America at the Threshold: Trump’s Bill and the Birth of a New Civilizational Code

07.03.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

In a narrow vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a major bill extending the tax cuts introduced under Donald Trump and significantly cutting several social security programs. This move concluded a prolonged intra-party conflict among Republicans, who had been divided between hardliners and more moderate or libertarian factions. Despite resistance, Republican leadership managed to contain the so-called “rebellion,” demonstrating a fragile but effective unity.

The bill encapsulates the core priorities of the conservative right: tax relief for businesses and the wealthy, stricter fiscal discipline, and a reduced role for the federal government in social welfare. Democrats have harshly criticized the legislation, warning that it threatens millions of vulnerable Americans who depend on housing, food, and healthcare assistance. Yet the bill represents a significant political victory for Donald Trump, who, despite his complex and controversial status, continues to shape the Republican agenda.

Interpreting the “Trump Bill” Through Texturalism

From the perspective of Texturalism—my own conceptual framework—I propose evaluating this legislation not through the binary of "good vs. evil," but through its structural and civilizational implications. Texturalism sees political acts as threads within a global tapestry of meaning, sovereignty, and identity. What, then, does this bill signify within that weave?

The Positive Dimensions

1. Sovereignty as Narrative:
   The bill revives the idea of a national textual field—where the state asserts its voice, distinct from globalist discourses. This undermines the post-liberal hegemonic narrative and opens civilizational space for others (e.g., the Turkic world) to shape their own textual realities.

2. Border as Identity:
   The emphasis on borders is not merely geographic. Symbolically, it marks boundaries between civilizations, languages, and lifeforms. A wall, in this context, is a semiotic distinction—a cognitive line demarcating meaning.

3. Economic Protectionism as Texture:
   "America First" introduces an economic polyphony, challenging the monologic doctrine of free trade. In doing so, it makes space for regional economic textures: Eurasia, the Turkic world, Africa, and others.

The Negative Dimensions

1. Collapse into Monology:
   The Trump style risks becoming a hypersubject that permits no internal difference. Cultural, ethnic, scientific, and media pluralities are at risk of suppression.

2. Memetic Aggression:
   Trump’s rhetoric often functions through divisive memes—“enemies,” “fake news,” “deep state.” These obstruct trust and the collaborative weaving of meaning.

3. Lack of Inter-Civilizational Dialogue:
   While it deconstructs globalism, the bill offers no alternative vision for pluralistic, civilizational coexistence. Its isolationist tone shuts America within its own symbolic capsule.

Trump, perhaps unintentionally, participates in the process of textural destabilization—tearing apart outdated narratives. But he does not yet offer a coherent fabric of new meaning. His texture is asymmetric, fragmentary, and often violent.

The Question for America

Does this bill represent an effort to enhance economic efficiency and reduce national debt, or a deeper attempt to concentrate power and shift the U.S. toward authoritarianism?

America is a civilizational hyperfabric—a pluralistic weave of states, cultures, ethnicities, and narratives. If this legislation simplifies the economy at the cost of institutional pluralism, it could trigger semantic collapse. However, an optimistic scenario remains possible.

The Path Toward Healthy Texturalization

A constructive outcome depends on whether reform unfolds within the bounds of federalism and the system of checks and balances:

• Return of Strategic Industry

• Creation of New Semantic Economies: AI, green tech, localism, education

• Employment as Meaning, Not Just Income

If the bill merely masks an erosion of difference under the slogan of "national unity," it may inaugurate a phase of anti-textualization, where elections lose sanctity and symbolic power consolidates in one figure.

But if Trump’s actions stay within the bounds of economic pragmatism, he could help retexture America. This would require recognizing the plurality of civilizations and fostering dialogue over dominance. America must see itself not as the apex of world order, but as a node in the global civilizational weave.

Toward a New Economic and Global Fabric

The bill signifies a reconfiguration of the U.S. economic structure: industrial renewal, protectionism, and economic sovereignty. It also introduces a memetic filter to sovereignty: borders as filters of meaning, not just territory.

Trump’s foreign policy reveals the early contours of what I term Tectonopoly—a civilizational stage beyond unipolarity:

• EU independence via pressure on NATO and trade

• Middle East pacification via the Abraham Accords

• Disruption of the Iran nuclear deal as a step toward rewriting civilizational contracts

• Confrontation with China through trade, not arms—a civilizational code war, not a Cold War

Tectonopoly is not a world of blocs, but of pressures, with multiple centers of gravity. Conflicts persist but are structured, not chaotic. This is the threshold to the Genosphere—a world of meaning, differences, and cognitive weaves.

The Genosphere and America’s Civilizational Role

In the Genosphere, meaning—not just capital—becomes productive. America’s future lies not in enforcing hegemony, but in becoming a platform for pluralistic interweaving:

• Domestically: Afro-, Latin-, Native-American voices

• Globally: Turkic, Islamic, Chinese, Indian civilizations

Trump’s bill may be the first line in rewriting the civilizational code of America. It is not merely law—it is a semiotic gesture: America seeks to write itself anew, not from above or below, but from within.

Trump: Last Hero of Postmodernism, First of Tectonopoly?

