Посткрымская внешняя политика Казахстана в отношении великих держав: подходы и особенности

In the early 1990s, as a result of largest geopolitical shift, newly created post-Soviet countries had an opportunity to build a state from the very beginning. At the same time, there was a challenge to quickly adapt to the new environment and develop new approaches in foreign and domestic policy.
The first President-Elbasy of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan) Nursultan Nazarbayev outlined that challengeable period for a young country in his memoir, “… we had no traditions of foreign policy. Imagine a country that faces all these sophisticated problems, and there is not a single diplomatic mission abroad, even elementary foreign affairs strategy plans, not to mention foreign policy traditions. The situation we found ourselves in was as absurd as much distressing”.1
But, three decades later, Kazakhstan became the most successful among the post-Soviet countries in developing its foreign policy providing regional security, stability and strengthens its sovereignty. The country has always tried to adhere to a multi-vector policy. Full membership in international structures such as the UN, OSCE, CIS, SCO, CICA, CSTO, WTO; involvement in integration processes such as the EEU, OBOR, C5+1 show that the state had caught the challenges of the surrounding international system in time and adequately responds to them. In this vein, Kazakhstan develops multilateral diplomacy with all countries – Russia, China, the United States, EU, CA, Muslim countries and Turkic-speaking world as well. The position is explained, except for the process of globalization and regionalization occurring in world politics and economy, by country`s geopolitical position, economic potential, socio-demographic and many other factors.
According to official documents and scientific papers, the foreign policy evolution of Kazakhstan can be characterized in four long-term stages. The first attempts to understand and develop foreign policy levers were made in 1992.2 The second stage began with the approval of the Foreign Policy Concept of Kazakhstan in 1995, where the multi-vector policy`s roots grew from. In 2001, there was approved the third Foreign Policy Concept “economy first, then politics”.3
The next Foreign Policy Concept had been developed in 2014 based on the Strategy directions: Kazakhstan-2050.4
The distinctive feature of the Concept 2014-2020 was not only the increased role of Kazakhstan in the international arena. The concept of multi-vector diplomacy had been faced a serious challenge for strength coming alongside with Russian-Western conflict on Crimea. And the research work focuses on this particular period of Kazakhstan`s foreign policy in concerning its three main strategic directions: relationships with Russia, China, and the US
The relevance. Kazakhstan`s current role as a key regional player undeniable. Being located at the junction of East and West and acting as a mediator of negotiations in case of international disputes, Kazakhstan demonstrates its crucial importance in CA. The country’s chairmanship in major structures such as CSTO, SCO, OSCE, and UN Security Council exemplifies its elevated international status achieved in the last 30 years.
Kazakhstan has been attracting various external actors` attention since independence, especially the powers. Both Kazakhstan and great powers have broad political, trade and economic, socio-cultural, and military-technical intersect interests in each other. On the one hand, stable partnership with Kazakhstan in various dimensions allows great powers to maintain their continued presence in CA and have leverage. On the other hand, for the balance of power and avoiding one-sided dominance, it is important to have a broad presence of several equal leaders in the region for Kazakhstan itself. But, the events of 2014 – integration of Crimea radically changed the situation. After 2014, existing contradictions between the powers became more visible, and, in case of Kazakhstan, it put on risk its “balance of power” foreign policy. Russophobia after the Ukrainian maidan and accession to the EEU, anti-Chinese sentiment after the Land Code conflict5 threw oil on the fire. The Kazakh mass media`s discussion on the post-Crimean sanctions consequences and the possibility for a similar situation in the North/East of Kazakhstan inflamed the situation inside the country. Despite the large Russian diaspora in the country and ethnic Kazakh residents in Russia and China, pro-Western ideology widely spread among political and social activists. In other words, in the backyard of sanctions, trade war, and conflicting approaches inside the country, it was a challenge for Kazakhstan to conduct multi-vector diplomacy. Since these three powers are the main priorities of the country on the foreign policy Concept. Indeed, Kazakhstan has historically rooted ties with Russia and China sharing common borders. The USA as a global hegemon remains a weighty partner as well. The countries` accumulated huge baggage of bilateral cooperation experience cannot be ignored.
And the six-year marathon completion of another foreign policy Concept, N. Nazarbayev`s retirement as President obviously is “the end of the beginning”, which requires summarizing. It makes the research work even more relevant.
