thing is clear: the global economic landscape is undergoing a transformation that will shape future international relations.

Roots of Multilateralism and Polysociculturalism

04.01.2025

The paradigm of national sovereignty and attractiveness is shifting for the Turkic peoples of Russia. Many relocators who have moved from the Turkic regions of Russia to Kazakhstan and Central Asia highlight a deeper sense of cultural connection with the Kazakh and other Central Asian nations. They emphasize their Turkic identity and express a desire to live in Turkic countries rather than in Russia.

There is a valid reason for this shift, rooted in the multilateralism and polysociocultural nature of the Turkic world. While the multiculturalism in the EU has primarily developed from pragmatic considerations and democratic rhetoric, the multiculturalism in countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, and Azerbaijan is based on shared historical and cultural roots. Despite differing geographical locations, these nations share common anthropogenetic, cultural-historical, and civilizational ties, which foster a society that encourages the coexistence of various cultures and ethnic groups. This form of multiculturalism promotes respect for diversity in cultures, languages, religions, and traditions, while encouraging dialogue and interaction between them.

Historically, Turkic multiculturalism did not always strive for a more open, tolerant, and inclusive society where individuals could freely express their cultural identity. Both external and internal factors have played a role in this. However, the Turkic peoples, as an ethnic group, have long engaged in migration and cultural exchange with other peoples. They have vast experience in the creation and reformation of states, political and military alliances, enriching their culture with diverse traditions, languages, and customs along the way.

Religious tolerance among the Turkic peoples is deeply rooted in the understanding that all processes, including spiritual ones, take place "under the sky." The sky is seen as the primary substance of life on Earth, filled with the energy of space and air, which are vital for both individuals and nations. In Tengriism, the philosophy of the nomadic Turks, the sky is not only the source of life but also the protector of the Earth, safeguarding it from any destructive forces from space. Therefore, the Turks have traditionally recognized the sky as the guardian of life and have deified it, often referring to themselves as "heavenly." This belief has contributed to their universal materialistic monotheism, which serves as a unifier across various spiritual practices and religions.

This inclusivity is also reflected in the congresses of world religions that were first held in Kazakhstan. It is important that this practice continues, as it reflects the Turkic people's commitment to religious and cultural harmony. Turkic nationalism is inherently international, as the nomadic philosophy naturally cultivated the idea of unity within diversity, especially across the vast Eurasian space. The waves of nomads spreading out from the heart of Eurasia enriched their identity with diverse spiritual and religious practices, forging common interests and shared communities.

This international, polysociocultural, and multilateral ideology of the Turks was later recognized by European politicians in the 18th-20th centuries as one of the earliest forms of globalist philosophy. With capitalist expansion to the East (e.g., India, Japan, China), this Turkic concept of global unity and diversity was eventually recognized as geopolitics and globalism. Today, the Turkic peoples and their elites continue to exemplify strong multicultural features in their culture and society.

Their cultural code remains open to new influences, and more than ever, they actively incorporate elements from various cultures. This openness reflects their enduring commitment to peaceful coexistence with all ethnic groups. In general, multiculturalism is an integral part of Turkic culture and society, rooted in their cultural-anthropological nomadic network, which has historically been a key element of their social organization and way of life. This open-mindedness and historical experience continue to shape their approach to diversity, both within their societies and in their interactions with the world.

**** **** **** ****

The influence of the Turkic states on the consolidation of approaches and conflict resolution in Eurasia

04.01.2025

In recent years, Turkic countries have made significant strides in consolidating approaches to foster cooperation and resolve conflicts across Eurasia. The creation of the C5 format, the United Territory, and the resolution of border delimitation issues in Central Asia are key milestones. Ongoing support is being provided to Afghanistan, the Karabakh conflict has been effectively addressed, and security control in Syria has been restored. Efforts are also underway to resolve the Middle East conflict, the Middle Corridor is being developed, and much more remains to be achieved, including Kazakhstan's decision not to join BRICS and Armenia's practical withdrawal from the CSTO, among other developments.

Yet, there is already a glimmer of hope on the horizon: Eurasia is poised to become the world's most powerful continent in the future. Let me explain why. The Middle Corridor is evolving into a true bridge of civilizations across Eurasia, uniting the East and West of the continent through the Middle (Turkic) civilization. Europe is set to invest 10 billion euros into the Middle Corridor, which, although much less than China's investments, marks the beginning of Europe’s recognition of the region as an important partner and ally. This initiative stems from multilateral cooperation first proposed by Kazakhstan and other Turkic countries, which have championed a multi-vector foreign policy and enhanced diplomatic engagement.

The future of this process lies in the formation of a new power center based on multilateral connections, strategic positioning, and economic diversification. The Middle Corridor will evolve from a mere transportation route into a geo-economic axis around which a new space of interaction between Europe, China, and the Turkic world will take shape.

Furthermore, as Europe gradually assumes full responsibility for Ukraine, peace based on the terms set by Ukraine and the EU becomes increasingly attainable. This shift opens the door for the entire Eurasian continent to potentially become a land of peace and mutual consent. As for Russia, it will need to either embrace this new reality or face the full consequences of its own eventual disintegration.

