Texturalism: Toward a Philosophy of Multilayered Human Existence in the 21st Century

By Valikhan Tuleshov

November 15, 2025

Valikhan Tuleshov is a political scientist and philosopher whose research focuses on civilizational theory, contemporary global transformations, and the development of new paradigms of human existence. He is the author of the philosophical concept Texturalism, which seeks to explain the multilayered structure of the modern world through the integration of Western rationalism and Eastern universalism. Tuleshov’s work investigates how primordial ethical meanings, civilizational logics, and political structures interweave to form what he terms the ontology of texture in the 21st century.

He is a scholar working at the intersection of political philosophy, civilizational studies, and global systems analysis. His current work centers on the development of Texturalism, a new philosophical model that offers a way to understand the world as a multilayered fabric of interconnected meanings. Through this framework, Tuleshov aims to reinterpret contemporary political, cultural, and ethical processes—arguing that the key to navigating global complexity lies in restoring depth, translatability, and coherence to human existence. As a scientist, he approaches these questions with a commitment to bridging analytical rigor and civilizational insight, seeking to build a conceptual language capable of explaining the world’s emerging structures.

Abstract

The contemporary global condition is marked by an ontological flattening: despite unprecedented access to cultural forms, ideas, and technologies, humanity is experiencing the erosion of depth, meaning, and ethical coherence. This article introduces Texturalism, a philosophical system aimed at reconstructing the deep foundations of human existence through the recovery of primordial ethical meanings and the creation of a multilayered ontology. Texturalism proposes a methodological framework that integrates Western rationalism and Eastern universalism into a space of translatability, offering a basis for renewed ethics, political thought, and civilizational dialogue in the 21st century.

1. Introduction: Ontological Flattening in the Modern Era

The modern era is characterized by a paradoxical condition. While the circulation of ideas and cultural forms accelerates, human experience becomes increasingly homogeneous. Commercialism emerges as the universal equivalent through which meaning is reduced to exchange value, and ethical categories such as justice, fairness, and goodness are transformed into mere functional or legal norms. This process results in what may be described as ontic flattening or one-dimensionality, where the deeper structures of human existence lose their integrity.

Texturalism arises as a philosophical response to this historical challenge. It seeks to restore human sensitivity to meaning and reestablish access to the deep texture of existence. In this sense, Texturalism is not simply a normative theory—it is an ontological project aimed at reconstructing the fabric of humanity itself.

2. The Foundations of Texturalism: Primordial Ethical Meanings

At the core of Texturalism lies the concept of primordial ethical meanings—the deep, pre-reflective foundations of the human capacity to be human. These are not social values in the conventional sense, but ontological structures that constitute the very fabric of existence. They include:

• Justice as a fundamental sense of proportion and measure;

• Honesty as transparency of the self to itself;

• Kindness as the ability to preserve the world in an intact state;

• Respect as recognition of the other’s distinctness;

• Empathy as inner participation in the fate of another.

In Texturalism, these qualities are not moral prescriptions but structural elements of a stable world. They maintain the integrity of human relationships and prevent civilization from degenerating into a mechanical aggregate of competing interests.

3. Humanity as Texture: A New Ontology of the Human

Texturalism proposes an alternative to atomistic conceptions of the human subject. Human existence is fabric-like, not atomic. A person is a node in a multilayered texture consisting of ethical, cultural, historical, and existential relationships. Humanity, therefore, is not a fixed property but a structure that must be continuously recreated.

This constant recreation—this “maintenance of the fabric”—is what makes the human world sustainable. Without this ongoing work of reconstruction, societies risk dissolution into what Texturalism identifies as the monotony and superficiality of the modern age.

4. Methodological Dimension: Conjugating Western Rationalism and Eastern Universalism

A key methodological principle of Texturalism is the translatability of civilizational logics. Rather than viewing Western rationalism and Eastern universalism as opposites, Texturalism treats them as mutually translatable expressions of the human spirit.

• Rationalism supplies form, structure, and analytical clarity.

• Universalism provides depth, holism, and semantic integration.

The goal is not synthesis or cultural fusion, but the creation of a space of mutual translatability, where each mode of thinking reveals its depth through engagement with the other. This produces what Texturalism calls a philosophy of textural correlation, capable of preventing the world from disintegrating into isolated conceptual fragments.

5. Epistemology: Knowledge as Texturing

In textural epistemology, the cognizing subject is viewed as a knot of meanings connecting diverse cultural, historical, and rational contexts. Knowledge becomes a process of texturing: weaving disparate elements into a unified semantic fabric.

Truth, therefore, is not a static proposition but a dynamic relational structure emerging within the space of encounters between different modes of meaning. The central method of knowing becomes translatability, understood as the capacity to move between rational and universal paradigms while preserving their internal coherence.

6. Ethics: Maintaining the Integrity of the World

The ethics of Texturalism is grounded in the ontology of the world itself. Ethical action is the practice of maintaining the integrity of the texture of human existence. This involves:

• preserving relationships rather than instrumentalizing them;

• cultivating transparency with oneself and others;

• recognizing and protecting the other’s uniqueness;

• participating in the world in a way that preserves its layers of meaning.

In this view, ethics becomes the principal means of safeguarding the world from fragmentation and collapse.

7. Political Philosophy: The State as a Textural Structure

Textural political philosophy conceptualizes the state not as a mechanical apparatus but as a texture of interests, identities, cultural codes, and historical depths. Politics becomes the art of conjugation—the ability to create spaces where diverse civilizational logics can be translated into one another.

In this context, the Middle Turkic civilization serves as an illustrative mediator. Situated between Western rationality and Eastern universalism, it provides a bridge that transforms civilizational tension into dialogic opportunity. International relations, within this framework, become a practice of textural diplomacy—an approach capable of moving beyond bloc-based logic toward mediation and mutual recognition.

8. Civilizational Theory: The Emergence of the Genosphere

Within the civilizational dimension, Texturalism asserts that civilizations are not closed systems or geopolitical blocs but textures of meanings and historical depths. Their task is not to dominate but to contribute to a shared multilayered reality.

This gives rise to the concept of the Genosphere:
a supra-civilizational fabric of meanings that unites diverse cultural textures into a common semantic continuum without erasing their uniqueness. In the Genosphere, diversity becomes a structural condition of global existence, and the rejection of hegemony becomes an ethical imperative.