The above circumstances highlight the scientific-practical relevance of the analysis of how Kazakhstan`s relations with Russia, China, and the US were developed during 2014-2019.
Literature and the degree of research development of the topic. Foreign policy of Kazakhstan and its relations with Russia, the USA, and China are studied quite extensively, and serve as a title of many domestic and foreign authors` scientific articles. There are scientific researches that make a significant contribution to study Kazakhstan’s foreign policy evolution and Kazakhstan-Russian, -American, -Chinese relations individually during 1991-2014.6 But, all available scientific works to date characteristically cover the early periods of independence and early Crimean conflict`s period. Neither domestic nor foreign study has conducted comprehensive research that thoroughly and objectively investigate the features of Kazakhstan’s foreign policy, and comparatively analyze its cooperation with great powers after Crimea.
There are scientific works that served as the basis for the thesis. Remarkably, Kazakhstani and Russian authors enriched the development of the subject.
The following publications of Kazakhstani experts generate interest.
6 Tokayev K.-J. Vneshnyaya politika Respubliki Kazakhstan v period stanovleniya novogo mirovogo poryadka [Foreign policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan during the formation of the new world order]. Diplomatic Academy of the MFA of Russia Federation, Moscow, 2001, p. 263;
Passolt D. Kazakhstan’s Foreign Policy Towards Russia, China and Central Asia (1991–2001): International and Domestic Factors. London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London), 2007, p. 622; Tokayev T. K.-J. Strategiya Respubliki Kazakhstan v otnoshenii Zapada: nacionalnye interesy, prioritety, napravleniya [Strategy of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the West: national interests, priorities, approaches]. Diplomatic Academy of MFA of the Russian Federation. Moscow, 2009, p. 216;
Meshcheryakov K.Y. Stanovleniye strategicheskogo partnerstva i soyuznichestva v rossiysko-kazakhstanskikh otnosheniyakh v 1991-1999 [Establishment of strategic and allied Russian-Kazakhstani relations in 1991-1999]. Scientific and technical bulletin of
[Russian-Kazakhstani
relations in 1998-2009: allied cooperation]
[Evolution of the Russian Federation’s foreign policy in Central Asia in 1991-2012]. Thesis…Ph.D. of Historical Sciences, St.Petersburg, 2014,
p. 709;
Alipbaev A.R., Bozheyeva B.Z. Qazaqstan Respýblikasy syrtqy sayasatynyń hronologiasy (1991-2014) [Foreign policy chronology of the Republic of Kazakhstan (1991-2014)]. KazNU, Almaty, 2016. p. 300
SPbSTU, 2012, pp. 143-151;
Rossiysko-kazakhskiye otnosheniya v 1998–2009: tesnoye soyuznicheskoye vzaimodeystviye
. Klio (scholarly journal), 2014, No5 (89).
pp.
133-139;
Evolyutsiya vneshney politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii v Tsentralnoy Azii v 1991-2012
7

Dr. F. Kukeyeva with leading Kazakhstani experts in political science and international relations deeply analyze dynamics of the balance of power in the modern geopolitical environment of Kazakhstan, its milti-vector policy towards great powers. F. Kukeyeva and G. Raimova thoroughly studied the latest foreign policy concept of Kazakhstan, and separately Kazakhstan- American relations. The authors concluded that modern bilateral relations should look for new forms of interaction. The authors cited the example of the views of American experts questioned the ability of Kazakhstan to maintain balance in the region between the three major powers by the events in Ukraine, and the weakened U.S. interest in CA countries. About this, the authors admit the idea of reducing the US. presence in some countries of the region, but regarding Kazakhstan, they do not see any reason for concern.7
