PSCRP-BESA Reports No 200 (April 30, 2026)
Our monitoring of March’s academic publications, which touched on the post-Soviet space in one context or another, unexpectedly focused on the Central Asian region. This wasn’t the editor’s choice; it’s simply that interest in this part of the post-Soviet space is growing exponentially among researchers worldwide. In our view, each of the five works we present to our readers deserves not only a place in the monitoring, but also a thoughtful reading.
1. The article “Regional security collaboration between Central Asia and China: contemporary challenges and future prospects” was authored by a team of Kazakh scholars: Mura Sarybayev from the Department of World History at Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University in Almaty; Duman Zhekenov, Dean of the Faculty of International Relations at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University in Almaty, with Bekzhan D. Kossalbayev, an associate professor affiliated with both the Faculty of International Relations at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and the Institute of Geology and Oil-Gas Business at Satbayev University in Almaty; along with co-authors Kamshat Rustem and Akaidar Kurmanbek. It appeared in the open-access journal Frontiers in Political Science in March 2026 (volume 8, article 1670875), following peer review and revisions completed earlier that year.
The study employs a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative systematic analysis, statistical examination of trade, economic, and defense indicators (processed via tools like Microsoft Excel), generalization of empirical data, and scenario-based forecasting. The authors draw on a broad range of sources, including official documents, trade statistics, reports on joint exercises and agreements, and existing scholarship on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI/OBOR), and post-2021 regional developments such as the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Their analysis focuses particularly on Kazakhstan as a detailed case while incorporating region-wide patterns from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. Security is conceptualized multidimensionally—encompassing state/regime stability, transnational threats like terrorism and extremism, and economic/infrastructural protection—within the framework of regional security complexes.
The main findings portray China’s security engagement in Central Asia as evolving from primarily economic and confidence-building measures in the 1990s–2000s to a more structured, multidimensional role post-2013 BRI launch and especially after 2021. Key components include bilateral and multilateral (via SCO and the newer C+C5 format) cooperation in border management, counterterrorism, intelligence sharing, joint military exercises (often focused on Xinjiang-adjacent areas and scenarios like border breaches or hostage situations), training programs for law enforcement, equipment donations, and surveillance technology transfers. The authors highlight drivers such as shared threats from Afghanistan, protection of Chinese investments in energy pipelines, transport corridors, and strategic minerals, alongside mutual interests in regime stability and connectivity. They identify challenges including uneven resource distribution, sovereignty concerns among Central Asian elites and publics, public ambivalence toward Chinese influence (with declining favorable views in some surveys), potential overdependence, and competition with Russian, Western, Turkish, and other actors. Three future scenarios are outlined: a continuation of business-as-usual incremental cooperation, a more security-centric framework, and a holistic model integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Overall, the study concludes that China has become an important but not dominant security actor, operating through a mix of bilateral flexibility and SCO multilateralism, while Central Asian states use these ties to diversify partnerships and bolster internal stability without fully displacing Russian influence. The “development-security” nexus—where infrastructure investments are framed as foundations for peace—underpins Beijing’s approach but faces limits due to local perceptions and mismatched priorities.
As a monitoring effort focused on conflicts and political dynamics in post-Soviet spaces, the BESA Center’s work at Bar-Ilan University tracks great-power competition, regional instability, and spillover risks that could affect broader Eurasian security architectures. Central Asia’s role as a transit hub for energy, minerals, and logistics intersects with global supply chains relevant to Israel’s economic resilience, while instability emanating from Afghanistan or shifts in Russian influence could exacerbate radicalization, migration pressures, or proxy dynamics with implications for Middle Eastern security environments. China’s expanding security footprint—through surveillance technologies, military training, and infrastructure protection—offers lessons on authoritarian regime-stabilization strategies, hybrid threat management, and the interplay between economic dependence and political leverage, all of which parallel dynamics Israel observes in its own neighborhood and with major powers. Understanding these evolving alignments helps contextualize potential disruptions to energy markets, the hedging behaviors of smaller states, and opportunities or risks for third-party engagement in a region where Israel maintains diplomatic and economic ties. In an era of multipolarity accelerated by events like the Ukraine war, such analysis sharpens insights into how distant regional security complexes might indirectly influence Israel’s threat environment, alliance considerations, and long-term strategic planning.