Human beings themselves appear as microgenospheres—bearers of multiple layers of meaning and carriers of civilizational multiplicity.

9. Methods of Texturalism

Texturalism employs several methodological principles:

1. The method of conjugation—integrating diverse logics into a coherent framework of understanding.

2. The method of translatability—enabling communication across cultural, political, and scientific codes.

3. The method of textualization—assembling disparate elements into a consistent conceptual structure.

4. The method of in-depth analysis—revealing primordial ethical foundations within any phenomenon.

These methods cultivate a distinctive intellectual style in which multilayeredness is not an obstacle but a source of strength.

10. Practical Implications: Textural Thinking, Leadership, and Diplomacy

Texturalism extends beyond theory into practice:

• Textural thinking trains individuals to perceive the world as an interconnected fabric.

• Textural leadership involves creating spaces where diverse identities and interests can be woven into coherent structures.

• Textural diplomacy transforms contradictions into systems of mutual translatability, enabling non-violent forms of interaction.

This approach has direct implications for global governance, offering a potential philosophical foundation for reforms of international institutions, including the United Nations.

11. Conclusion: Toward a Multilayered Humanity

Texturalism articulates a comprehensive philosophical system grounded in the conviction that humanity is a fabric of interconnected meanings rather than a set of isolated individuals or civilizational blocs. In a period of global turbulence and the exhaustion of previous universalist projects, Texturalism offers a new task for the 21st century:

to restore depth to ethics, coherence to rationality, and translatability to the relations between civilizations.

It does not propose a utopia, but a method—a way of constructing a world where differences texture a shared horizon rather than divide it. Through the paradigm of the Genosphere and the ontology of multilayered existence, Texturalism seeks to reconstitute the conditions under which humanity can once again become a meaningful global project.

Diplomacy 2.0: How Kazakhstan Is Shaping a Post-Imperial Identity Without Antagonism

November 13, 2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s recent visit to Moscow—and the signing of the Declaration on the transition to a “comprehensive factor partnership”—marked not only a milestone in bilateral relations, but also a shift toward what can be described as Diplomacy 2.0.

Until recently, Moscow’s rhetoric toward Kazakhstan oscillated between questioning its statehood and issuing veiled territorial threats. Today, the tone has changed dramatically. The language of pressure has given way to the language of neighborliness. Kremlin propagandists who once spoke of Kazakhstan with condescension now invoke a predictable vocabulary of cooperation.

This shift did not occur spontaneously. It reflects a carefully designed diplomatic strategy that Astana has been cultivating for years—a strategy that moves beyond traditional balancing and equidistance. Kazakhstan is constructing a more textured foreign-policy architecture, weaving interdependencies across regions, sectors, and civilizations.

The Architecture of a New Diplomacy

Tokayev’s vision of a revived Central Asian civilization—summarized in his maxim “A strong Central Asia is a strong Kazakhstan”—has gained traction not only among regional capitals, but also in Washington, Brussels, Beijing, Ankara, and the broader Muslim world.
Kazakhstan’s diplomacy is becoming a kind of geopolitical “texturing”: an effort to integrate geoeconomics, humanitarian ties, and civilizational logic into a single, multilayered strategy.

This is not a competition for influence. It is the art of harmonization.

To understand this philosophy, one might turn to Tokayev’s long-standing attachment to judo—where force is transformed through flexibility.

In judo, ju represents softness and adaptation. Kazakhstan applies this principle to great-power politics: instead of resisting pressure or seeking favor, it redirects external energy to strengthen its own system. In moments of kuzushi—when others violate the rules of engagement—Astana avoids confrontation. Rather than dismantling the old architecture of Russia or China, it builds a new one through the C5+1 platform, trans-Caspian connections, green-energy cooperation, and digital alliances.

This is a subtle form of destabilization that leads not to conflict but to a new equilibrium, in which Central Asia becomes a hub rather than a buffer.

Judo also employs tai-sabaki—a movement that shifts the fighter away from attack while maintaining balance. Kazakhstan applies this logic elegantly: when U.S. engagement grows, it moves slightly toward China; when Russia exerts pressure, it opens more space for cooperation with the West. It does not flee the center of the ring—it redraws the center.

Then comes randori—free practice through adaptive improvisation. Globally, Kazakhstan uses this technique to read the rhythm of American, Chinese, Russian, and European politics, responding with neither fear nor aggression, but with agility.

Finally, the philosophical motto of judo—Seiryoku Zenyo, “maximum efficiency with minimum force”—captures Tokayev’s approach. Kazakhstan welcomes American investment, technology, and logistical support not as dependency, but as a resource for strengthening its own sovereignty.

In this sense, Kazakhstan does not resist U.S. influence; it transforms it into momentum—into interest in the “Middle World,” the civilizational space between East and West.

The Physics of Geopolitics

Tokayev’s diplomacy can also be described through the language of physics. Energy never disappears; it merely transforms. Kazakhstan treats great-power pressure the same way—not as a threat, but as a potential source of strategic advantage.

When the U.S. increases its presence in the region, Kazakhstan does not respond with a counterreaction. Instead, like a judoka pivoting gracefully, it creates a new vector of interaction. This is geopolitics governed by a version of Newton’s law where every action meets not an opposite reaction, but a transformed interaction.

Kazakhstan’s political momentum comes not from mass but from movement—from the ability to use short windows of geopolitical attention to accelerate modernization in energy, climate, infrastructure, technology, and education.
It seeks resonance, not confrontation—adjusting its diplomatic “frequency” so that partners reinforce each other without destabilizing the system.

In an increasingly chaotic world, Kazakhstan acts as a local reducer of entropy. It absorbs the turbulence of great-power rivalry and converts it into a zone of harmonization, creating a stable fabric of the Middle Civilization. In physical terms, Kazakhstan functions as a condenser of global energy flows, redistributing them between East and West.

Viewed through this lens, judo and physics become a single language: the language of dynamic equilibrium, where influence is generated not by force, but by flow.