Trump mastered simulacra and the destruction of grand narratives—traits of postmodernism. Yet, he also instinctively anticipates Tectonopoly:

• Recalibrating Euro-American relations

• Offering new vocabularies of peace in the Middle East

• Revealing U.S. dependence on globalist structures

He breaks old models not from nihilism, but from tectonic intuition. In this emerging order, borders become memetic thresholds, not just physical ones.

But Tectonopoly is transitional. What comes next is the Genosphere, where civilizations, not just states, form structures of meaning. Here, balance comes from cognitive synchronization, not domination.

Toward an Ethics of Texturalism

The bill also initiates the collapse of post-Cold War ethics—the ethics of postmodernism:

• Relativism of values

• Humanitarianism without sovereignty

• Mediatized morality

• Political correctness as a moral discipline

Trump’s rupture is not merely anti-liberal; it is the foundation of a new ethical order:

• Truth is polyphonic, not relative

• Difference as respected, not erased

• Sovereignty as cultural autonomy

• Justice as relational, not abstract

• Ethical action as woven into meaning

America becomes not a moral gendarme, but a mediator of meanings. In the era of Tectonopoly, this ethic of texturalism is the only viable axiom.

Conclusion: In the Beginning Was the Bill

So, paraphrasing Genesis: “In the beginning was the Bill.”

This legislation, with all its controversy, may become the first line of a new American grammar—a civilizational text that aspires not to dominate, but to synthesize. Trump has opened the door, but it is up to the next generation of leaders to write the next line—not as dogma, but as fabric.

Russia at a Civilizational Crossroads: The Rise of the Middle Turkic Order and the Crisis of Imperial Identity

07.03.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

In recent years, Russia's growing pressure on Armenia and Azerbaijan has revealed more than just geopolitical ambition. It is a confrontation not merely with two sovereign states, but with a deeper, emerging force: the Middle Turkic civilization — a distinct civilizational cluster in Eurasia that is beginning to assert its subjectivity, coherence, and independence from imperial legacies.

By manipulating conflicts and maintaining control through provocation and dependency, Moscow is not just clinging to influence — it is resisting a tectonic civilizational shift. What we are witnessing is Russia’s refusal to acknowledge the awakening of agency among peoples it once considered subordinate. Today, both Azerbaijan and even Armenia — the latter, perhaps more intuitively — are moving toward a more rational and pluralistic diplomacy. This reflects a new model of regional behavior: that of “smarter neighbors” who reject the vertical norms of fear, domination, and dependency.

This civilizational awakening is about more than geopolitics — it represents a transformation in the very grammar of international relations in the region. Where the old order relied on hierarchy and coercion, the emerging Middle Civilization emphasizes networks over pyramids, language over force, and honor over fear. In resisting this, Moscow is not merely losing influence — it is entering into a direct conflict with the historical vector of the region.

At the heart of Russia’s challenge is an unresolved civilizational identity crisis. Unlike other former empires — the United States, which forged a unifying national myth around the “American dream,” or the European Union, which pursued integration, or even China, which reconfigured its past through cultural revival — Russia has failed to synthesize the diverse historical, ethnic, religious, and cultural identities it absorbed over centuries of imperial expansion.

Instead of forming a coherent post-imperial model, Russia harbors fragmented identities: Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian, Orthodox, Soviet, Eurasian, Western, Slavocentric, and Turkic, among others. None has achieved dominance, yet none relinquishes its claim. The result is what might be called a structural schizophrenia of civilizational consciousness — Russia is not a subject of identity but a battlefield of conflicting meanings.

This internal dissonance has rendered Russia increasingly incapable of projecting a sustainable civilizational vision. Without internal harmony, no future can be meaningfully designed. Russia today is not a project — it is a resonator of unarticulated cultural codes. And unless it evolves into a meaningful node within the Middle Turkic civilization — as a cultural mediator between East and West, the Islamic South and the Arctic North — it risks becoming not merely unstable, but existentially hollow.

What threatens is not a classic imperial collapse through conquest or rebellion, but something deeper: the erosion of meaning. In place of a unifying idea, only a geographic shell may remain, populated by unresolved conflicts of memory, identity, and interest. Fragmentation may follow — not just politically, but civilizationally, as Russia ceases to function as a coherent historical subject.

This crisis places Russia not simply at a geopolitical crossroads, but at the edge of civilizational dissolution. Its severed ties with Europe and its inability to fully integrate with Asia (in the Chinese sense) have left it suspended in a civilizational vacuum. This vacuum will not remain empty. It will either be filled by external actors — like China or the expanding Turkic world — or by internal centrifugal forces that will disaggregate Russia further and redefine its identity landscape from within.

In understanding these transformations across the post-Soviet space, we must also recognize the philosophical implications. The frameworks of modernism and postmodernism no longer provide sufficient answers. What emerges instead is a new paradigm — Texturalism — a theory of civilizational plurality, irreducibility, and coherence rooted in lived, dynamic cultures rather than abstract models of power.

Texturalism does not seek to replace previous paradigms but offers a different foundation: one that resonates in an age where civilizations are not constructed from monoliths, but from meaningful, interwoven textures.