2. The preprint “Sustainability of Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia: Historical Development, Policy Transitions, and Future Challenges Under Climate Change” was authored by Zhanar Tulindinova, Bakhtiyor Pulatov, Ainura Batykova, Albina Prniyazova, Khizer Zakir, Sanat Kushkumbayev, and Ben Jarihani (corresponding author). The team represents a diverse international collaboration: Tulindinova and Prniyazova are affiliated with Kazakh institutions (L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University and the Academy of Public Administration under the President of Kazakhstan in Astana); Pulatov and Jarihani with the Central Asian University of Environmental and Climate Change Studies in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and James Cook University in Australia; Batykova with the Kyrgyz National Agrarian University in Bishkek; Zakir with the University of Salzburg in Austria; and Kushkumbayev with the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies. This multidisciplinary group combines expertise in regional studies, ecology, land and water management, geoinformatics, and strategic analysis.
The article was posted on 21 April 2026 on Preprints.org (doi: 10.20944/preprints202604.1442.v1) as a non-peer-reviewed version. It offers a comprehensive review synthesizing historical policy analysis with Earth observation (EO)-based assessments of land use, vegetation dynamics, evapotranspiration, and hydroclimatic trends in the Amu Darya and Syr Darya river basins.
The study integrates qualitative historical and policy review with quantitative insights derived from satellite data (including Landsat, MODIS, and other EO products for mapping irrigated areas, NDVI vegetation indices, and actual evapotranspiration). It examines the evolution of irrigation from pre-Soviet traditional systems through massive Soviet-era expansion (which increased irrigated land by ~60% between 1962 and 2002, primarily for cotton and wheat monoculture) to post-1991 national reforms involving Water User Associations, IWRM principles, and limited modernization. The analysis highlights persistent challenges such as ageing infrastructure, low irrigation efficiency (often below 40-50%, with only ~46% of diverted water reaching crops), widespread soil salinization, waterlogging, and the dramatic shrinkage of the Aral Sea (74% surface area and 90% volume lost since 1960). Satellite evidence shows that irrigated agriculture has remained stable or even intensified in many areas rather than contracting, with sustained or slightly increasing consumptive water use despite policy efforts. Hydroclimatic trends reveal warming exceeding global averages (projected +2–6°C by 2100), earlier snowmelt, glacier retreat, shifting runoff patterns (more spring, less summer flow), and increasing variability, all of which heighten irrigation demand while reducing reliable water supply during peak growing seasons. The authors discuss emerging opportunities from remote sensing, digital tools, GIS, AI for crop mapping and water accounting, and the need for stronger transboundary cooperation via institutions like the ICWC and IFAS.
The main conclusions emphasize that irrigated agriculture continues to dominate water use (75-90%+ of withdrawals) and remains vital for food security and livelihoods across Central Asia, yet its sustainability is threatened by inefficient systems, environmental degradation, and accelerating climate impacts. High consumptive water use persists due to intensification offsetting efficiency gains. Long-term viability requires integrated reforms: basin-scale water accounting supported by EO technologies, infrastructure modernization (canal lining, drip/sprinkler systems, better drainage), cropping diversification away from water-intensive monocultures, improved institutional coordination at national and regional levels, and enhanced transboundary data sharing and governance to manage the water-energy-food nexus amid upstream hydropower versus downstream irrigation tensions.
