The Role of the Greater Eurasian Partnership Project in Kazakhstan’s Politics through the Prism of Its Participation in the CIS, EAEU and CSTO

Amid the increasing number of regional and global challenges and threats (Ukrainian crisis, PalestinianIsraeli conflict, unstable socio-political situation in Afghanistan, escalating cross-border terrorist dange rs, etc.), the foreign policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan (RK) is gaining momentum. In consonance with the doctrinal principles outlined in the Strategy “Kazakhstan-2050” and the Concept of the RK foreign policy in 2020, the finalization of specific patterns of Kazakhstan’s attitude towards other countries and multilateral associations has accelerated: proactivity, pragmatism and multi-vectorism. Therefore, interest in the study of Kazakhstan’s foreign policy has been growing rapidly recently. Not only does the practical side of Kazakhstan’s political and diplomatic efforts deserve attention, but also their semantic content represented in modern Kazakhstani strategic planning documents defining the trajectory of relations between Kazakhstan and other world politics actors should be examined. Kazakhstan’s proactive commitment to the international law and institutionalization of multilateral cooperation under rising geopolitical tensions is also confirmed by the fact that in 2024 Kazakhstan chaired a record number of international organizations, such as the OTS, SCO, CICA, CSTO, IOFS, IFAS. However, the CIS, the CSTO and the EAEU will be scrutinized in this article, which is due to their pivotal role in the implementation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership (GEP) project put forward by Russia in 2015. Aim and tasks. The article attempts to analyze the role of the Greater Eurasian Partnership project in Kazakhstan’s politics in the context of this country’s activities in the EAEU, the CIS and the CSTO. To study the basic principles of the formation of the Greater Eurasia, to determine the regularities and trajectory of Kazakhstan’s modern foreign policy, to assess Kazakhstani approaches to integration within the EAEU, CSTO and CIS from the perspective of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. Methods. empirical, theoretical and analytical methods were applied. Results. It was discovered that Kazakhstan’s activities within the mentioned associations are based on its self-perception as a sub-regional middle power, along with its desire to get the most out of Eurasian integration. Conclusion. For Kazakhstan, the BEP project is a key guideline in the formation of a continent-wide network of mutually beneficial integration formats, including the EAEU, the CIS, and the CSTO.

1. Bolgova, I., Nikitina, Y. Eurasian Economic Union at a Crossroads Between Integration and Sovereignty // Contemporary Europe. 2019. No. 5 (90). P. 13–23 (In Russ.). EDN: IFVBZZ. DOI: 10.15211/soveurope520191322.

2. Glazyev, S. Yu., Kefeli, I. F. On the Question of the Ideology of the Eurasian Economic Union // Eurasian Integration: Economics, Law, Politics. 2022. Vol. 16, No. 1. P. 10–21 (In Russ.). EDN: GXIUNF. DOI: 10.22394/2073-2929-2022-01-10-21.

3. Davydova, Yu. A., Kargapolova, E. V. Cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan as a Vector of Eurasian Integration // Eurasian Integration: Economics, Law, Politics. 2022. Vol. 16, No. 2. P. 51–59 (In Russ.). EDN: BNCVBD. DOI: 10.22394/2073-2929-2022-02-51-60.

4. Demina, Yu. A. Inflow of Foreign Direct Investment into the EAEU: Problems and Prospe cts // Economic Development Research Journal. 2024. No. 10. P. 49–56 (In Russ.). EDN: PVHWD H.

5. Kefeli, I. F. Geopolitical Aspects of the Initiatives and Projects Forming Greater Eurasian Partnership // Eurasian Integration: Economics, Law, Politics. 2019. No. 3. P. 65–76 (In Russ.). EDN: PCXPUJ.

6. Kulintsev, Yu. V. The Greater Eurasian Partnership in the System of Regional Integration Processes // China in World and Regional Politics. History and Modernity. 2020. No. 25. P. 66–79 (In Russ.). EDN: CDRRQD. DOI: 10.24411/2618-6888-2020-10004.

7. Leksin, V. N. The Greater Eurasia Project and Problems of Sustainability of the Established World Order // Greater Eurasia: Development, Security, Cooperation. 2022. No. 5–1. P. 196–200 (In Russ.). EDN: VHWXPG.

8. Novikov, D., Gorenkin, K. Greater Eurasia in the New Cold War. Challenge or Opportunity? // International Trends. 2023. Vol. 21, No. 4 (75). P. 171–190 (In Russ.). EDN: DXSEMD. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2023.21.4.75.5.

9. Osadchaya, G. I. Eurasian Economic Union: Development Potential, Cooperation Format. Moscow : EconInform, 2021. 346 p (In Russ.). EDN: FJASSX. DOI: 10.19181/monogr.978-5-907427-41-9.2021.

10. Cooper, A., Higgot, R., Kim, R. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver : UBC Press, 1993. 240 p. ISBN: 9780774853736. DOI: 10.59962/9780774853736.

11. Cox, R. W. Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order // International Journal. 1989. Vol. 44, No. 4. P. 823–862. DOI: 10.2307/40202638.

12. Higgot, R. A. Issues, Institutions and Middle-Power Diplomacy: Action and Agenda in the Post-Cold War Era // Niche Diplomacy. Middle Powers after the Cold War / ed. by Andrew F. Cooper. London : Macmillan Press, 1997. P. 25–45. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-25902-1_2.

13. Keohane, R. Lilliputians’ Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics // International Organization. Spring 1969. Vol. 23, No. 2. P. 291–310. DOI: 10.1017/S002081830003160X.