Why Artificial Intelligence Is Not Green—Yet

06.27.2025

By Nurul Rakhimbek, President, Center for Global Civic and Political Strategies

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is often portrayed as something abstract and immaterial, an intangible marvel floating in the “cloud.” However, this perception is deceptive. Every generated response or algorithmic suggestion is landing in a highly material reality: massive data centers that consume vast amounts of electricity, cooling systems that exhaust freshwater supplies, and mining operations that extract limited natural resources like fossil fuels, which are used to generate electricity for powering AI. This means AI indirectly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, intensifying climate change. AI is far from being called environmentally neutral. At best, it carries a soft environmental footprint, pink, perhaps. At worst, it bleeds deep red, marked by carbon emissions, resource depletion, and ecological damage.

At the heart of this concern is energy consumption. Training a GPT-4 model is not a trivial feature any longer, it means months of continuous computing on GPU clusters, drawing power comparable to small cities. One 2020 study from the University of Massachusetts Amherst estimated that a single large model training run emits around 284,000 kg of CO₂, roughly the lifetime emissions of five gasoline vehicles. And that excludes everything that happens after inference, re-training, scaling, etc. In North America, data center demand doubled in 2023, from 2,688 to over 5,300 MW, largely driven by AI. Globally, data center use hit 460 terawatt-hours in 2022, and projections show it could double again by 2026, making these data centers among the world’s most voracious energy consumers.

AI’s ingestion of energy continues well after training. Each AI-powered action, voice assistants, real-time sensors in autonomous cars, and image generators trigger bursts of computation. A single ChatGPT query, for example, can consume five times more energy than a standard web search. Multiply that by 164 million monthly users, and we’re looking at emissions equivalent to over 260 transatlantic flights every month.

And that’s just electricity. Cooling these clusters demands water. In 2023, Google consumed 6.1 billion gallons of potable water across its data centers, equivalent to 41 golf courses in dry regions of the U.S. Training GPT‑3 alone once required 700,000 liters of water, about the same as manufacturing 320 Tesla EVs.

But physical resources don’t stop there. AI hardware depends on critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, sourced through mining operations that are often environmentally destructive and entangled in complex social and geopolitical challenges, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Kazakhstan. Each AI chip might need 1,400 liters of water and 3,000 kWh of electricity just in its manufacture. AI hardware becomes outdated quickly, contributing to electronic waste. The disposal and recycling of electronic waste frequently take place in low-income countries where environmental regulations are weak or poorly enforced, leading to widespread toxic pollution. Fast-paced innovation and short hardware lifespans drive constant equipment turnover, contributing to a mounting e-waste crisis: in 2022 alone, 62 million tonnes were generated, yet only 25% was properly recycled. Much of the remainder was exported to poorer regions, where improper handling contaminates soil, air, and water.

Another emerging challenge is grid stability. In some regions, AI clusters are pushing local utilities to capacity. In response, some municipalities have begun placing moratoriums on new data center permits, citing concerns that local power grids are reaching their limits, underlining the growing friction between rapid technological expansion and the capacity of public infrastructure.

The ecological impacts of AI infrastructure also extend beyond energy use. The construction and operation of data centers, AI research hubs, and semiconductor fabrication plants require significant land, often resulting in habitat loss, deforestation, and soil degradation. Additionally, the transportation of hardware components and cooling materials—such as water or liquid nitrogen—generates substantial indirect emissions through global supply chains.

Yet all this unfolds under a cultural ethos: bigger is better. Bigger models, more parameters, more compute. And while performance metrics, accuracy, speed, and bench tests abound, environmental metrics are largely neglected. Few AI benchmarks account for emissions, energy, or water use, leaving these costs invisible to both consumers and investors.

But AI’s energy use is not fixed. Innovation plays a critical role in reducing resource dependence. Advances in hardware efficiency, improved cooling technologies, and smarter algorithms can lower energy consumption per task. Furthermore, shifting AI’s power supply toward clean energy sources—such as nuclear, renewables, and next-generation natural gas—can significantly mitigate its environmental impact. The first step is clarity: AI today is not green. Not yet. It is pink or red, and growing redder. And unless we rewrite its narrative, our digital future will inherit a scarred planet.

Managed Conflicts as a Phase of Hybrid Stability: Geopolitics and Tectonopoly

06.23.2025

By: Valikhan Tuleshov

1. The US Tactical Attack on Iran Is Not a War, but a Deterrent

The limited US strike and Israel's participation in it on Iran's nuclear facilities did not trigger an all-out war. It acted as an instrument of pinpoint coercion in the context of strategic asymmetry.

This action emphasized the "red lines" of the US and Israel, prevented further development of the Iranian nuclear program, and also maintained the manageability of the conflict without destroying the architecture of the region.

And it is precisely the military-political superiority of the US and Israel that makes this step unilaterally controlled, but not aimed at escalation.

2. Iran's Response Is Local, Symbolic, and Proxy in Nature

The strike on the American base in Qatar was a predictable, ritualized reaction corresponding to the Iranian strategic culture. Through proxy structures, Iran has demonstrated its unwillingness to capitulate, its readiness for local resistance, and its inability (and unwillingness) to wage open war.