**** **** **** ****

The Reviving Geographic Axis of the Turkic World

04.01.2025

In recent years, modern middle-class Turkic powers have made significant strides in building a "circle of friends" around them through internal multilateralism. They have initiated a common integration project (CIP), and through the promotion of intra-super-ethnic multiculturalism, they are contributing to the renaissance and unification of the Turkic world, leading to the emergence of the Middle Turanian civilization. This combined super-ethnic multiculturalism is spreading beyond Central Asia to the South Caucasus and Asia Minor. The primary axis of this resurgent civilization today includes Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey.

Though Turkey is geographically located in Asia Minor, it serves as the face, flagship, and driving force of the Turkic world. As a powerful regional power, Turkey's geopolitical position, coupled with its growing economic and cultural influence, positions it as the main guarantor of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the emerging pan-Turkic world. This vision extends into Central Asia, where Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan also play pivotal roles.

Kazakhstan, as the historical homeland of many Turkic peoples and the heart of their nomadic civilization, shoulders the responsibility for formulating a unified multilateral approach among Central Asian countries. It serves as the primary trade route between China and Europe and acts as a natural buffer between Russia and Central Asia, ensuring that Russia's influence does not penetrate too deeply into the region. Uzbekistan, on the other hand, focuses on the socio-economic well-being and cultural development of Central Asia, while also becoming the region’s geopolitical stronghold, central to the revival of Turkic civilization.

Uzbekistan’s active engagement in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which currently unites 120 countries seeking to avoid bloc confrontations and promote cooperation, further strengthens its role in the Turkic world. Together with Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan aims to help reshape the NAM, positioning it as a coalition of middle powers that could contribute significantly to global stability and development.

Kazakhstan has already indicated its intention to eventually withdraw from the CSTO, in line with its strategy of prioritizing multilateral partnerships that promote peace, such as the Non-Aligned Movement. Turkmenistan, as an observer in the Organization of Turkic States and a potential full member, is increasingly integrating into the Turkic world. The country's access to the Caspian Sea offers strategic advantages, turning the Caspian into an internal sea of the Turkic world, vital for energy and infrastructure projects.

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan also play critical roles in Central Asia's political and economic framework. These two countries, with their intertwined territories, represent the region's natural border and are key hubs for trade and transit, connecting Central Asia with China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and beyond. They are poised to take on vital responsibilities in managing the region's water-energy resources, becoming the "circulatory system" of Central Asia, which is often referred to as the heart of the Turkic civilization.

The multi-vector foreign policy initiated by Kazakhstan has given rise to a new Turkic project that is emerging as a central operator in the new Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the Middle Corridor. This has allowed the Turkic world to reduce its geopolitical dependence on Russia while benefiting from China's economic growth. Azerbaijan, with its restored territorial integrity and military-political support from Turkey, is acting as the linchpin of this new geopolitical reality, particularly through the Zangezur Corridor, connecting Turkey and Azerbaijan with the broader Turkic world.

Azerbaijan also serves as the transit hub for energy, trade, and cultural exchange, facilitating cooperation across the Turkic states. Through new customs corridors and agreements on a unified Turkic alphabet, the region is accelerating the unification of socio-economic, military, political, and cultural frameworks. These efforts contribute to the development of the Turkic world as a super-ethnos, spanning the divide between the West and East, between Russia and China, and acting as a bridge between the civilizations of the Christian West, the Muslim South, Confucian China, and Buddhist India.

The burgeoning transport and logistics infrastructure is laying the foundation for a common market and political integration across the Turkic world. One of the next steps will be the creation of a migration zone, similar to the European Union's Schengen Area. This will enhance the Turkic world’s unique ability to unite diverse peoples and form new states, providing a universal response to the often futile attempts of other global players to resolve conflicts through force rather than diplomacy.

The Middle Turanian civilization is already playing a crucial role in drawing Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan back into its "circle of friends" through multilateral and multicultural approaches. The rapidly evolving global dynamics are opening new possibilities for cooperation, evidenced by the growing participation of Turkic countries in BRICS, including Turkey. This collaboration, though not opposed by the European Union or the United States, signals the rise of Central Turan civilization, which will eventually redefine the Heartland of Eurasia, replacing outdated models that focused on Siberia, the Urals, and the Volga region—territories that have already fallen within the orbit of the Turkic world.

In contrast to former empires like Russia or Iran, which attempt to coerce developing states into their geopolitical spheres, the Turkic world offers a model of voluntary cooperation and mutual benefit. The goal is to transform the Middle Turan civilization into a universal, mediating civilization—a bridge that guarantees security and fosters cooperation between the great powers of the East and West, North and South, and across Eurasia. This new civilization could prevent conflicts between the USA, Europe, China, India, and other global powers, while creating a platform for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Ultimately, the Turkic world’s vision of a Middle Turan civilization, in partnership with the United States and the European Union, could reshape global geopolitics. This approach, grounded in principles of cooperation, could turn the Heartland from a geopolitical adversary into an ally, bringing about a new era of stability and collaboration on the Eurasian continent.

About the author: Valikhan Tuleshov (US)

PhD in Philosophy, a scientific consultant for National Geographic Kazakhstan, and an analyst for the Expert Group on sanctions report at the American Center for Global Civic and Political Strategies. He is a contributor to George Washington University’s Central Asian Analytical Network. He also writes for Exclusive.kz and is a professor at Almaty Management University (Kazakhstan).