This study holds clear significance for Israel and its strategic interests. Israel, as a global leader in arid-zone agriculture, drip irrigation, precision water management, and climate-resilient farming technologies, possesses extensive expertise directly relevant to Central Asia’s challenges. Water scarcity, salinization, and efficient irrigation are core issues Israel has successfully addressed for decades in its own arid environment. Central Asia’s instability—exacerbated by potential food insecurity, rural discontent, water-related tensions, or migration pressures from failing agriculture and the Aral Sea crisis—could ripple into broader regional geopolitics, affecting energy routes, great-power competition (Russia, China, Turkey, Iran), and stability along peripheries of the post-Soviet space. For Israel, monitoring and understanding these dynamics supports situational awareness in conflict and security studies, particularly regarding hybrid threats, resource-driven conflicts, or opportunities for Israeli agricultural technology exports and diplomatic engagement in water diplomacy. Israeli innovations in remote sensing for irrigation monitoring, desalination-adjacent efficiency tools, and policy frameworks for transboundary water (drawing from the Jordan River basin experience) could contribute to stabilization efforts. In the context of the Begin-Sadat Center’s focus on conflict in post-Soviet countries, this preprint illuminates a critical “slow-burn” driver of potential instability—agricultural and environmental stress under climate change—that complements analyses of more acute political or military conflicts, offering insights into long-term resilience factors in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.
3. The article under review is authored by Burkhanova Mamura, affiliated with Navoi State University in Navoiy, Samarqand viloyati, Uzbekistan. It bears the exact title “Concept of ‘Uzbek Intelligentsia’ in historical-cultural and socio-philosophical discourse” and was published in the Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic and Practice Studies, Volume 2, Number 3, 2025, pages 163–171. The study employs a qualitative, multi-layered methodology that combines cultural-historical analysis, conceptual mapping, and critical discourse analysis. Primary sources examined include Jadid-era publications, Soviet documents, and post-independence media. The author utilized NVivo software for coding discourse markers and conducted comparative analysis with Russian and Kazakh contexts to situate the Uzbek experience within broader post-Soviet trajectories. The research is structured around three chronological phases: Jadidist reformism (1870–1920), Soviet ideological structuring (1920–1991), and post-independence reconfiguration (1991–2025), with particular attention to the “New Uzbekistan” reforms initiated under President Shavkat Mirziyoyev since 2016.
Burkhanova’s main findings portray the Uzbek intelligentsia not as a fixed social class but as a fluid, adaptive, and dialectical process continuously redefined by historical contingencies. In the Jadidist period, intellectuals acted as enlighteners (marifatchi) promoting Islamic enlightenment, educational reform, and cultural modernization while respecting religious values. During the Soviet era, they embodied a paradox of cultural preservation alongside enforced ideological conformity, creating a “double consciousness” between national authenticity and socialist realism. In the post-independence and especially the digital age, the intelligentsia has diversified significantly, with new actors emerging through blogs, Telegram channels, YouTube, and other digital platforms as civic influencers, digital educators, and online commentators. Recurring conceptual nodes such as marifatchi (enlightener) and xalqparvarlik (people-centeredness) demonstrate continuity in the moral-intellectual responsibility of this group across epochs. The author concludes that the intelligentsia functions as both a product of and a contributor to national transformation, serving as a mediator between tradition and modernity while addressing society’s “questions of existence” in each historical phase.
This study holds particular significance for Israel and its strategic interests in Central Asia. Uzbekistan represents one of the most populous and geopolitically important states in the region, with growing economic ties to Israel in areas such as agriculture, water management, technology, and security cooperation. Understanding the evolving role of the Uzbek intellectual elite is crucial because the intelligentsia shapes national identity, public discourse, and attitudes toward modernization, secularism, religious revival (particularly moderate Islamic currents), and external partnerships. In the context of “New Uzbekistan,” the diversification of intellectual voices—including digital actors—may influence future orientations toward Israel, the broader Middle East, and global powers. For Israeli policymakers and analysts monitoring post-Soviet spaces, the article provides valuable insight into how historical legacies of Jadidism, Soviet experience, and contemporary digital transformation interact to form a pragmatic, state-integrated yet ethically grounded intellectual class. This dynamic can affect Uzbekistan’s foreign policy stability, openness to Western and Israeli partnerships, and resilience against radical ideologies—factors directly relevant to Israel’s interests in regional security, countering Iranian or other external influences, and fostering constructive bilateral relations in a strategically sensitive area.