F. Kukeyeva and D. Dyussebayev examines the prospects and risks of Kazakh-Chinese regional integration. The authors conduct a broad review of the position of Kazakh experts on modern Kazakhstan-Chinese relations, dividing them into two fronts. Those who support the integration of Kazakhstan’s Nurly Zhol with OBOR, and those who warn about possible risks. The review covers literature from 2014-2018. According to the authors, the advantages of actively developing Kazakhstan-Chinese relations will mainly affect trade and economy, science and technology.8
A. Kuzembayeva analyzes different issues of Kazakhstan-American interaction: energy, regional security, and military cooperation. The author positively considers bilateral relations, sometimes pointing out the possible risks associated with Kazakhstan’s accession to the EEU and the WTO.9
Authors who investigate the contemporary Sino-Kazakhstan Cooperation under promotion of the Belt and Road Initiative is N. Mukhametkanulyand Director of Chinese Research Center A. Kaukenov. N. Mukhametkanuly conducts an overview of exicting joint industry projects within the trade and economic cooperation during 2014-2018. 10 A. Kaukenov explains trade and economic relations headed by the transit of energy resources and problems of cross-border rivers. In addition, the author noted an interesting trend after Russian-Western friction: China began more actively promote cooperation of OBOR with the EEU. To the author, before the conflict in Ukraine and
7 Kukeyeva F., Raimova G. Foreign Policy Concept of the Republic of Kazakhstan: Cooperation with the U.S. KazNU Bulletin, International relations and international law series, 2014, No2(66). pp. 28-33
8 Dyussebayev D., Kukeyeva F. Belt and road initiative for Kazakhstan: Opportunities and risks. Silk Road to Belt Road: reinventing the past and shaping the future, Springer Singapore, 2018. pp. 296-305
9 Kuzembayeva A. B. Specific issues in Kazakhstan – U.S. relations at the present stage. KazNU Bulletin, 2015, No1(69). pp. 151-155
10 Mukhametkhanuly N. China`s Concept of “Win-Win Cooperation” find the New Stage of Cooperation between China and Kazakhstan, China, 2018. pp. 512-521
8

the sanctions standoff, Chinese press was quite critical of the EEU prospects and pointed out the damage caused by customs barriers.11
K. Syroezhkin is an outstanding Kazakh-Chinese specialist who collected the archival documents during 1991-2010: bilateral agreements, protocols including all possible branches of cooperation. The book helped create a clearer picture of Kazakhstan-Chinese relations from the very beginning. K. Syroezhkin gave an analysis of the current relations at an early stage of cooperation, when the initiatives of the two countries start to go hand in hand. Later, the author provides a full analysis of Kazakhstan-Chinese relations since 2014: realities, results, risks, and problems.12 Another Kazakh-Sino specialist studying Nur-Sultan-Beijing`s cooperation is political scientist G. Ageleuov. The author studies prospects of interaction between the countries not excluding drawbacks.13
M. Shibutov is predominantly focused on Kazakhstani-Russian relations. Political expert analyzed trade-economic, interregional, military-technical cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia.14 The author alongside experts of political science Z. Karazhanov, D. Satpayev, M. Taizhan, A. Sarym, D. Kosnazarov, L. Karatayeva actively and comprehensively provide analytical forecasts on the domestic and foreign policy as well. Scientific analysis of the experts are usually published in “Egemen Kazakhstan”, “Kazakhstanskaya pravda” newspapers, “Azattyq”, “Tengri News” news website, “Sayasat”, “Central Asia Monitor”, “Forbes Kazakhstan” internet-portals in Kazakh, Russian and English languages.
11 Kaukenov A. Vzaimootnosheniya Kitaya i Kazakhstana v novykh geopoliticheskikh usloviyakh. [Relations between China and Kazakhstan in new geopolitical conditions]. Central Asian Bureau for Analytical Reporting, February 18, 2015 URL: https://cabar.asia/ru/adil-kaukenov-vzaimootnosheniya-kitaya-i-kazakhstana-v-novykh- geopoliticheskikh-usloviyakh/ (Accessed: 15 August 2019)
12
from cross-border trade to strategic partnership]
[Kazakhstan-China: [Kazakhstan and China: analysis of recent agreements].
