Paper long abstract:

The political, economic, and geopolitical presence of the United States of America in the Eastern Partnership region (EaP - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine) goes back at least for a century when after the World War One it appeared as a global political, economic, and geopolitical actor. The cooperation has increased dramatically since 1991 when the six EaP countries received independence after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

From this perspective the paper focuses on determination of the basic US interests in Eurasia and try to determine the role, which the EaP countries and region, in general, can play in that strategic environment.

The study tests the following hypotheses and demonstrates that the US:

- Mostly relies on and supports the EU`s EaP program to promote its political and economic interests in the EaP region,

- However, does not appeal to the six EaP countries as a single political, geopolitical or economic unit, as the EU does.

- Prioritizes NATO to provide its military interests and collaboration in that region.

The paper is based on strategic documents, including the US National Security Strategies (2017, 2015, 2009, and so on), published materials, official reports, and studies on the foreign policy priorities of the USA in general and in Eurasian and EaP region, in particular. World Bank, IMF, WTO, and USAID reports are discussed to reveal the fluctuations of economic cooperation between the US and countries of the region. At the same time public interviews and expert interviews allows to make the study more diverse and comprehensive.

Paper long abstract:

The announcement of China's Belt and Road Initiative (henceforth, BRI) left a significant mark for the Eurasian continent, in particular, for Central Asia. Beijing's initiative has provided a chance to many states within the continent to receive substantial investments into a number of wide-scale infrastructure projects. The latter is essentially challenging to implement without the support of external funding and international partners.

Beijing considered the decision of Obama's administration to strengthen the military, trade, and economic cooperation with Asia-Pacific countries as a threat to Chinese interests in the region and suggested the BRI. Thus, the Chinese government wanted to intensify cooperation with countries on the Eurasian continent to compensate for potential losses in the Asia-Pacific region.

D. Trump's accession to the power in the USA seriously alters the existing balance of powers in the Asia-Pacific region and these changes may be transmitted to the Central Asian region. D. Trump's decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, together with his statements on the decisive revision of existing US trade agreements can fundamentally augment the current state of international affairs. Concurrently, Xi Jinping in his speeches implicitly stated readiness to uptake a leading, active, and crucial role in this new environment.

In this light, Central Asia can face two scenarios for the development of the BRI project. First, if Beijing concludes that weakening cooperation between the USA and Asia-Pacific countries reduces the threat of encirclement from the western direction, the attention and determination of China to implement the BRI project may decline. Subsequently, Central Asia's importance for the Chinese leadership may plausibly diminish and result in the plummeting of the volume of investments into large projects, deterioration of the regional economic performance, and strengthening the influence of Russia and other actors in the region.

Secondly, China may view the willingness of the new administration in Washington to concentrate primarily on solving domestic issues as an opportune moment to expand its influence throughout the world and particularly in Central Asia.

Even greater intensification of Beijing in the region may have contradictory consequences: considerable financial injections in the region and alleviation of the main economic problems on the one hand and a breakdown of the contemporary balance in Central Asia and a new confrontation between large external forces for supremacy in the region on the other hand.

Paper long abstract:

Khorasanian thinkers believed that, the discovery of their origins and the "Other", is not a single whole act, but rather a procedural, almost stage-by-stage like capacity to understand the world. Evidence suggests that in order to survive (or just grow), one must move from their initial sphere of life/science to the next. Such mobility was influenced heavily by the tradition of constant crossing of boundaries and countries, formalizing commercial/scientific flexibility of the entire culture of the region. However, this potential remains untapped in the construction of the new history of nations. Therefore it is fair to ask: what is the reason for the lack of dialogue on decolonization of, both within the region (between researchers of different republics), between the Russian and Central Asian researchers, as well as between other regions, .ie South-to-South (the Middle East, Latin America, China etc.). Without doubt, every one of us has worthy of alibi. But it is important to understand that today's distancing from the topic in Central Asia; is not an ideological camouflage ala Soviet-style, but rather a preservation of the myth of Westphalia on the priority of national sovereignty. Finding one's way out of this maze created by the rhetoric of the nations and the logic of coloniality is a very real issue. The first step may be to recognize that our very own knowledge base is colonial. Accordingly, the process must begin with ridding ourselves from this state, starting the process of de-coloniality. To initiate such an understanding, the author proposes to use - dahlez (concept of AL Gazali), philosophical concept, put forward with a view to the perception of many values of plural-cycle culture of the region, as well as the values of the outside.

Key words: Central Asia, authority, colonialism, coloniality, Eurasia, Russia, Europe, subaltern.