4. The research paper titled “Contesting the liberal international order from within: Illiberal networks and the crisis of liberal democracy” was authored by Sanna Salo, a Senior Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) specializing in the European Union and strategic competition; Ville Sinkkonen, a Leading Researcher at FIIA focusing on global security and governance; Maria Lindén, a Research Fellow at FIIA in the area of global security and governance; Sinikukka Saari, a Leading Researcher at FIIA covering Finland and Northern European security; and Juha Jokela, Programme Director at FIIA for the European Union and strategic competition program. The study was published in March 2026 as FIIA Research Paper 4 by the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, an independent research organization based in Helsinki that provides analysis on international affairs relevant to Finnish foreign policy and broader European security.
The authors develop their analysis through a qualitative, interpretive approach rooted in norms research and international relations theory. They examine the diffusion of illiberal strategies across three case studies—Russia as an influential outsider pioneering an “illiberal playbook,” Hungary under Viktor Orbán as a challenger operating from within the European Union, and the United States under the second Trump administration as the former hegemon turning against the order it once championed. The framework identifies four strategic tools of norm entrepreneurship and contestation: brokerage (building coalitions and networks), wedging (exacerbating divisions through hybrid means), persuasion (discursive reframing of norms), and coercion (including threats and economic pressure). The study traces how these tools, initially refined in authoritarian or hybrid contexts, have been adapted and scaled up by actors within liberal democratic systems, drawing on secondary literature, public statements, policy documents, and observed political practices without relying on original fieldwork or quantitative data.
The main findings emphasize that the contemporary crisis of the liberal international order (LIO) is increasingly endogenous rather than purely exogenous. Illiberal actors empowered by democratic mechanisms—elections, open societies, and institutional access—are actively delegitimizing the liberal elements of democracy (constitutional checks, minority rights, multilateral institutions) while preserving formal democratic facades. Russia provided early templates of manipulative “political technologies,” hybrid interference, and “sovereign democracy” rhetoric that resonated with populist forces. Orbán’s Hungary demonstrates how an insider can dismantle domestic checks and balances, then use brokerage (via new groupings like Patriots for Europe) and wedging (vetoes and blackmail in EU decision-making) to obstruct the Union from within, often framing it as a defense of national sovereignty against liberal overreach. The second Trump administration exemplifies this shift at the systemic level: through rhetorical attacks on allies, elevation of European illiberal figures, transactional coercion (such as threats over Greenland or linking security guarantees to EU policies), and active wedging in European elections and societies, the US has blurred the insider-outsider distinction and accelerated the “merger of discontents” across transnational illiberal networks. The authors argue that domestic backsliding often precedes and enables international contestation, with experiences of humiliation or perceived weakness (post-Soviet decline for Russia, financial crisis for Hungary, relative decline and cultural grievances for the US) serving as tipping points. They conclude that rigid inside/outside dichotomies in IR scholarship miss these fluid networks, and that legitimate contestation of norms could ultimately strengthen resilience if managed constructively.
As a small democracy navigating a hostile regional environment, Israel has long relied on the stability and normative consistency of the liberal international order, including strong transatlantic alliances, multilateral institutions (despite their frequent biases), and shared democratic values that underpin support from the United States and parts of Europe. The paper’s analysis of endogenous erosion—especially the US pivot toward transactionalism, civilizational framing, and skepticism of multilateralism—highlights risks to the reliability of American leadership and potential fractures in Western unity, which could complicate Israel’s security partnerships, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic maneuvering against Iran and its proxies. The diffusion of illiberal playbooks, including hybrid interference, disinformation, and wedging tactics pioneered by Russia and emulated elsewhere, directly echoes challenges Israel faces from state and non-state actors seeking to exploit domestic divisions or international forums. Moreover, the rise of sovereignty-focused, anti-globalist networks may create new openings for pragmatic bilateral ties (as seen in some European right-wing shifts toward Israel) but also risks amplifying isolationist or “America First” tendencies that prioritize short-term deals over long-term strategic solidarity. For Israeli policymakers and analysts monitoring post-Soviet conflicts, the study offers a useful lens on how authoritarian influences spread into democratic spaces, informing assessments of hybrid threats, norm contestation in international organizations, and the evolving balance between liberal universalism and particularist sovereignty claims that affect everything from UN votes to sanctions regimes relevant to the Middle East.