Syroezhkin K. Kazakhstan-Kitay: ot prigranichnoy torgovli k strategicheskomu partnerstvu
. Almaty, KazISS, Monography in 3 books. – Book 3. Collection of
documents. 2010. p. 524;
Kazakhstan i Kitay: analiz poslednikh dogovorennostey
http://www.ca-portal.ru/article:30965 (Accessed: 18 December 2019);
13 Ageleuov G. Kitay-Kazakhstan: Perspektivy vzaimodeystviya [China-Kazakhstan: Prospects for cooperation]. News Agency “Fergana”, May 25, 2017. URL: https://www.fergananews.com/articles/9422 (Accessed: 11 October 2019)
14 Shibutov M. Provokatsiya o kazakhstanskikh i kirgizstanskikh mirotvortsakh v Sirii: dlya chego? [Provocation on Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz peacekeepers in Syria: why?]. Information agency “Regnum”, June 26, 2017. URL: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2292829.html?utm_medium=source&utm_source=rnews (Accessed: 3 March 2020);
] Information agency “Regnum”, August https://regnum.ru/news/2309464.html (Accessed: 15 December 2019);
Eksport Kazakhstana: obzor dinamiki [Export of Kazakhstan: overview of dynamics]. Information agency “Regnum”, August 27, 2019. URL: https://regnum.ru/news/2700790.html (Accessed: 11 October 2019)
November 4, 2016. URL:
Problems of Modern Kazakh-Chinese Relations. Russia and New States of Eurasia, 2019, No I (ХLII). pp. 21-36
Uranovaya zavisimost KNR ot Kazakhstana: zachem Kitayu stolko urana? [
9
China’s uranium dependence on
Kazakhstan: why does China need so much uranium?
11, 2017. URL:

In addition, there are articles of domestic authors that consider particular issues of foreign policy. For instance, transport and logistics sphere,15 industrial and innovative development,16 interregional partnership.17 These analyses were conducted in the relevant period for our research.
Russian experts make a significant contribution to Kazakhstan’s foreign policy studying during the relevant period as well.
Professor K. E. Meshcheryakov examines Russian-Kazakhstani relations during the Ukrainian crisis.18 After the Crimean events, K. E. Meshcheryakov with I. N. Novikova, V. G. Burkov study Russia’s policy in the post-Soviet space.19 The authors conducted large-scale analysis ivolving political, security, military, interregional aspects of cooperation.
E. P. Ionova studies Kazakhstan in the context of Ukrainian crisis, and separately examines economic situation, main trends in the country’s foreign and domestic political development after 2014. The expert explained the situation that it was not easy for Kazakhstan to take a clear position since its multi-vector foreign policy promote close economic ties with both Russia and West.20
E. F. Troitskiy`s scientific papers cover both the early 90’s and the post-Crimean period. The author provides an overview of more general topics, in which Kazakhstan is considered in the context of Russian-American policies in CA. At the same time, there are individual tasks as factors that influenced Kazakhstan’s foreign policy, the content of “multi-vector and balanced” doctrine, Kazakhstan-American relations.21
D. B. Malysheva studies Kazakhstan-Chinese relations, Chinese factor in Kazakhstan, and the problems of modern cooperation focusing on post-2014. The analysis of scientific articles
15 Suleimenova G. S. Kazakhstan-China transit. 2018. pp.77-80 URL:
http://elib.bsu.by/bitstream/123456789/195606/1/%D0%A1%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BC%D0 %B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%97%D0%90%D0%A5%D0%A1%D0%A 2%D0%90%D0%9D-%D0%9A%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%90%D0%99-%D0%A2%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%9D% D0%97%D0%98%D0%A2.pdf (Accessed: 18 December 2019);
Aliyev N. U.S.-Kazakhstan Transit Agreement Faces Challenges from Russia. The Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, September 20, 2018. URL: https://www.cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13534-us-kazakhstan- transit-agreement-faces-challenges-from-russia.html (Accessed: 18 December 2019)
16 Rakhmanova G. B. Project “Western Europe and Western China” in the industrial development of Kazakhstan. Bulletin KazUIR&WL “International relations and Regional studies”, 2013, No1-2 (11-12). pp. 113-120
17 Yergaliyeva K., Zhanbulatova R. Kazakhstan-Russia cross-border cooperation in the context of the common economic space. Bulletin D’Eurotalent-fidjip, 2019, No3. pp.13-21
18 Meshcheryakov K. Y. The Russian-Kazakh relations during the “Ukrainian crisis”, Klio, 2016, No5. pp. 118-134 19 Burkov V. G., Meshcheryakov K. Y., Novikova I. N. Policy of Russia in the former Soviet Union after return of the Crimea: challenges and priorities. Journal “Administrative Consulting”, 2015, No11. pp. 71-79
20 Ionova E. Kazakhstan and the Ukrainian crisis. Russia and New States of Eurasia, 2014, No 2. pp. 43-53
21 Troitskiy E. F. Kazakhstansko-amerikanskiye otnosheniya i “dilemma mnogovektornosti” [Kazakh-American relations and the “multi-vector dilemma”]. Center for Eurasian Studies at TSU, 2018, Expert comment No.1. Pp. 1-4
10

demonstrates, there is certain commonalities of the expert’s opinion with Kazakh experts such as G. Ageleuov, F. Kukeyev, and D. Dyusebayeva. 22
Head of the Center for research on the neighboring countries problems of RISS, Dr. of historical science O. V. Petrovskaya with a group made a report on the consequences of the integration of Crimea for post-Soviet countries` military-technical realm. The experts were focused on countries` cooperation with the U.S., and NATO`s role, activities during 2014-2018. The scientific report applies events that are more distant in security and military relations as well, and each post-Soviet country is considered separately, including Kazakhstan.23
A. Zelenina24 and A. Harlanov25 focused on more narrow issues as Kazakhstan`s role in New Silk Road, cooperation with the powers in transportation and logistics, and Kazakhstan- Russian cooperation in space.