This is not a response that leads to war, but a form of saving face — an element of the balance of fear built into the regional system.

3. Pakistan and China Are Outside the Escalation Zone

These states’ ties with Iran do not make them vulnerable in the context of the current conflict.

Pakistan is a nuclear power, unstable, but needed by the United States as a buffer.

China is a geopolitical rival, but in the logic of long-term containment, not military confrontation.

Thus, the attack on Iran is localized and will not escalate into a chain reaction.

4. The Strait of Hormuz Has Lost Its Role as an Energy Trigger

Iran’s attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz in 2025 can no longer cause a shock in the oil markets. Because alternative routes are working. The US, Canada, Brazil and other countries compensate for supplies. China, India and the EU are adapted to energy stress. And strategic reserves stabilize volatility.

The rise in prices will therefore be short-term and manageable. The threat of a cut-off has lost its force as a factor in global pressure.

5. Tectonopoly Manifests a New Form of Stability Through Managed Conflicts

The events in Iran, Syria, and around Hormuz are not the threshold of war, but a manifestation of a new form of geopolitical coexistence, which can be described as hybrid stability under the conditions of Tectonopoly. Here, conflicts are not eliminated, but distributed, symbolized, and managed. Proxy wars, pinpoint strikes and cyber attacks are intended to be forms of strategic speech between civilizations. And the world is not one, but has many supports — civilizations maintain balance through localized tensions.

Therefore, Tectonopoly is defined by us as a structure in which global rivalry is replaced by a global texture of conflicts.

Here, controlled conflicts become a phase of formation of hybrid stability, where peace is maintained not by consensus, but by measured tension between centers of power.

Conclusion

The world is no longer moving towards war or peace in the classical sense. It is entering a tectonic phase, where conflict becomes a technology of containment, military actions — the language of diplomacy, and stability — not the result of peace, but the management of threats.

This is how a new texture of civilizational coexistence is formed — complex, multilayered, mobile.

And in this texture, each controlled conflict is a seismogram of a new world order, in which war and peace are intertwined as the code and countercode of one global system. Or, as Sun Tzu roughly defined, “war is an integral part of peace.”

"From Tectonopoly to the Genosphere: Rewriting the World Order"

06.16.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

Friends,

What some refer to as "chaos" in the international system or what pseudo-political scientists and economists attempt to categorize is, in fact, the result of a historical transition: from the post-Cold War world order to what I call the “Genosphere”. This transitional era, which I define as “Tectonopoly”, represents a crucial phase humanity must inevitably pass through. The initial disorder we are witnessing is already beginning to take on the contours of a new order.

How is this happening?

What appears to be chaos in international relations is not a collapse into meaninglessness—it is a phase transition. We are moving from a late liberal world order, which crystallized after the Cold War, toward a post-global paradigm—the Genosphere—characterized by existential co-structurality, plurality, and a textured world order. In this sense, chaos should be understood not as the opposite of order, but as a transitional form of order.

The chaos we observe at the macro level—across politics, economics, technology, and identity—is not devoid of structure. On the contrary, it is entropically productive, serving as a matrix from which new forms of co-organization emerge. “Chaos” is better understood as a symptom of a tectonic shift rather than its essence.

We are witnessing:

* The collapse of previously dominant universals (liberal hegemony, the universality of human rights, dollar-centricity),

* The emergence of multiple centers of power (China, India, the UAE, Turkey, the Global South),

* The fragmentation and regionalization of value chains,

* And, significantly, the **epistemological destabilization** of Western modernity’s monopoly on truth.

These dynamics mark the emergence of Tectonopoly—an era of geopolitical and civilizational shifts where the traditional world map no longer reflects the actual territory.

The Genosphere, far from being merely a personal concept, is an emerging ontopolitical reality. Even amid today's perceived disorder, we can identify the formative structures of a new global order:

1. “Multilateral Architecture”: Stable alliances and blocs—BRICS+, SCO, UTG, ASEAN+3, the African Union—are forming, not subordinate to a single hegemon. They function through “asymmetrical conjugacy”: cooperation without uniformity.

2. “Civilizational Self-Awareness”: States are beginning to act based on “civilizational subjectivity”—concepts like the “Russian World,” “Middle Turkic Civilization,” or “Indian Dharma”—moving beyond the constraints of the Westphalian model.

3. “Mediation via AI and Cyber Networks”: The emerging order is textured through artificial intelligence, digital platforms, networked agents, and cognitive power. Neural network systems are becoming the new intermediaries of political and economic behavior.

4. “Networked Economy”: The global economy is shifting from hierarchical institutions (like the WTO and IMF) to regional and network-based agreements, based not on static rules but on dynamic interdependencies and logistics corridors (e.g., IMEC, ITC, CPEC, the Middle Corridor via the Caspian and Turkey).

Tectonopoly is thus an objective necessity. It acts as a form of anthropohistorical compression—the spring pressure that shapes new subjectivities. Some states experience demodernization (e.g., Russia's institutional erosion), others undergo reverse modernization (e.g., China, Turkey), and still others pursue ontological rewriting—the construction of new civilizational codes and development philosophies (e.g., Kazakhstan, India, Iran).