From Diplomacy of Force to Diplomacy of Meaning

Tokayev’s strategy is not simply a new technique—it is the practical implementation of texturalism in geopolitics. He neither breaks old blocs nor creates new ideological ones; he weaves a fabric in which interests, values, and civilizations interact without collision.

Russia, China, the U.S., and Turkey become not rivals, but nodes in a broader network.

Tokayev has embodied this approach since the beginning of his presidency. His clear, public refusal to recognize the DPR and LPR during a forum in St. Petersburg was a demonstration of subjectivity delivered without aggression. Likewise, his remark in the Faceted Chamber—“Kuday koskaan körshі,” “a neighbor is given by God”—was not an act of deference, but a statement of civilizational ethics.

This sincerity has become a new diplomatic currency—rational empathy, rather than fear or ideology.

Putin, who as recently as early 2025 allowed traces of imperial nostalgia, now views Kazakhstan as a stabilizing actor in Central Asia. Tokayev, for his part, neither breaks with Russia nor dissolves into its orbit. He offers a partnership of mature states that know the limits of their influence.

Without a massive military or geopolitical weight, Kazakhstan has achieved what no other post-Soviet state has managed:
It de-escalated Moscow’s imperial rhetoric while simultaneously strengthening its ties with the West and China.

This is Diplomacy 2.0: a transition from the language of threats to the language of respect, from bilateral pressure to multipolar dialogue.

Kazakhstan’s Post-Imperial Breakthrough

Kazakhstan did not reject Russia, nor did it succumb to it. It transformed the relationship from a vertical post-imperial hierarchy into a horizontal, post-global partnership.

This constitutes a civilizational breakthrough: stability built not on military alliances or ideology, but on cultural maturity and soft power.

Unlike Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine—whose post-imperial departures were defined by rupture and trauma—Kazakhstan pursued transmutation rather than rejection. The Soviet past was not erased but reworked into a resource for national consolidation. Kazakhstan shifted the frame from “center and periphery” to “neighbors and partners.”

This is geopolitical maturity: independence not through rupture, but through reinterpretation.

The institutional results are clear. Since independence, Kazakhstan has preserved political stability, avoided ethnic conflict, navigated a peaceful transition from Soviet nomenklatura to technocratic governance, and implemented significant reforms—from the Public Trust Council to constitutional modernization and the “Just Kazakhstan” agenda.

This was not a revolution; it was institutional evolution.

Kazakhstan’s model aligns with the ethos of the Middle Civilization—a civilization of balance and communication. For Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, separation from empire was a matter of survival. For Kazakhstan, it has been a matter of dignity and moderation.

Kazakhstan did not abandon the imperial past; it recontextualized it. The empire lost its political centrality but remained part of the nation’s historical memory.

This is post-imperialism without antagonism—an identity shaped by transformation rather than negation.

A New Paradigm of Global Diplomacy

Kazakhstan has demonstrated that post-imperial sovereignty does not have to emerge from revolution or conflict. It can be achieved through a deliberate reweaving of history—an interlacing of past and future, geography and meaning, stability and motion.

In an era when many states resort to aggression to mask strategic weakness, Kazakhstan proposes another vocabulary: a language of textured respect, in which neighborliness becomes a source of strength rather than vulnerability.

This is not merely foreign policy. It is the art of holding the world in balance when others are pushing it toward collapse.

And in this art, Kazakhstan is emerging not as a student, but as a teacher.

Civilizational Texturing and UN Reform: A View from New York

09.13.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the United Nations—an institution born out of the ruins of World War II as a guarantor of peace and justice. Yet in the eight decades since its founding, the world has changed so dramatically that the old architecture of global governance no longer reflects present realities.

The opening session of the UN General Assembly therefore has every reason to devote close attention to this challenge.

Today, the world has entered a new era, which U.S. President Donald Trump—through his internal and external initiatives (MAGA)—anticipated, becoming a central figure in the restructuring of the world order. We describe this new stage as the era of civilizational texturing.

At its core, civilizational texturing reflects the reality that the global system can no longer be organized solely around individual states or traditional blocs. Instead, civilizational and regional communities—representing billions of people and possessing real capacity to shape the global agenda—are emerging as decisive actors in international relations.

This is not just a phrase, but a new logic of world politics. Humanity today cannot be represented exclusively by states. Civilizational and regional communities now play a defining role in shaping economies, cultures, and responsibilities across entire continents, while influencing decisions at the highest level.

Kazakhstan is one example of a country that has embodied this vision since its independence. Its domestic and foreign policy has consistently emphasized civilizational balance and dialogue. For us, civilizational texturing is the key to restoring global stability.

By this we mean the inclusion of diverse cultural and civilizational entities in the global decision-making system, creating a multi-layered fabric of governance. The drivers of this process are clear: the limits of Western dominance, the rise of the Global South, regional integration (AU, ASEAN, OTS, CELAC), and the growing role of civilizational identity in politics. Civilizational texturing is not a substitute for states but a complementary superstructure that strengthens legitimacy and sustainability in global governance.

The issue is urgent. The UN Security Council still reflects the balance of 1945. Africa and Latin America lack permanent representation, Asia is underrepresented, and Central Eurasia is absent entirely. Yet these regions are critical to today’s global dynamics. The African Union, the Organization of Turkic States, CELAC, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation have already proven themselves as effective actors. Their inclusion in the Security Council would make its decisions more representative and legitimate—reflecting the voices of humanity, not just a narrow circle of powers.

Concrete precedents already exist. The AU has carried out major peacekeeping operations in Somalia and Darfur. ECOWAS intervened effectively in The Gambia in 2017. The OTS has served as a platform for stabilization in the South Caucasus. Officially integrating such organizations into the Security Council would enhance decision-making by grounding it in regional legitimacy, while also reducing duplication and conflicts of authority between the UN and regional bodies.

Institutionally, this reform requires amendments to the UN Charter (Articles 108–109), needing two-thirds of General Assembly votes and ratification by all five permanent members (P5). Such a process can only move forward gradually and through compromise. Possible models include:

• LR (Longer Rotation): Long-term rotations of non-permanent members from civilizational blocs.

• RPM (Regional Permanent Members): Permanent seats for organizations (AU, OTS, etc.) with limited or no veto rights.

• Hybrid model: A mix of LR and RPM—gradual expansion of the Council alongside formal recognition of civilizational blocs.