To complete a picture of Kazakhstan`s multi-vector activities with superpowers since 2014, analytical assessments of Russian scientists D. Zhuravlev, A. Grozin, L. Gusev, A. Kazantsev, A. Dubnov, A. Kostin, V. Kashin are a valuable source.
To avoid one-sided research, the author reviewed databases of Western and Chinese scientific papers in Russian and English.
There are reports and research papers prepared by Chinese experts as Li Xin and Tian E. Li Xin studies Kazakhstan-Russian relations within the regional economic integrations,26 while Tian E focused on cultural-humanitarian aspects. 27
There are American experts whose work the author found informative and explanatory.
Research paper of S. R. Roberts is of an informative nature as well as providing the assessment of the country’s multi-vector policy, bilateral or trilateral relations with the U.S., Russia,
22 Malysheva D. B. Post-Soviet states of Central Asia in China’s policies. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2019, vol. 63, No. 5. pp. 101-108
23 Aleksandrova D. A., Andreeva E. S., Yermakova S. M., Ivanova V. A., Ippolitova I. V., Makarevskiy M. N., Nemenskyi O. B., Popova D. S., Petrovskyi O. V., Tacica K. I., Shevchenko A. M., NATO v politike postsovetskikh gosudarstv posle vossoyedineniya Kryma s Rossiyey [NATO in the politics of post-Soviet States after the reunification of Crimea with Russia]. Moscow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS), Center for CIS countries studies, 2018. p. 90
24 Zelenina A. Bitva za Shelkovyy put: Kazakhstan pereformatiruyet kartu logistiki Yevrazii [Battle for the silk road: Kazakhstan reformats the logistics map of Eurasia]. Information agency “Regnum”, November 7, 2015. URL: https://regnum.ru/news/2006996.html (Accessed: 15 December 2019)
25 Harlanov A. S. Cooperation of Russia and Kazakhstan in the space and high technologies. “Economics. Management. Law” Series, 2019, No. 2. pp. 59-68
26 Li Xin. Chinese perspective on the creation of a Eurasian Economic space. Valdai Discussion Club Report. Moscow, 2016. p. 22
27 Tian E. Vzaimootnosheniya Kitayskoy Narodnoy Respubliki i Respubliki Kazakhstan na primere sotrudnichestva v sfere obrazovaniya [Relations between China and Kazakhstan on the example of cooperation in education]. 2018 – No4. pp. 8-17. URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=27722 (Accessed: 2 April 2020)
11

and China during and after the Crimean events. Professor describes the Ukrainian conflict as the first serious challenge to Astana’s long-standing and successful multi-vector policy 28
S. Engels studies Kazakhstan-American relations in the security and military professionalization during 2014-2016 characterizing this cooperation one of the excellent examples of effective one and a way to further bilateral strategic relations` development. In this case, the author opinion has converging views with its Russian colleagues from RISS.29
R. Isaacs conducted a review of Kazakhstan foreign policy on the background of transit of power, and Kazakhstan-Russian relations both in the last years of N. Nazarbayev`s presidency and the current President Tokayev.30
There are couple of joint research works of Kazakh-American experts. Zh. Baizakova and R. McDermott examine Kazakhstan`s perception of the Ukraine crisis, and the possibilities of being exposed to such intervention by Russia. There were also demonstrated analyses of Russian minority in Kazakhstan, the country`s foreign policy, joining the EEU, importance of security strategy, and cooperation with the U.S., Russia.31
American experts S. F. Starr, S. E. Cornell, S. E. Wimbush, specializing in the regions of CA and the Caucasus, with F. Kukeyeva, A. Nursha, and B. Sultanov worked on Kazakhstan- American relations after 2014. The research is on the prospects for bilateral relations in socio- cultural contacts in human rights, rule of law, democracy, economy, defense, and security.32
There is also British expert H. Barnes, whose analytical paper intently examines the uranium industry. The author describes Kazakhstan’s relations with Russia, the United States and China with a focus on 2015-2017 events. For instance, Kazatomprom`s distancing from Rosatom, a strategic leap towards China, and the construction of a low-enriched uranium storage facility with American assistance.33