Chaos, then, is not an anomaly. It is an intermediate regime—a space of renewal, a latent structure within instability. It signals the breakdown of old control codes and the emergence of a heteronomous world: one with multiple ontological centers, interconnected by shared meanings, identities, technologies, and logistic systems.

I argue that humanity has already entered the post-global birth phase of the Genosphere. This transition doesn’t eliminate conflict but transforms its nature—from geopolitics to cognopolitics, from hegemony to co-creation, from unitarity to civilizational pluralism.

Let me briefly explain how this process of ontological rewriting has occurred—and is occurring—in various civilizations:

1. Turkey provides a modern precedent. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, Turkey underwent an ontological revolution: abandoning the caliphate, imperial sacredness, and its role as the Islamic world's center. The Kemalist Republic was a unique case of civilizational self-destruction for rebirth—a rational, centralized redefinition typical of modernity.

2. Armenia is now undergoing identity re-editing in the era of Tectonopoly. Its constitutional decision to exclude Artsakh is not merely a political concession—it marks the abandonment of a messianic narrative centered on land and memory. Armenia is entering a stage of civilizational humility, building statehood based on survival, not myth. This is not modernity; this is Tectonopoly.

3. Iran remains caught between sacred ideology and pragmatic realism. A potential deal to abandon its nuclear ambitions in exchange for sanctions relief may indicate the reprogramming of Shiite identity—from eschatological resistance to civilizational realism. Though hesitant, Tehran’s very consideration of this path reflects Tectonopoly’s influence, where chaos gives way to a new, emergent logic.

These are not signs of weakness. They are signs of civilizational maturity—the ability to re-edit meaning in response to historical pressure.

The world is no longer progressing through linear modernization. It is entering the Genosphere, a realm where the texts of identity are being rewritten.

A Note on Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan, too, stands on the threshold of ontological transformation—a reality both the government and the public must recognize.

Unlike countries marked by war or existential collapse, Kazakhstan is in a favorable multilateral and polysociocultural condition. It retains its ethnocultural core, is not isolated, and has not experienced traumatic rupture. This provides a historic opportunity: to be the first state of the Tectonopoly to rewrite itself not through catastrophe, but through conscious design.

To seize this opportunity, Kazakhstan must:

• Abandon outdated colonial codes,

• Move beyond post-Soviet ambiguity,

• And craft its own civilizational formula—a practical ontology of the future.

If it succeeds, Kazakhstan will enter the Genosphere as a subject, not an object.

In this new era, the future will not belong to those who cling to the old script. It will belong to those bold enough to rewrite it amid tectonic uncertainty.

An opinion on what to expect from Iran-Israel current clashes

By editorial team

06.13.2025

Israel has launched an operation to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. Such an operation requires time - days, perhaps weeks of successive waves of attacks.

The interesting thing is that the factor that will allow the campaign to continue is actually Iran.

Iran is in a trap. The Israeli opening strike took it completely by surprise - eliminating the military leadership, losing control of the airspace, and every hour brings new waves of attacks. What the Iranians probably want is to end the round of fighting quickly, before the entire nuclear program is destroyed.

But how do they do that? There are three options, and they are all problematic.

The first option is a massive military response. To hit Israel hard and force it to fold. However, for now, the Iranians seem to be having difficulty issuing such a response, and it is unclear when, if ever, they will be able to.

The second option is to appeal to the Americans to continue negotiations or to bring the Security Council to intervene.

But there are two problems here: turning to the Americans would be seen as surrender and a sign of weakness, especially after the elimination of the military leadership. It is also likely that the Trump administration will harden its positions, recognizing Iranian weakness.

Security Council intervention is no better.
As part of any ceasefire agreement, it is likely that clauses will be introduced for tight international supervision of Iran and the removal of all enriched uranium from its territory.
In essence, Iran will be forced to accept from the Council what it refused to give in negotiations with Trump.

The third option is asymmetric escalation - for example, closing the Strait of Hormuz. But this could lead to immediate American intervention, which would further worsen Iran's situation.

It is worth noting that Israel is careful to attack only military and nuclear targets, not civilian infrastructure.
This will probably remain the case, unless Iran decides otherwise. Because in this way, Israel both deters Iran from attacking Israeli infrastructure, and also preserves the interests of the powers not to intervene for the time being. As long as the campaign remains “military,” the powers will drag their feet, especially the US.

So what should we watch for in the coming days?

First, after statements by the five permanent members of the Security Council, especially the US and Russia. They may try to mediate, but it will take time - exactly what Israel needs.

Second, after Iranian attempts to harm oil traffic in the Gulf or vital infrastructure in Israel. This would be a significant escalation that would bring Israeli or American action accordingly.

Third, after a change in Israeli goals - if we see a strike on non-military targets, it would signal a transition to a new phase in the campaign.

We have tough days ahead.