Political realities shape this debate. The G4 (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil) push for national permanent seats, while the Uniting for Consensus group (Italy, Pakistan, Mexico, others) opposes this expansion. The civilizational approach offers a compromise: instead of privileging individual states, it prioritizes fair representation of civilizations and regions.

Kazakhstan, as part of the Turkic median civilization connecting East and West, North and South, is especially suited to advocate for this “middle option.” Its mission is to act as a bridge between centers of power and to promote a balanced world order.

Our proposed roadmap includes:

1. Launching an initiative in the UN General Assembly to create a working group on civilizational representation.

2. Building a coalition with AU, CELAC, OIC, and ASEAN to develop a common platform.

3. Opening negotiations with the P5 on conditional veto arrangements for new members.

4. Advancing the hybrid model (LR + RPM) as the most realistic reform option.

5. Positioning Kazakhstan as the voice of the “middle civilization,” bridging global divides.

The reform of the Security Council along civilizational lines will enhance legitimacy, improve effectiveness, and reduce conflict among power centers. While the UN remains unique, its survival depends on its ability to reflect today’s multi-civilizational reality.

President Trump’s initiative, combined with Kazakhstan’s support, opens the path toward a renewed system of global governance—one that is more representative, balanced, and sustainable. By recognizing civilizational texturing, the international community can move toward a fairer and more peaceful world order for the 21st century.

Why an Economic Corridor Could Anchor a Realistic Peace Formula Response by N. Rakhimbek to the article by V. Tuleshov “Frozen Assets Instead of Territorial Concessions”

August 19, 2025

Beyond Frozen Assets: Why an Economic Corridor Could Anchor a Realistic Peace Formula

Response by Nurul Rakhimbek

In response to the emerging discussions about the U.S. push for a Ukraine–Russia peace framework, I find myself in partial agreement with the idea of using frozen Russian assets as a compensatory mechanism for Ukraine.

Yet I remain skeptical that this alone can serve as the backbone of a viable settlement. The scale of the damage already inflicted on Ukraine far exceeds the currently frozen funds, and the core of any sustainable peace must rest not only on financial transfers but also on long-term economic integration and security guarantees.

So each damage has a value attached, which is even insufficient at the moment. It means someone would still have to pay for the damages. Besides, paying Russians for your own land does not resonate well with me.  

The Economic Reality of War Losses

Ukraine’s economic losses are staggering. According to the World Bank and Kyiv School of Economics, the direct damages from Russia’s war already exceed $600 billion, with destroyed infrastructure, housing, and industrial capacity accounting for a major share. Even if the West confiscates and reallocates Russia’s frozen assets (estimated at around $300 billion globally, of which about $200 billion are in Europe), this covers less than half of Ukraine’s reconstruction needs.

Moreover, a simple transfer of frozen funds does not establish a framework for Ukraine’s future growth, trade integration, and regional resilience. Without such a framework, any peace deal risks being only temporary—another “frozen conflict” without an economic anchor.

The Case for Integration Corridors

Instead of framing the peace process as a binary trade of “territories for money,” we should look toward economic integration corridors as part of the settlement. History shows that durable postwar orders—from post-WWII Europe to the Balkans—were stabilized not only by ceasefires but by shared economic interests that made renewed conflict costlier than peace.

Ukraine sits on critical transit and trade lines between the EU, Russia, and Central Asia. Properly developed, these corridors could turn Ukraine into a regional logistics and energy hub rather than a perpetual frontline. For example:

Energy Transit: Even in wartime, Russian gas transits through Ukraine supplied about 12 bcm in 2023, earning Kyiv $1.2 billion in transit fees. A restructured framework could preserve this flow under international oversight, while gradually shifting to EU–Ukraine joint energy projects.

Black Sea Grain Corridor: Ukraine accounted for 10% of global wheat exports and 15% of corn exports pre-war. Rebuilding safe corridors from Odesa to Mediterranean markets could restore a $20–25 billion annual revenue stream.

Industrial Reconstruction Zones: Ukraine’s metallurgy and heavy industry (Mariupol, Dnipro basin) were once worth over $40 billion annually. Even partial recovery under international investment frameworks could revive this sector.

An integration corridor model—linking Ukraine’s reconstruction with trade access for both Russia and Europe under multilateral guarantees—could make peace more economically binding.

Territorial Trade-Offs and Guarantees

Of course, any territorial concession by Ukraine is politically toxic. International law clearly forbids recognition of annexations by force, but one must also recognize that Russia is unlikely to relinquish all occupied areas immediately – economic cooperation could be the key here.

In this context, a ceasefire with the return of the lands under Ukraine’s jurisdiction—combined with economic reconstruction and integration projects across the war region — becomes a more realistic intermediate step.

The absence of NATO membership for Ukraine may be the unavoidable cost of such an arrangement at this stage. But this must be balanced by robust U.S.–EU security guarantees, international monitoring, and above all, an economic recovery compact that makes Ukraine’s survival and growth irreversible.

Toward a Realistic Peace Formula

Instead of focusing solely on frozen Russian assets—which, while important, are insufficient—we should push for a formula that combines:

1. Frozen assets for immediate reconstruction needs (~$300 billion).

2. Integration corridors (grain, energy, transport) with EU, Russia, and Central Asia under international oversight.

3. Security guarantees without NATO, but with U.S.–EU binding commitments.

4. Territorial resolution by returning the land map of 2014 Ukraine.

This approach is not perfect, but it recognizes the primacy of economics in postwar stabilization. It gives Ukraine real resources, makes renewed aggression less attractive, and keeps the West firmly in control of the sanctions–integration mechanism.

In short, peace will not hold on to financial compensation alone. It must be sewn into an economic fabric where Ukraine becomes indispensable to its neighbors, and conflict becomes too costly for Russia to repeat.

Original Article by Valikhan Tuleshov

“Frozen Assets Instead of Territorial Concessions”

Friends! The general formula that is emerging today after the talks in the White House: the desire for a trilateral negotiating format (Ukraine–USA–Russia), combined with the idea of security through guarantees and support from European allies, while maintaining the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but with an unclear Russian interpretation of all these positions, makes me deeply suspicious. Because the exchange of occupied territories of Ukraine at the expense of Ukraine is nonsense. It undermines the basic principle of international law: borders cannot be changed by force.