5. Rico Isaacs, affiliated with the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Lincoln in the United Kingdom, is the author of the article titled “Whose Nation Is It Anyway? Towards Methodological Cosmopolitanism in Studies of Nationalism and Nation-Building in Kazakhstan“. The piece was published in the journal Nations and Nationalism (volume 2026, issue 01, pages 1–11), an open-access article under the Creative Commons Attribution License.
The study is primarily a theoretical and meta-analytical intervention rather than an empirical fieldwork-based investigation. Isaacs conducts a critical review of existing scholarship on nationalism and nation-building in Kazakhstan over the past three decades. He identifies a dominant social constructivist approach in the literature that repeatedly frames analysis through the classic civic-ethnic dichotomy (or its proxy categories), even in works that claim to transcend it. Drawing on concepts from Homi K. Bhabha, Ulrich Beck, and others, the author proposes shifting to a methodological cosmopolitanism grounded in “vernacular cosmopolitanism.” This framework emphasizes hybridity, mobility, multilingual practices, translocal identities, and everyday negotiations of belonging in sites such as workplaces, schools, markets, and urban-rural interactions. The analysis incorporates insights from existing ethnographic and sociolinguistic studies on Kazakhstan and Central Asia (e.g., works by Abashin, Marsden, Jašina-Schäfer, and others) to illustrate potential applications, while outlining general criteria and historical/social intervening conditions (Soviet nationality policy legacies, sociolinguistic environment, urban-rural divide, migration and mobility, location and timing) for applying this approach. No new primary data collection is described; the method is conceptual critique combined with synthesis of prior qualitative research.
The author’s main conclusions are that the persistent reliance on the civic-ethnic binary in Kazakhstan studies constitutes a form of “methodological constructivist nationalism.” This not only essentializes and misrepresents the fluid, plural, and multivocal nature of lived identities in the country but also inadvertently reinforces the authoritarian regime’s legitimation strategies, which have historically deployed both civic (interethnic harmony, Kazakhstani citizenship) and ethnic (Kazakhification, historical myths tied to leadership) narratives under Nazarbayev and now Tokayev. By reducing complex, hybrid realities to opposing categories, scholarship fails to capture how ordinary citizens negotiate belonging through mundane practices, code-switching, and translocal connections. Isaacs argues for an ontological and methodological shift toward vernacular cosmopolitanism, which better accounts for “cosmopolitanism from below” in a multi-ethnic, post-Soviet context marked by Soviet legacies, globalization, and authoritarian power. This offers a roadmap for future research that foregrounds everyday sites of interaction and avoids entangling analysis with regime categories of practice. Ultimately, the article asks “whose nation is it anyway?” to highlight how dominant scholarly frames limit understanding and serve power structures.
Israel maintains strategic partnerships with Kazakhstan, a key Central Asian state with substantial economic ties (energy, agriculture, and technology); a notable Jewish community (including many who emigrated to Israel), and a complex multi-ethnic fabric involving Russian speakers, Muslims, and other groups. Understanding nation-building dynamics in Kazakhstan is relevant to assessing regional stability, potential ethnic tensions or migrations that could affect diaspora communities, and the broader post-Soviet space where hybrid identities and authoritarian legitimation play out. For Israeli policymakers and analysts monitoring conflicts and identity politics in former Soviet republics, the article’s critique of binary ethnic-civic models and its emphasis on hybrid, translocal belongings provide a more nuanced lens for evaluating risks of instability, the role of language policies, migration flows, and regime resilience—factors that intersect with Israel’s security concerns regarding radicalism, great-power competition (Russia, China), and opportunities for bilateral cooperation. In the context of decolonial and postcolonial debates, it also invites reflection on how external scholarship engages with non-Western nation-building processes without imposing simplifying frameworks, which aligns with Israel’s own experiences navigating diverse identities and narratives in a contested region.
Alexander Shpunt is an Israeli and Russian researcher and expert in the theory and practice of information and analytical work in the field of politics and resides in Haifa. Since 2016 he has served as a professor at the National Research University “Moscow Higher School of Economics. In 1999–2011 he also served as the executive director of the “Effective Policy Foundation”, the largest think tank in the RF at that time, and in 2011 founded and headed the Institute of Political Analysis Tools, specializing in systems for monitoring political behavior.