Abstract:

This paper examines whether Kazakhstan is a mid-power by testing it on the basis of the three theoretical approaches to defining a middle power. These three approaches include defining a middle power by a country’s position, geography and behavior. Each of the approaches is tested in relation to Kazakhstan. I also focus on Kazakhstan’s diplomacy in a comparative perspective in relation to the model of a middle power.

I argue that the testing of the existing theoretic approaches proves the emerging status of Kazakhstan as a middle power. Testing the “positional” and “geographical” approaches to Kazakhstan make it possible to qualify the country as a potential middle power. Analysis of the “behavioral” approach and its subsequent testing in relation to the country indicates that the successful implementation of a number of foreign policy initiatives, the development of “niche” diplomacy, proves the status of Kazakhstan as a middle regional state.

I also argue that it is important to study Kazakhstan on the basis of a constructivist approach, which can be based on the country’s self-identification as a “mid-power”. Kazakhstan has defined itself for the first time as a mid-power in the region in the Foreign Policy Concept of Kazakhstan for 2020-2030. The scholarly literature by Kazakh and foreign authors on the policy of Kazakhstan as a middle power, the projects of the Clingendael (2018) and the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (2024) where Kazakhstan is included in the category of “middle powers”, self-identification of the country in the Foreign Policy Concept for 2020-2030, prove the importance of developing significant research in this area.

The paper is based on working with academic literature on middle powers and documents on the foreign policy of Kazakhstan.

Abstract:

This paper is a work in progress and presents a qualitative comparative study aimed at unraveling the complexities of multi-vector approach in the contexts of Kazakhstan and Ukraine. This research seeks to examine the similarities and differences in the application of multi-vector approaches by these two post-Soviet states. Additionally, it endeavors to shed light on the underlying reasons for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, juxtaposed against Kazakhstan's relative stability.

Methodologically, this study relies on qualitative analysis of official documents, diplomatic statements, and scholarly literature. By delving into the historical narratives, domestic political dynamics, and external influences shaping Kazakhstan and Ukraine's multi-vector strategies, the research aims to construct a nuanced understanding of their respective approaches towards great powers.

The central argument of this study revolves around the critical role of historical legacies, domestic and external pressures in shaping Kazakhstan and Ukraine's multi-vector strategies. By examining the nuanced dynamics of their relationships with great powers, including Russia, China, the European Union, and the United States, the research aims to reveal distinct patterns of alignment and divergence in each country's foreign policy orientation.

Preliminary findings suggest notable differences in the outcomes of Kazakhstan and Ukraine's multi-vector approaches, particularly concerning conflict resolution and regional stability. While Kazakhstan has demonstrated adeptness in navigating a path of balanced diplomacy, leveraging its strategic position to mitigate tensions and foster economic cooperation, Ukraine confronts protracted conflicts and geopolitical rivalries, exacerbated by competing interests and historical grievances.

The significance of this research extends beyond the specific case studies of Kazakhstan and Ukraine, offering broader insights into the dynamics of multi-vector approach and its implications for international relations theory and practice. By elucidating the drivers of conflict and cooperation in post-Soviet space, this study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of state behavior, regional dynamics, and the challenges of managing relations with great powers in a multipolar world.

In conclusion, this paper underscores the importance of qualitative analysis in political science and international relations scholarship, highlighting the relevance of contextual factors and historical contingencies in shaping states' foreign policy choices and outcomes.

Abstract:

This paper contributes to the ongoing debate about Kazakhstan’s foreign policy perspectives due to the war in Ukraine. Its novelty relies on the analysis of choice, which is not peculiar to non-democratic regimes. After Russia invaded Ukraine fully in 2022, it became apparent that the traditional multi-vector paradigm extrapolated to almost all of Kazakhstan’s allies faced the challenge. Though Kazakhstan continues to adhere to a multivectorism, this paper discusses the survey results expressing the divergence of Kazakh intellectuals’ views regarding their choice of the West or Russia amid modern geopolitical contradictions. The foregoing investigation used a mixed research method among Kazakhstani experts specializing in foreign affairs.

Generally, there is a realist’ assertion proclaiming that, in fact, multivectorism is a form of relational power permitting small states to coexist with greater powers within unequal relationships. Thus, many scholars are convinced that Kazakhstan always used to be close to Russia and this dynamic will save further. As controversial as statements will be, the one I’ve faced is the lack of evidence-based knowledge about Kazakhstan’s foreign policy choices, which can depend on various factors.

I admit that many empirical studies on the subject appeared last time, but the analysis of Kazakhstan’s foreign policy choice due to modern geopolitical aggravation still needs to be improved.

This scholarly discussion is structured as follow: first, the paper will explore the problem of choice phenomenon in the foreign policy analysis of Kazakhstan; second, the paper shares the results of the survey demonstrating the prevalence of Western mood over the Russian among the expert community (done at the Alchemer platform); third, new findings borne in the results of the author’s survey will be addressed to the audience and presented for further discussion.

This paper is based on published materials on the information platform affiliated with the George Washington University and archive materials of L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University.