Send message to Author

Abstract

This paper examines whether Türkiye’s activism within the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) may unintentionally weaken, rather than deepen, political cohesion among its Central Asian members. It asks under what conditions Turkish leadership within the OTS generates cooperation, and under what conditions it instead produces hedging and shallow institutionalization.

I argue that Türkiye’s OTS strategy contains an internal contradiction. While Ankara seeks to transform cultural affinity into geopolitical influence, the more assertively it promotes identity-driven and politically sensitive initiatives, the greater the likelihood that member states will respond cautiously rather than align more closely. In multilateral institutions, cohesion depends not only on shared identity, but also on perceived equality, low political costs, and voluntary buy-in. When an organization appears to advance the priorities of one dominant actor, cooperation often remains symbolic rather than substantive.

The paper focuses on several dynamics that illustrate this tension: efforts to promote a common Turkic alphabet, attempts to elevate the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus through OTS platforms, leadership practices that may be perceived as hierarchical, and strategic assumptions that treat Central Asia as more geopolitically open than it actually is. These initiatives increase sovereignty costs for Central Asian states whose foreign policies remain shaped by multi-vector diplomacy, sensitivity to recognition issues, and structural constraints imposed by Russia, China, and other external partners.

Methodologically, the paper draws on discourse analysis of official declarations, policy statements, and public positions taken by OTS member states and relevant outside actors. Its central claim is not that the OTS is fragile or doomed, but that its future depth depends on whether functional cooperation can be separated from contested identity and recognition agendas. The paper thus contributes to broader debates on power, hierarchy, and regional order in Central Eurasia.

Send message to Author

Abstract

This paper explores the extent to which pan-nationalist myths in the political areas of Kazakhstani society interrelate and reinforce trust in governmental institutions. On a theoretical level, the paper aims to address gaps in contemporary pan-nationalist literature and trust and distrust in Central Asia. Moreover, juxtaposing the pan-nationalist literature with the literature on institutional trust is another theoretical contribution of this work. To investigate pan-nationalism and institutional trust at the empirical level, the author analyses these aspects in the context of pan-Turkist myths and narratives expressed and configured by Kazakhstani governmental institutions and officials. The empirical database includes public speeches, statements, and publications available online on governmental websites such as the Official website of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Gov.kz, and media sources such as “Kazinform” International News Agency, Liter, InAstana.kz, and Kapital. The sources are in English, Russian, and Kazakh that were published from 2010 to 2026. To analyse the empirical data, abductive thematic analysis is used to identify themes derived from the existing literature and discover new themes that shed light on the interrelation between pan-Turkist identity and trust in political institutions. Situated between induction and deduction, abductive thematic analysis allows to intimately analyse the emerging empirical data, which further critically refines the theoretical bodies of literature. The central argument of this paper is that officials configure pan-nationalist myths and narratives to reinforce the policies and regime’s legitimacy and authority by narrating the nation’s continuation and embodiment in the contemporary institutions. Focusing on the official strategies for upholding institutional trust, the paper argues that official interpretations of pan-nationalist myths and narratives are vital for reinventing beliefs in national pride that translate into trust in political institutions, which are narrated as embodiments of the nation’s continuity. Particularly, pan-Turkist myths and narratives transmit conceptions of the national antecedent might and glory, such as the Turkic periods and nomadic past, that further create social legitimacy and trust in institutions that express and address these identity conceptions.

Send message to Author

Abstract

Transportation cooperation has emerged as a central pillar of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), framed by member governments as essential for strengthening Turkic connectivity and operationalizing the ‘Middle Corridor’ as an alternative East-West route. Yet despite increasing political attention and frequent summit declarations, the depth and coherence of OTS transport cooperation remain limited. This article argues that these outcomes are best understood through the lens of regime complexity, which highlights how states operate within a crowded institutional environment composed of overlapping and competing connectivity frameworks, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the EU’s Global Gateway programs, and various bilateral agreements. Drawing on documentary analysis and elite interviews with diplomats, public officials, and experts across the region, the study shows that OTS members selectively engage with OTS initiatives while simultaneously pursuing national transport priorities through more resource-rich or strategically advantageous regimes. Rather than representing institutional weakness, this selective engagement reflects deliberate strategies of hedging, forum shopping, and layering. The article further demonstrates that transport cooperation within OTS serves not only instrumental goals, such as diversifying transit routes and improving resilience, but also important symbolic and narrative functions, reinforcing discourses of Turkic solidarity and regional identity. By situating OTS transport cooperation within broader Eurasian regime complexity, the study offers a new explanation for the uneven institutionalization of OTS connectivity initiatives and provides a nuanced account of how middle and small states navigate competing transport regimes in a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape.

Send message to Authors

Abstract

This study questions the regionness of the ‘Turkic World’ and examines its construction as a region within the framework of multilateral cooperation and integration efforts among Turkic states from the early 1990s to the present. The ‘Turkic World’, conceptualized here as a space comprised of independent Turkic states, lacks geographical contiguity. While traditional International Relations theories consider geographical contiguity a constitutive feature of an international region, this study utilizes constructivist, cognitive, and functional regionalism theories. These frameworks suggest that regions can be constructed through shared identities, networks, and functional integration rather than strictly through physical proximity. Within this theoretical context, the study traces the shared region-building process among Turkic states by specifically examining the joint declarations of summits of the heads of Turkic states held since1992, which were institutionalized as the Turkic Council in 2010 and later as the Organization of Turkic States. The research observes the frequency of specific spatial and regional terms to map conceptual changes over time. The findings demonstrate a distinct conceptual shift in official discourse. A shared regional vision was largely absent in the declarations until 2015; however, the data reveals a striking increase in the use of the concept ‘Turkic World’ starting from the 2015 Astana Summit. We associate this rise with growing functional regionalism resulting from the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), as the same declarations began to emphasize the Middle Corridor more frequently around 2014. We argue that the development of the Middle Corridor has enhanced the functional integration of Turkic states, thereby accelerating the need for, and the discourse surrounding, the construction of a shared region. Furthermore, Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the subsequent economic sanctions since 2014 have increased the geopolitical significance of the Middle Corridor, acting as a critical alternative to the BRI’s Northern Route, and of the Turkic states along this transit corridor as a regional bloc. Ultimately, as reflected in the examined declaration texts, these logistical networks have the potential to transform the ‘Turkic World’ from a purely cultural and cognitive construct into a dynamic and functional region rooted in mutual economic interdependence.