Shiite Intransigence at the Core of Iran’s Nuclear Doctrine

06.13.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

An analysis of Iran’s current political trajectory reveals that the Islamic Republic’s unyielding pursuit of nuclear capability cannot be fully explained by conventional concerns such as national security or technological advancement. Rather, it reflects a deeper ideological and theological foundation rooted in Shiite identity, shaped by historical memory, eschatological longing, and a persistent sense of victimhood. Shiism, from its inception, defined itself in opposition to Sunni dominance and temporal power. It evolved as a theology of the oppressed, imbued with the belief that justice must ultimately triumph through divine will, heralded by the return of the Hidden Imam (Mahdi).

This theology, centered on the martyrdom of Hussein at Karbala and the fragmentation of the *ummah*, has been transmuted by the Islamic Republic into a modern political strategy: one of intransigence, resistance, and an almost sacrificial readiness for isolation and destruction in the name of truth. The ayatollah regime views itself not simply as a nation-state, but as the chosen shield of Shiism amid a global order it deems corrupt, marked by Western hegemony, the “illegitimacy” of Israel, and the tyranny of Sunni monarchies.

Within this worldview, nuclear weapons are not merely instruments of deterrence. They are metaphysical symbols—representing defiance, divine justice, and the sanctification of struggle against a secular, unjust international order. Since its founding, the Islamic Republic has consistently pursued a strategy of resistance: it has never compromised on its revolutionary vision, continued to export its ideology, and backed proxy forces like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shiite militias despite severe sanctions. Its nuclear strategy, far from an irrational gamble, aligns with its theological imperative: suffering is not to be avoided, but embraced and transformed into moral capital.

American policy, by contrast, often perceives Iran’s actions as irrational, given Tehran’s willingness to endure economic sanctions, international isolation, and even military threats. But this is not political madness. It is institutionalized Shiite political theology, where apocalyptic expectations and strategic patience coexist. Iran’s nuclear ambition is not just about enriching uranium; it is about enriching a theological narrative, a historical grievance, and a symbolic assertion of Iran’s divine mission.

This explains why negotiation with Iran presents such a unique challenge. The regime does not conceptualize diplomacy in terms of compromise or mutual interest. Rather, it views dialogue as a continuation of ideological struggle, multi-layered, rhetorical, and theological. Within the framework of *wilayat al-faqih* (guardianship of the jurist), compromise is not a diplomatic concession, but a betrayal of divine justice. It is seen as a retreat from the path of righteousness, a capitulation to the forces of evil, embodied by the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, and an impediment to the eschatological return of the Mahdi.

As such, even when Iranian officials enter negotiations, they do not seek mutual understanding, but moral and ideological vindication. The Shiite hermeneutics of conflict frames peace not as a balance of power in the Westphalian tradition, but as the establishment of divine justice. And justice, in this worldview, is exclusive—it belongs to the righteous, the exiled, the defeated, who nevertheless stand on the side of truth. Hence, peace can only be achieved when Iran is recognized not as a peer, but as a divinely ordained leader.

In the face of global transformation—marked by post-liberal fragmentation, multipolar competition, and the erosion of Western dominance—Iran’s intransigence has only deepened. Paradoxically, the more uncertain the global environment becomes, the more resolute Iran grows. This rigidity is not merely strategic—it is existential. The regime believes it faces a historic window: a "now or never" moment in which flexibility would be interpreted as weakness and could trigger the collapse of the ideological system from within. Conversely, it believes that steadfastness will ultimately exhaust the West, not the other way around.

Thus, Iran’s intransigence is not merely a tactical stance. It is a strategy of being—a metaphysical orientation toward the world. In an age where most states are learning to negotiate and adapt, Iran remains among the last bearers of a totalizing ideological conflict. It sees itself not as one actor among many, but as the vessel of a divine mission. As long as this regime persists in its current theocratic form, peace is structurally unattainable. To embrace peaceful coexistence would require a fundamental transformation of its political theology.

What Iran represents is not just political defiance, but ontological absolutism. It is not merely opposed to U.S. hegemony or Israeli policy—it denies the legitimacy of any alternative moral or civilizational order. Shiite ideology, as institutionalized by the Iranian regime, constructs a totalitarian vision of power. It subsumes not only politics and economics, but time, history, and the eschatological future. It leaves no room for plurality, dissent, or the coexistence of truths. The world becomes a battlefield for sacred dominance, not peaceful interaction.

The true threat, therefore, is not the nuclear weapon itself. It is the ideology behind it. In the hands of a regime that sanctifies violence and demonizes compromise, nuclear capability ceases to be a tool of deterrence and becomes a divine license to annihilate. Such a regime does not fear destruction—it glorifies it. Totalitarian intransigence is not deterred by consequences; it is sustained by them.

This is why the Iranian threat extends far beyond Israel, the United States, or any particular regional conflict. It strikes at the heart of human civilization itself. If this metaphysical fanaticism is not confronted, the world will face not merely a geopolitical challenge, but a new form of absolute violence, cloaked in theological righteousness and armed with nuclear force. This is not just an enemy of liberal democracy—it is an enemy of plurality itself, of the very idea that humanity can be diverse and coexist.

Iran’s intransigence, then, is the anti-Genosphere.