The peace treaty that Trump wants to conclude cannot be built on this basis, unless frozen Russian assets are given to Ukraine to restore unoccupied but damaged territories. Of course, a “territorial deal in exchange for financial compensation” through the use of frozen Russian assets looks much preferable. Then Russia maintains the status quo in the occupied areas, but does not receive recognition. And Ukraine receives real resources for restoration and strengthens its subjectivity, and the West does not violate the principle of the inviolability of borders, but on the contrary, strengthens it through the sanctions mechanism. And thus, the formula of “frozen assets instead of territorial concessions” may become the core of a future realistic peace formula.

But, in fact, today a ceasefire agreement is needed, because a peace treaty requires agreement on territorial issues, legally recognized obligations, and a long-term security architecture. Russia and Ukraine are not ready for this in the current conditions. Moscow does not recognize itself as an aggressor and will not agree to “give up” territories, and Kyiv will not agree to legitimize the occupation.

A ceasefire agreement, as an intermediate instrument, could record a ceasefire, define de facto but not de jure demarcation lines, launch mechanisms for humanitarian access, prisoner exchange, infrastructure restoration, and open up space for subsequent long peace negotiations. This is closer to the Korean model: there is a truce, there is a demarcation line, but the war is not formally over. Such a “cessation of war” can last for decades.

It does not require Ukraine to capitulate. It does not require Russia to admit defeat. It gives the U.S. and the EU a tool of control (through security guarantees, finances, observers). It gives a chance to begin economic recovery of Ukraine (including through frozen assets) without political capitulation.

And I think that now we should not talk about a “peace treaty,” but about a “treaty on the cessation of hostilities”, where the territorial issue is postponed, and security and recovery come to the fore.

Therefore, I consider Trump’s intention to immediately conclude a peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia at this stage of events to be an unintentional mistake, although I understand his strong desire and approve of it. And all participants in the negotiation process should not mix two different stages—the stage of ending the war (cessation of hostilities) and the stage of political peace (final fixation). These stages have always been historically separated (the Korean War, Vietnam, even the Balkans).

Therefore, the formula “security guarantees + means of restoring Ukraine – in exchange for territories and an obligation not to join NATO” is also premature. However, America wants to achieve all this in one agreement. This formula is premature and unviable due to the incompatibility of logics.

For Ukraine, security and restoration are possible only with the preservation of territorial integrity. For Russia, on the contrary, “peace” is possible only with the recognition of territorial gains. These positions do not stick together.

Secondly, an attempt to link four heavy elements in one document makes the agreement unfeasible. Usually, such issues are resolved in stages (first a ceasefire, then humanitarian mechanisms, and then status agreements). There is a risk of legitimizing aggression.

Because if territorial concessions become part of the “price of peace,” this destroys the international order. The United States will achieve short-term success but will undermine its own leadership.

Thirdly, internal intransigence will arise within Russia and Ukraine. Neither Ukrainian society nor the Russian elite will be able to swallow all of these conditions at once. Such a “package” will explode from within. It is clear that America wants an “all-in deal,” but historical experience and the real balance of power require a step-by-step process, where each step is fixed separately. Moreover, Russia will always throw in another 100 of its own wishes for one Ukrainian one, as Zelensky said today.

After all, Moscow never comes to negotiations for the sake of a final decision, but for the sake of playing for time, squeezing out concessions and blurring the agenda. Even if Ukraine agrees to one painful compromise (for example, neutrality), Russia will immediately demand new ones: recognition of “new territories,” lifting of sanctions, return of assets, cancellation of military aid, etc. Because Russian diplomacy has historically been built on the fact that negotiations themselves become an instrument of war—they do not lead to a result, but replace it.

Because maintaining power in the Russian Federation is possible only through a constant “increasing stakes.” Any compromise within the country is interpreted as weakness. Any “comprehensive agreement” with Russia is doomed: the Kremlin will move the goalposts endlessly. Which is what it is doing now.

Ukraine’s “one wish” (restoration of sovereignty) will never coincide with Russia’s “hundred wishes,” because these are different logics: one is about law, the other is about bargaining with force. Therefore, the only working way is to segment the process and factor out what cannot be resolved now (territories, status).

The rational alternative looks like this:

1. A truce with fixed and verifiable conditions (fire ceases, lines are frozen de facto).

2. A financial package for Ukraine (frozen assets + allied assistance).

3. International security guarantees without capitulation conditions.

4. An open pause for a decade on the territorial issue.

In other words: “peace in Russian” will be equal to an endless trade in concessions, and “stopping the war” without peace is the only way to protect Ukraine and the system of international law.

Therefore, first we need an agreement to end the war and a declaration on segmentation of negotiations. Where a stop of the war (cessation of hostilities) is not “peace” and not “capitulation,” but a fixation of a pause to stop the blood and destruction.

The declaration on segmentation of negotiations should openly admit that territorial issues are not resolved immediately, humanitarian and financial issues are on their own track, security and guarantees are formalized separately, and political status and long-term architecture are postponed for the future.

The third step is a gradual texturalization: each side receives a “partial solution,” and the entire system is stabilized not through “one big treaty,” but through a network of parallel agreements. This will work better because the trap of “either peace or war” is removed, the capitulation logic is excluded, and space for international law is preserved (not to recognize territorial seizures, but also not to make them an obstacle to humanitarian steps). At the same time, each side can present the result as “its victory” for the domestic audience.

In my opinion, in essence, this will be the best formula for texturalism for the conflict:

“Ending the war + segmentation of negotiations = a controlled pause and a multi-level process instead of a fictitious peace.”

What do you think, friends?

Trump’s Doctrine of Texturing: The Architecture of a Post-Global World

08.19.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

Trump’s Doctrine of Texturing: The Architecture of a Post-Global World

Based on the reforms and actions of Donald Trump during his presidency, we can see the contours of a distinct doctrine emerging—a doctrine of texturing, which is shaping a new post-global world order. At its core, this is not simple disruption, but a deliberate re-stitching of the global fabric** in ways that prioritize American interests.