28 Robert S. R. The Ukraine Conflict and the Future of Kazakhstan’s Multi-Vector Foreign Policy. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo, 2015, No. 388. pp. 1-6
29 Engels S. Military Professionalization Programs in Kazakhstan and the U.S.: How to Implement and What Will We Gain? Connections: The Quarterly Journal, 2017, No. 2. pp. 91-104
30 Lillis J. Lillis J. Kazakhstan: Po lezviyu britvy mezhdu Rossiyey i Zapadom (interview with R. Isaacs); Isaacs R. Russia–Kazakhstan Relations and the Tokayev-Nazarbayev Tandem. Russian Analytical Digest, March 6, 2020, No 248. pp. 2-12
31 Baizakova Zh., McDermott R. Threat Perception in Central Asia in Response to Russia–Ukraine: Kazakhstan Will Not Be Next. `s Research Paper, 2015, No119. pp. 1-16
32
& Silk Road Studies Program
33 Barnes H. Uranovaya igra Kazakhstana: mezhdu Rossiyey, Kitayem i Zapadom [Uranian game of Kazakhstan:
between Russia, Chuins and West]. BBC Russian service, December 18, 2017. URL: https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-42315870 (Accessed: 3 January 2020)
NATO Defense College
Cornell S.E., Kukeyeva F., Nursha A. Starr S.F., Sultanov B., Wimbush S.E. Looking Forward: Kazakhstan and the
U.S. Singapore, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute
, 2014. p. 54
12

To sum up, there is a common trend in case of Kazakhstani, Russian, and American experts. The authors generate all aspects of Kazakhstan’s foreign policy. These are comparative analysis with other powers, advantages, disadvantages, possible threats in cooperation, etc. Meanwhile, Chinese experts` scientific reports for this period is limited by purely Kazakhstan-Chinese relations within the regional initiatives. The most large-scale among them is considered only cooperation within OBOR and EEU tandem, generously noting the role of Russia. Specialists are quite positive in their expert analyses, completely excluding any disadvantages. Especially noteworthy, Kazakhstani-Russian experts` analyses among others are the most balanced and objective with all prospects and possible consequences. The reason for that the experts practice referring to both primary sources and colleagues` work, while other countries` experts neglect it.
According to relevance, limitations, and references, the scientific novelty is defined by: 1) chronological period;
2) comprehensive analysis due to the lack of scientific works;
3) sources from Kazakh, Russian, English papers of literature;
4) study foreign policy during the leadership both N. Nazarbayev and K.-J. Tokayev.
Primary sources include a wide range of materials that can be divided into the following groups:
1. International agreements of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Analysis of relevant intergovernmental documents let us create a vision of the goals, principles, and development directions of bilateral relations;
2. Legislation of Kazakhstan and the “Great Powers”. Relevant sources allow to get an idea of the country’s foreign policy mechanism establishment and the role of “superpowers” in it;
3. Documents of state authorities. Relevant sources give an idea of the official positions of the countries in various spheres;
4. Speeches, joint statements of Presidents, statesmen. It helps to assess the results of meetings, negotiations, and clarify problems, results, and prospects of partnerships;
5. Official statistics illustrating the features of the Kazakhstan-Russian, -American, – Chinese interaction in the political, trade, economic, military and humanitarian spheres;
6. Agreements within the regional organizations, partnership dialogues, and integrations. It helps to study the mechanisms promoting partnerships between Kazakhstan and great powers;
7. Documents of major Kazakh, Russian, Chinese, and American companies. Agreements between large companies on state programs let us get acquainted with the current process of interaction more deeply;
13

8. Informational materials of the periodical press on Kazakhstan`s interaction with the great powers;
9. Informational materials of electronic mass media. It helps to expand the thesis`s source base and more accurately describe the process.