Conclusion

The struggle against Iranian intransigence is not merely a political or strategic undertaking—it is a civilizational imperative. As long as the current theocratic regime remains intact, the world will live under the threat not only of nuclear conflict, but of metaphysical annihilation. The greatest danger is not the detonation of a nuclear device—but the detonation of an ideology that sanctifies domination, demonizes difference, and elevates destruction into a sacred act. The defense of a pluralistic future demands that the world confront not only Iran’s weapons—but its worldview.

The Battle of Billionaires: Politics, Power, and the Rise of Post-Democratic Textures

06.06.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

Friends, by now you're well aware of the escalating conflicts between America’s most powerful figures. You may be wondering: What comes next? How will this turbulent period end?

There’s a deeper layer to this unfolding drama — one that many overlook. It’s not just a political crisis or ideological standoff. It’s a transformation of the very structure of power. When billionaires dominate the political sphere, the state ceases to be an instrument of public representation and becomes an arena of corporate rivalry. The struggle is no longer about ideology but about control — over tax codes, subsidies, regulations, contracts, technology, and access to geopolitics.

In this post-liberal era, the architecture of power is shifting. Institutions that once mediated authority are weakening. State power is increasingly ceded to transnational business actors who are competing over the core infrastructure of the future — artificial intelligence, space exploration, energy systems, and financial networks. Within the United States, we see a growing trend of political actors defying court rulings, Congress being subordinated to the executive branch, and intra-party fractures intensifying. The very foundations of constitutional democracy are being tested.

Consider Elon Musk’s ability to mobilize Republican factions against Donald Trump. This isn’t just a power play; it reveals the erosion of the traditional party hierarchy. Political parties, once the guardians of democratic continuity, are devolving into digital followings clustered around charismatic individuals. These are no longer institutions of governance, but platforms for techno-ideological influence.

When Treasury Secretary Bessent goes head-to-head with Musk over a “promised trillion,” we are witnessing more than a budgetary dispute. It's a metaphor for institutional collapse. If trillions are distributed not through legal and procedural channels, but through elite confrontation and influence games, then the system of governance itself is in disrepair. What replaces bureaucratic order is a new form of elite competition — informal, performative, and deeply personal.

Musk’s figurative black eye from the Treasury Secretary, or Witkoff’s standoff with Trump and Putin, may seem like exaggerations. But they are symbolic of a deeper reality in which image has eclipsed substance. Politics has transformed into a theater of media events, where power is measured not by legislative accomplishments but by likes, virality, and narrative dominance. The United States is no longer merely a democracy under stress; it has become a post-democratic stage where every conflict doubles as performance.

And when the principal political figures are businessmen — not elected representatives — the state can no longer be considered a vessel of civil will. It becomes, instead, the battleground of oligarchic interests. This marks the emergence of a new political condition: post-democratic oligarchy. In this system, the public is reduced to a passive audience while real decisions are made offstage, in private meetings between those who control money, media, and infrastructure.

This diagnosis leads into my theory of Texturalism. In the post-global world, linear narratives — such as progress, democratic consolidation, or institutional stability — no longer explain our reality. Instead, the world is composed of overlapping and interwoven textures: political, economic, media, and civilizational. The current conflicts are not merely struggles for power, but collisions between these distinct textures.

The political texture includes the traditional apparatus of government, laws, and parties. The economic texture governs capital, technological innovation, and financial flows. The media texture defines how events are perceived, framed, and remembered. And the civilizational texture contains our collective desires, anxieties, and visions of the future.

The crisis we are living through is not simply a crisis of democracy — it is a crisis of synchronicity between these textures. Their rhythms, logics, and priorities are no longer aligned. Musk, Trump, Bessent, and Witkoff are not just individuals; they are personifications of living textures. Musk is the technocratic future, conjured through innovation and invention. Trump represents populist power, rooted in identity and historical sentiment. Bessent embodies financial control — mastery of flows and value. Witkoff represents geopolitical architecture — the manipulation of land, space, and symbolic capital.

Each of them creates new narratives, new rituals, new power structures. Through the lens of Texturalism, this is a shift from vertical subjectivity — where the citizen relates to a centralized state — to heterotextual subjectivity, where power belongs to those who can weave new realities across multiple textures. What we’re witnessing is not a crisis within the system, but a shift away from the very idea of centralized institutional authority.

In this framework, the state is no longer the sovereign center, but merely one actor among many. It is one texture within a larger, fluid structure in which corporations, platforms, and charismatic networks now play dominant roles. Some may view this fragmentation as the onset of chaos. But from a Texturalist perspective, chaos is not destructive — it is generative. It contains the potential energy of new configurations, new patterns, new realities.

The battle among billionaires is not a grotesque distraction; it is the new form of political engagement. It signals the transition from rigid institutionality to flexible, overlapping systems of influence. Whether this leads to catastrophe or reinvention depends on how we respond — not by reverting to the past, but by modeling new forms of synchronous textures that can create stability without hierarchy.

Will Musk, Trump, Bessent, and Witkoff ever reconcile? Perhaps, but only temporarily — and only in response to shared threats, such as a rising China or the narrative dominance of AI platforms like OpenAI. Any alliance would be a strategic overlap, not a lasting peace. Their competition is intrinsic, defined by incompatible visions of the future and overlapping zones of influence.