Beyond Liberal Globalism

Acting outside the paradigm of traditional liberal internationalism, Trump has launched a structural shift in world governance. What may appear chaotic, populist, or isolationist actually follows a clear logic: global ties are unraveled, recast, and re-stitched into a pattern of bilateral relationships, each defined by confrontation, interest, and advantage.

This is not destruction for its own sake. It is a neo-imperial stitching strategy, where universalism yields to the sovereign fabric of the United States.

The Pillars of the Textural Doctrine

1. Deinstitutionalization of Global Bodies

Trump views institutions like the WTO, NATO, WHO, and the UN not as guarantors of order but as outdated layers that obscure true national interests. By tearing apart these seams, he seeks to expose and control the real fabric: debts, resources, trade, and power.

2. Binarization of Relations

Trump replaces the “all-with-all” model of multilateralism with “one-on-one” negotiations. Each country becomes a separate fabric unit—an isolated node in bilateral bargaining, where the U.S. dictates terms as the dominant center of power.

3. Tariffs and Sanctions as Geopolitical Needles

For Trump, economic coercion is not auxiliary to politics—it is the primary tool of texturing. Tariffs, sanctions, and trade restrictions cut old seams and redirect flows, sewing a new pattern of power.

4. Creation of the American Supertexture

The ultimate goal is the sovereign “supertexture” of the United States. In trade, energy, and security, America detaches itself from the global canvas, restructuring every flow, contract, and obligation in its favor.

Civilizational Texturing

This doctrine shifts the logic of global order from geopolitics to geoeconomics and geocivilization. Alliances based on ideology give way to networks based on shared interests. Thus, the U.S. strengthens ties with Israel, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Eurasia—not for values, but for positions in the new fabric of influence.

The world map is no longer unipolar or even bipolar—it is polymatter: fragmented, textured into autonomous zones (China, Turkey, Russia), hybrid nodes (India, Vietnam), and vulnerable fabrics (the EU, Africa, Latin America).

In this context, bilateral deals, tariffs, and selective military bases become tactical stitching tools. The media and post-truth narratives act as threads, weaving perception into the new order.

Russia in the Textural Vision

For Trump, Russia’s role is not elimination, but redefinition:

* From Global to Regional Node: Trump seeks to downgrade Russia’s status from global player to regional fabric, forcing it to tailor ambitions within limited boundaries.

* From Legislator to Supplier: Russia can remain an exporter of oil, gas, metals, and grain, but not a rule-maker. Pricing, logistics, and sanctions remain under U.S. control.

* Breaking Old Seams of Influence: Sanctions, financial blockades, and regional conflicts are used to erode Russia’s reach in Ukraine, the Balkans, the Middle East, and Central Asia—without direct war, but through constant pressure and constraint.

The ideal outcome for Trump is a resource-based Russia—functional but dependent, a bridge between the U.S. and China rather than an independent architect of global order.

A New Art of Political Weaving

In this era of civilizational texturing, power no longer rests solely on weapons or money, but on the ability to re-stitch connections, redirect flows, and sustain new patterns amid ruptures. The United States wields the needle, while other powers struggle to adjust their fabrics.

Thus, Trump’s doctrine should not be seen as a return to past isolationism, but as the prototype of a new political weaving—a dynamic, fragmented, and functional order where influence is measured by the craft of stitching the global fabric to one’s own advantage.

New World Order: From Gunboat Politics to Civilizational Texture

07.27.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

The global order is undergoing a profound transformation—from the dominance of a single superpower to a textured coexistence of multiple civilizations. This is not merely a shift in geopolitics, but a fundamental redefinition of how power, culture, and cooperation are structured in the 21st century.

The political disruptions of the last decade, particularly during the administration of Donald Trump, signaled a break from the post-Cold War unipolar system. The world is no longer governed by a singular center of power. Nor is it simply evolving into a multipolar balance among nation-states. What is emerging instead is a landscape of civilizational pluralism. Regions such as the West, China, the Islamic world, India, the Turkic world, Latin America, and Africa are beginning to assert themselves as distinct civilizational cores.

This transformation is more than geopolitical rivalry—it is the formation of a world defined by cultural and political coexistence. Dominance is giving way to mutual presence. Civilizations will increasingly define themselves not by their supremacy over others, but by their ability to interweave, cooperate, and coexist through what might be called “civilizational texture.”

At the same time, the financial architecture of the world is shifting. A digital, multi-currency order is taking shape, gradually eroding the absolute hegemony of the U.S. dollar. Blockchain-based currencies, regional stablecoins, and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are being developed across the globe. Traditional financial systems like SWIFT are beginning to give way to transnational settlement platforms more aligned with regional and civilizational priorities.

What is emerging can be described as a tectonofinancial network—where monetary instruments function not only as means of exchange but also as semantic tokens of identity and cultural affiliation. Much like how the dollar and the euro represent the strategic interests of the United States and the European Union, new currencies will begin to reflect and support the unique civilizational paths of their issuers.

This broader reorganization also extends into the economic sphere. The once-dominant model of globalization, built on a vertically integrated and often exploitative production chain, is evolving. Tariffs, sanctions, and geopolitical friction have catalyzed the rise of proportionality and interdependent autonomy. In its place, a new model is gaining ground—glocalization. Countries are increasingly focused on strengthening domestic capabilities in critical sectors while remaining open to external exchange. Rather than concentrating production hierarchically, economies are forming horizontal partnerships grounded in cultural and technological compatibility. This is already visible in nations like Kazakhstan, which are balancing national resilience with international cooperation.

Culturally and politically, we are also seeing a move away from the ideology-driven expansionism that characterized much of the 20th century. Missionary efforts to export political systems and values are being replaced by more reciprocal forms of engagement. In their place, platforms of cultural diplomacy and civilizational mediation are emerging—spaces where societies exchange stories, traditions, myths, and technologies, rather than attempt to remake one another. This shift is evident in regional blocs such as the European Union and in experimental cross-cultural partnerships like the United Territories, where cooperation is built on mutual respect rather than moral imposition.