Hence, the object of the research are forms, mechanisms and practices of cooperation with Russia, China, and the US, while the subject are intergovernmental partnerships of Kazakhstan with Russia, China, and the USA in 2014-2019.
The chronological framework of the study is limited to 2014-2019. The lower chronological scope is focused on the Crimean event. But the author did not focus much on the crisis itself rather using it as a countdown on the current agenda of international affairs. The upper chronological limit is indicated by the end of the presidential period of N. Nazarbayev. Nevertheless, the logic of the study requires looking at more distant events to identify general trends for a whole picture of Kazakhstani-Russian, -Chinese, – American relations.
The author`s hypotheses, a) the country`s long-term “power-balanced” policy had been threatened by existing contradictions between great powers` different ideologies; b) and, Crimea issue in 2014 stressed it calling into question multi-vectorism; c) but even so, Kazakhstan continued its policy, and quite successfully finished 2014-2019` marathon.
Thus, the aim is to analyze Kazakhstan`s post-Crimea foreign policy approaches, specifics towards great powers.
To achieve the aim, the author set the following research objectives:
1. Analyze Kazakhstan-Russian, -Chinese, -American relations in trade and economy from
2014;
2. Describe the Kazakhstan-Russian, -Chinese, -American cooperation in military and security fields during the given period.
3. Research the trends of cooperation of Kazakhstan with the powers in cultural and humanitarian spheres after 2014.
Theoretical approach. The thesis utilizes a neorealist framework of IR`s theory to interpret the country`s foreign policy towards great powers, and discern dominant features. Neoreolistic approach claims that the overriding goal of states in the international system is to survive (national interest), or at a minimum seek its own survival. Other approaches criticize Waltz`s neorealism that it is paying more attention to the international system ignoring unit-level factors (states` characteristics, etc.). But, some neorealists, for example, R. Jervis, did not completely deny countries` matter, “system and units (each country) are interconnected. So any
14

changes in some elements of units or their relations produce changes in the international system”.34 Neorealism just omits the internal factors and strongly believes that countries` decisions, preferences, behaviors can be a product of competition, benefits which is explained by countries` national interest (survival, maximizing or accumulation of power). Besides, states` behaviors could be an outcome of the international system influence, because they calculate it to their advantage. But, in behavior dictated by an external system, sometimes there will be a gap between what states want and what states actually get.
Moreover, Waltz argued that based on the situations change, the country chooses to adopt an offensive or defensive strategy. In spite of being defensive neorealist, Kenneth Waltz said, “a state having too much power may scare other states into uniting against it and thus become less secure. A state having too little power may tempt other states to take advantage of it”.35
The case of Kazakhstan, the great powers are not only a threat but also an opportunity. As neorealist theory assumes, less powerful countries caught between strong powers choose a defensive strategy to balance forces and ensure security.
Hence, neorealism aptly suited to research Kazakhstan`s multi-vector foreign policy searching for its own survival and understand its behavior.
Methodology. During the research, the author used an analytical approach, historiographic approach, foreign policy analysis (political process model), comparative analysis, discourse, and content analysis. They were applied in each chapter. The historical approach considers the foreign policy relations of Kazakhstan and the superpowers in the context of the 2014-2020 realm. At the same time, this approach helped to put puzzle pieces together through analysis of relatively early events. The analytical approach helped to analyze and understand the different ideological views of all actors and Kazakhstan`s perceptions concerning cooperation during 2014-2020. Foreign policy analysis and its political process model allowed a better understanding of how each figuring countries relate to each other, and how Kazakhstan conduct its foreign policy, diplomacy. There were used content and discourse analysis, which considered and contrasted divergent opinions, expressions made by public officials or experts. Comparative analysis was actively used throughout the research. As great powers` positions differ, which became even more noticeable after the Crimean integration. Comparing Kazakhstan`s foreign policy towards each great powers in specific areas helped to identify real patterns of multi-vector policy.