From the perspective of Texturalism, conflict is not a failure — it is a mode of coexistence. Peace, in the classical sense, is impossible. What is possible is symphonic divergence — a state in which different textures develop in parallel, exchanging tools, ideas, and symbols, without dissolving into one another.

Musk continues to build toward Mars and digital superintelligence. Trump reignites MAGA and reshapes identity politics. Bessent architects a new financial infrastructure. Witkoff crafts geopolitical reality in places like the UAE or Israel. They share a meta-reality, but not a unified vision. This is no longer a singular world — it is a composition of multiplicities.

So no — they will not make peace. They will intertwine.

In this new era of deconstruction, where the old logic of centralized power collapses, a different form of co-existence is emerging. It’s not about unity or consensus. It’s about the choreography of divergence — a world where politicians, corporations, technologies, and mythologies do not govern, but compose.

And in this composition, we must learn not to return to the center — but to navigate the textures.

In Kazakhstan, China and Russia are Competing to Build a Nuclear Power Plant — But U.S. Technologies Could Outshine Both

06.01.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

Currently, Russia and China are the main contenders to build Kazakhstan’s first nuclear power plant. However, if the United States were part of this competition, its nuclear technologies could arguably surpass those of both China and Russia.

From a purely technical perspective, American nuclear technology is considered more advanced, reliable, and safer—particularly in the field of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and beyond, which could be highly relevant for Kazakhstan’s future energy needs.

But as we all know, in the realm of geopolitics, the most advanced technology does not always win. The deciding factors are often:

* Short construction timelines,

* Attractive financial terms,

* Political alignment,

* Long-term strategic partnerships.

If the United States were truly committed to competing in this space and offered Kazakhstan a well-structured, flexible, and reliable proposal, it could very well emerge as a frontrunner. However, Washington currently plays only a limited role in the region.

That said, U.S. companies like Westinghouse and GE Hitachi are known for producing some of the most innovative and safest nuclear technologies in the world, such as the AP1000 and the BWRX-300. Their standards for safety, transparency, and environmental responsibility are among the highest globally. Moreover, the U.S. nuclear industry benefits from strong international cooperation and support from key allies like Japan, Canada, and South Korea.

So why has the U.S. played such a minor role in international nuclear construction projects in recent decades? The reasons are complex and lie at the intersection of economics, politics, geopolitics, and industrial strategy. Here are the key factors:

1. Decline in U.S. Nuclear Export Strategy Since the 1990s

After the Cold War, the U.S. gradually lost its leadership in global nuclear energy exports. In the 1970s and 1980s, companies like Westinghouse and GE were actively building reactors abroad. However, following the Three Mile Island accident (1979) and the Chernobyl disaster (1986), global interest in nuclear energy declined. The U.S. shifted focus to natural gas, renewables, and oil, while nuclear energy took a back seat. In the meantime, Russia and France (and later China) captured the market by heavily subsidizing nuclear projects overseas.

2. Lack of Government Coordination and Financial Support

Unlike Russia’s Rosatom or China’s CNNC and CGN, which operate as state-backed enterprises, American companies like Westinghouse and GE Hitachi are private and lack comprehensive government support. Russian and Chinese nuclear deals often come with full-package offers that include:

* Turnkey construction,

* Long-term (20–30 year) financing,

* Workforce training,

* Fuel supply and maintenance.

In contrast, U.S. export financing has been limited. Even the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM) was politically constrained for years, hindering major international deals.

3. Reputation and Implementation Challenges

The AP1000, once considered the flagship of American nuclear innovation, also became a symbol of implementation failure. Construction of AP1000 reactors in Georgia, USA, was delayed by more than a decade and doubled in cost. Similar issues occurred in China, where projects also faced setbacks. These experiences have undermined confidence in the ability of U.S. firms to deliver on time and within budget.

4. Strict Export Controls and Licensing

U.S. nuclear exports are subject to some of the world's strictest regulations, including safety protocols, export controls, and non-proliferation requirements. While important from a security standpoint, these conditions can deter countries that seek greater autonomy or quicker implementation.

5. Lack of Political Will and Strategic Focus

For many years, nuclear energy was not a priority in U.S. energy policy. The focus shifted to shale gas, oil, and renewables. Only recently—spurred by climate concerns and growing competition with China—has Washington renewed its interest in nuclear power. Programs like the *Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment* (PGII) reflect a desire to re-enter the global infrastructure arena, but these efforts are still in their early stages.

---

Conclusion

The United States has the potential to be a global leader in nuclear energy technology. However, its limited geopolitical engagement, privatized industry structure, and regulatory constraints have hindered its ability to compete in overseas tenders—especially in countries like Kazakhstan, which prioritize speed, state-backed financing, and turnkey solutions.

Today, the U.S. is trying to catch up—particularly through advanced SMR technology like GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, which could become a new strategic export tool. Whether these efforts will succeed remains to be seen, but there is clearly room for a greater American role in shaping the future of global nuclear energy.

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.