Perhaps most transformative of all is the role of artificial intelligence. Far from being a neutral or universalizing technology, AI is becoming a cultural and civilizational force in its own right. Civilizational AI cores are beginning to form—systems trained not just on universal data but on the linguistic, ethical, and symbolic frameworks of specific civilizations. Arabic AI, Turkic AI, Sinogenic AI, and Indo-Buddhist AI—each is emerging to reflect its cultural foundation. Rather than erasing difference, AI has the potential to manage diversity, navigate complexity, anticipate conflict, and align multilateral interests in an increasingly plural world.

Looking upward and outward, space and climate are fast becoming the shared frontiers of global cooperation. Unlike traditional domains of diplomacy, space exploration and environmental preservation transcend national and ideological divisions. They represent common horizons that require collective stewardship. A stable and legitimate global order in the 21st century will be impossible without a unified climate architecture and collaborative action beyond Earth. These domains are becoming the ultimate terrains of scientific diplomacy and planetary responsibility—even if not all states are prepared to embrace that responsibility yet.

The world that is emerging is not governed by force, colonial extraction, or homogenizing technology. It is one where sovereignty coexists with openness, where digital innovation preserves rather than erases culture, and where economic and political systems reflect the nuanced textures of global civilizations. This is the textured world—a world of coexistence without coercion, sovereignty without isolation, and progress without cultural erasure. It is a new world order in the making, shaped not by gunboats and empires, but by the shared complexity of civilizations learning to live together.

Kazakhstan’s Rare Earth Opportunity: Between Strategic Promise and Structural Limits

07.14.2025

By Nurul Rakhimbek

As Kazakhstan navigates the complex terrain of post-pandemic recovery, global realignment, and domestic reform, the country faces a number of pressing economic challenges. Among these is a growing urgency to redefine its industrial role in the era of energy transition and geopolitical fragmentation.

From a geopolitical standpoint, Kazakhstan is well-positioned—geographically central, resource-rich, and diplomatically multivectoral. Yet its capacity to translate potential into industrial power remains contested.

Revisionism and Resource Sovereignty

One of the most high-stakes initiatives currently underway in Kazakhstan is the revision of existing oil and gas contracts—a process framed by the government as a restoration of economic sovereignty. While popular among segments of the public and political elite, this revisionist drive also raises serious concerns among investors and international observers. Reopening contractual terms decades after signing may help rebalance revenue streams in the short term, but it risks reputational damage and may deter future investment—especially in sectors like critical minerals where competition is fierce and geopolitical stakes are high.

A Critical Opportunity: Rare Earth Elements (REEs)

If Kazakhstan is to reposition itself as more than a raw materials supplier, one of the clearest opportunities lies in the rare earth and metallurgical sector.

Why Rare Earths?

1. Global Trends: Rare earth elements—such as neodymium, scandium, yttrium, and cerium—have become strategic commodities underpinning everything from electric vehicles and wind turbines to AI and missile systems. The energy transition, digitalization, and military modernization have transformed REEs into the "new oil" of the 21st century.

2. Resource Base: Kazakhstan is among the most geologically gifted countries in Central Eurasia. Deposits in regions such as Akchatau and Bayan-Aul hold considerable promise, though they remain underexploited and technologically dated.

3. Strategic Positioning: With China currently dominating over 80% of global REE processing and the U.S., EU, and Japan scrambling to diversify supply chains, Kazakhstan has a unique opportunity to act as a neutral REE hub, threading a diplomatic and economic path between competing global powers.

But Why Caution Is Warranted

Despite this promise, several structural limitations persist:

• Technological Deficit: Kazakhstan lacks the high-end refining and processing capacity required to compete in the global REE value chain. The country remains dependent on foreign technology, particularly from China. Without significant investment in research, training, and technological transfer, Kazakhstan will likely remain a junior partner in any consortium it joins.

• Environmental Risks: REE extraction is among the most environmentally damaging industrial activities. Kazakhstan currently has no robust regulatory framework to mitigate long-term ecological harm. Any attempt to scale up production must be accompanied by stringent “green” regulations and preemptive investment in waste management and site reclamation.

• Geopolitical Vulnerability: Entering the REE market means entering a sanctions-sensitive, high-risk geopolitical zone. Kazakhstan must avoid the trap of becoming overdependent on any single power—be it China, the United States, or Russia—and must design a diversified export and partnership strategy. Otherwise, it risks being caught in great-power crossfire.

Toward an Actionable Strategy

A successful REE and metallurgy strategy for Kazakhstan must rest on clear and realistic foundations:

1. Develop a National Roadmap: KazRareEarth 2030

This strategy should define:

• Priority mining and processing zones

• Clear financing mechanisms

• Environmental safeguards

• Export diversification targets

• A legal framework for international partnerships

• The creation of a centralized REE exchange platform

2. Establish an International Metallurgical Technopolis

Kazakhstan should lead the development of a technopolis for high-tech metallurgy, structured as an international consortium with stakeholders from the U.S., China, Turkey, Korea, Germany, and Japan. This platform could serve as a hub for:

• Deep processing of copper, aluminum, titanium, and REEs

• Technology transfer

• Workforce development

• Applied R&D

3. Regional Integration via the Organization of Turkic States (OTS)

Integrating REE development into the Turkic cooperation agenda would be a logical step, aligning with broader goals in space, logistics, and finance. A Turkic REE Consortium could share expertise, coordinate policy, and attract collective investment.

4. Strategic Outreach to the U.S. and EU

Given the West’s active search for non-Chinese REE supply chains, Kazakhstan should proactively engage with partners such as the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), EU Global Gateway initiative, and Japan’s JOGMEC. Such ties would not only diversify Kazakhstan’s partners but enhance its bargaining power with China.

Conclusion: From Extraction to Agency

Kazakhstan has long played the role of resource provider in global markets—exporting uranium, copper, and aluminum, while watching value chains and innovation settle abroad. The rare earth and metallurgy sector offers a rare opportunity to reverse that pattern and embed Kazakhstan in the high-value segments of global production.

But this opportunity must be approached with critical realism. Industrial sovereignty cannot be declared—it must be built patiently, with the right partnerships, the right protections, and a long-term strategic vision.

Kazakhstan’s transformation from a peripheral supplier into a technological and geo-economic actor is not guaranteed. But if executed well, it could reposition the country as one of the key architects of Eurasia’s industrial future—not just a participant, but a designer of the emerging textured world order

Texturalism: A New Philosophy of International Relations

07.14.2025

By Valikhan Tuleshov

Introduction: The End of the Humanitarian Age

The post-Cold War unipolar moment—dominated by liberal humanitarianism, foreign aid, and global “involvement”—has gradually receded. Its decline began with the emergence of new independent states across Central Eurasia. In its place, a new pragmatic paradigm has emerged: Texturalism—a philosophy rooted in the articulation and interweaving of state interests, where power is not imposed but sewn into the mutual fabric of necessity and reciprocity.

Texturalism is a philosophical and political theory that posits: lasting international stability is not built through dominance or charity, but through the structural density of mutual involvement—a mesh of economic, cultural, and geographic ties that form an architecture of necessity. It is not about declarations of values but about material interdependence.

I. Kazakhstan: A Forerunner of the Textural Era

Kazakhstan did not invent Texturalism but became one of its earliest and most consistent practitioners. As a post-Soviet state positioned at the heart of Eurasia, Kazakhstan institutionalized the principles of Texturalism long before they were formally conceptualized.

1. Structural Reciprocity over Humanitarianism; Geoeconomics over Geopolitics

Kazakhstan pioneered a multi-vector foreign policy, avoiding rigid alliances in favor of flexible, non-hierarchical relationships. From the 1990s onward, it developed partnerships simultaneously with Russia, China, the U.S., the EU, Turkey, and the Muslim world—creating a functional foreign policy fabric based on mutual interest rather than bloc loyalty.

This pluralistic approach laid the foundation for regional integration initiatives such as the SCO, CSTO, the Turkic Council, and various Islamic cooperation platforms. Kazakhstan became a proto-textural state—a bridge, not a barrier.

2. Nazarbayev’s Eurasian Vision as a Textural Blueprint

In 1994, President Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed the Eurasian Union—not as a revival of empire, but as a cooperative network based on infrastructure, economics, and shared geography. His emphasis on nodal integration rather than centralization anticipated core tenets of Texturalism.

3. Infrastructure as the Fabric of Connection

Kazakhstan became a logistical keystone in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and actively promotes the Middle Corridor linking China to Europe via the Caspian Sea. It is not merely a transit country but an architect of Eurasia’s geo-economic infrastructure.

4. Cultural-Civilizational Texture

Kazakhstan’s role as a cultural mediator is vital. It straddles the Turkic, Islamic, Chinese, and post-Soviet worlds. Through initiatives in pan-Turkic linguistic, academic, and civilizational integration, it promotes strategic cultural diplomacy. Kazakhstan's brand of integration avoids supranational control and emphasizes textural partnership.

Though China, Turkey, and even the U.S. are building their own geopolitical fabrics, Kazakhstan was the first to institutionalize multipolar geopolitics as a “woven” model in the post-Soviet world.

II. China: The First Conscious Global Texturizer

While Kazakhstan embodied Texturalism intuitively, China became the first major power to pursue it consciously through its global infrastructure strategy.

1. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as Structural Texture

Launched in 2013 with Xi Jinping’s speech in Kazakhstan, BRI is not just a transit network. It is a geo-economic architecture—linking ports, roads, power systems, cultural exchanges, and trade agreements. China's approach does not demand ideological conformity but offers reciprocal integration into a shared structure of mutual benefit.

2. A “Community of Shared Future for Humanity”

This doctrine rejects center-periphery models in favor of mutual involvement. Diversity is not a problem to solve but the very foundation of a sustainable order. States retain sovereignty but operate within a dense network of economic and infrastructural ties.

China is the first power to philosophically define and globally implement a textural world order. Its influence is embedded not in dominance, but in the density of participation.

III. Other Global Actors: Emerging but Incomplete Texturizers

Other powers have adopted elements of Texturalism but have not yet fully articulated or implemented it as a global strategy.

• The United States, under President Trump, began projecting a transactional and reciprocal international model—especially in Africa and the Middle East. However, this shift lacked philosophical depth and was more reactive than systemic.

• The European Union focuses on institutional coherence and legal integration internally. Its external initiatives (ENP, Global Gateway) are more a response to BRI than original textural visions.

• Turkey, India, and Russia exhibit regional textural behaviors—Turkey in the Turkic world, India in the Indo-Pacific—but have not developed a full civilizational or infrastructural model akin to China's.

IV. The Trump Doctrine: Texturalist Pragmatism in Practice

Ironically, Donald Trump, often seen as an opponent of globalism, became a major Western catalyst for Texturalism. His approach replaced humanitarian rhetoric with existential pragmatism: aid gave way to investment; patronage gave way to deal-making; and traditional geopolitics morphed into geo-economic bargaining.

In Africa, for example, the U.S. under Trump did not seek dominance but engagement through mutual benefit. “America will not buy friends. We will build mutual prosperity,” he said. His administration supported mining, infrastructure, and food security projects—not as gifts, but as co-investments in sovereignty.

This approach treats natural resources—lithium, cobalt, potash—not merely as commodities but as texture codes for future development. American power, in this context, rests not in military might, but in structural economic participation.

V. Texturalism: The Philosophy of a Post-Systemic World

We are moving beyond the age of systems, blocs, and binaries. The new global reality is not vertical, but woven—a world of textured civilizations stitched together through necessity, reciprocity, and participation.

• China, the Turkic world, the United States, Europe, and Africa are not blocks to be aligned, but fabrics to be integrated.

• Sovereignty is no longer an absolute, but a function of a state’s textural density—its network of interdependencies.

• Power lies not in dominance, but in the capacity to build and sustain meaningful connections.

Texturalism is the emerging philosophy of this age. It is a vision in which diplomacy, trade, culture, and infrastructure are not tools of influence, but threads of a shared future. In this new order, influence is defined by the density of involvement, not the volume of force.

Conclusion: The World as Fabric, Not System

Texturalism offers a radically different vision of global politics—one based on connectivity over control, participation over patronage, and shared development over unilateral aid.

It is not about conquering, but about weaving.

It is not about ideology, but about infrastructure.

And it is not about dominance, but about the architecture of interdependence.

As the old humanitarian age fades, the textural era is rising. And Kazakhstan—alongside China and other early adopters—stands poised not merely to participate in this shift, but to shape its philosophical core

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.