By Sergey Sukhankin

In late 2025, during his visit to Kyrgyzstan, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin declared Russia’s readiness to build a small modular nuclear power reactor (SMR) in Kyrgyzstan, thereby signaling Moscow’s intention to move beyond traditional trade relations toward projects in long-term strategic infrastructure. Russia’s proposal may be justified by the need to address Kyrgyzstan’s persistent problem of frequent energy shortages, caused by rising consumption, aging energy infrastructure, and overreliance on hydropower as the primary source of electricity generation. At a deeper level, however, the initiative reflects Moscow’s post-2022 strategy, premised on exporting high-technology solutions to politically friendly states and anchoring influence through capital-intensive projects with multi-decade life cycles, such as SMRs. Undoubtedly, if successfully constructed, an SMR could strengthen Kyrgyzstan’s energy security. Yet, it would also exacerbate the country’s strategic dependence on Russia by locking it into long-term technological, financial, and regulatory reliance, rendering the project arguably more geopolitical in nature than economic.

BACKGROUND:

Kyrgyzstan’s energy system has long suffered from structural fragility stemming from the country’s overarching dependence on hydropower: more than 90 percent of electricity generation derives from this source, largely produced by the Toktogul cascade. Exposed to multiple risks and weaknesses, such as droughts, aging Soviet-era infrastructure, and rapidly growing domestic demand, the system has shifted from experiencing occasional electricity deficits to facing a structural crisis. In 2023, the government introduced a state of emergency in the energy sector, explicitly acknowledging the inability of existing generation capacity and demand-management tools to ensure uninterrupted supply. Experts note that persistent electricity shortages could further undermine Kyrgyzstan’s socio-economic stability and, in the longer term, generate political repercussions posing serious challenges to the country’s leadership. Nevertheless, Kyrgyzstan appears unable to address this challenge independently. Beyond economic constraints, particularly the high fixed costs associated with hydropower generation, recent water shortages have further exacerbated the problem. In this context, Kyrgyz authorities have expressed interest in developing nuclear energy projects, with external financial support, as a potential solution to the country’s long-term electricity supply challenges.

This interest emerged in parallel with Russia’s broader strategic effort to diversify its export portfolio beyond raw materials. In this context, Moscow has actively promoted the deployment of an SMR in Kyrgyzstan as part of a wider push to export high-value energy technologies. The origins of this initiative can be traced to early 2022, when Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear corporation, and the Kyrgyz Ministry of Energy signed a non-binding memorandum on cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Beyond signaling technical cooperation, the memorandum laid the groundwork for potential SMR construction and the gradual development of a national regulatory framework, indicating a long-term and structurally embedded approach rather than a short-term energy solution. Following the outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022 and Russia’s exposure to an expanding array of international (Western) sanctions, the idea gained renewed momentum.

Given Kyrgyzstan’s highly specific socio-political environment, distinct from that of other Central Asian states, public opinion on nuclear energy is an issue the ruling elite cannot afford to ignore. Available evidence suggests that societal attitudes toward nuclear power remain ambivalent. According to public opinion surveys conducted in 2024, 58 percent of respondents expressed support for the development of nuclear energy, while 38 percent voiced categorical opposition. Support is largely driven by expectations that nuclear power could help meet the country’s growing electricity demand and create new employment opportunities. At the same time, significant concerns persist regarding nuclear safety, environmental risks, seismic vulnerability, and the state’s institutional capacity to regulate complex and high-risk technologies. As a result, nuclear energy remains a politically sensitive and potentially contentious issue within Kyrgyzstan’s domestic political landscape.

IMPLICATIONS:

Should the Kyrgyz political leadership respond positively to Russia’s proposal, the country would face a combination of potential benefits and risks, which can be broadly categorized as follows.

First, meeting energy needs and ensuring system stability. From an energy-security perspective, the emergence of an SMR could positively affect Kyrgyzstan’s electricity balance. Unlike hydropower, nuclear generation provides continuous baseload output independent of seasonal water availability. Russian officials have indicated that Kyrgyzstan could be offered a plant based on the RITM-200N reactor design, with total capacity ranging from approximately 110 to 440 MW, depending on configuration. This output could supply electricity to between 66,000 and 352,000 households simultaneously. Even at the lower end of this range, such capacity could reduce imports and ease pressure on hydropower assets during dry periods. That said, to fully realize these benefits, Kyrgyzstan would need to meet several conditions: the establishment of a comprehensive regulatory framework, an independent nuclear safety authority, trained operators, emergency-response systems, and long-term arrangements for fuel supply and waste management. For Kyrgyzstan, this would entail either creating much of this infrastructure from scratch or delegating these functions to Russia, a choice that would inevitably deepen institutional dependence on Russia.

Second, the issue of economic costs and long-term dependence. Although SMRs are often presented as cheaper and more flexible than conventional large nuclear plants, they remain capital-intensive projects with long payback periods. In practice, this would require Kyrgyzstan to assume long-term financial obligations while ceding significant control over critical components of its energy system to a foreign state with a documented record of using energy as a geopolitical instrument of pressure. Moreover, dependence would extend well beyond construction, encompassing fuel supply, maintenance, software, spare parts, and periodic upgrades. For Kyrgyzstan, this would narrow future strategic options and increase the cost of diversifying away from Russian technology for decades to come.

Third, implications for domestic politics. Nuclear projects frequently face public resistance even in countries with strong institutions. In Kyrgyzstan, where trust in state decision-making is limited and political competition is intense, an SMR could become a focal point for opposition mobilization, particularly in the event of an incident or if Russia were perceived as leveraging Kyrgyzstan’s dependence. Without transparent consultations, credible safety assurances, and clearly articulated local benefits, the project risks appearing as an externally imposed geopolitical arrangement rather than a sovereign national development choice.

Fourth, intra-regional geopolitical effects. The Central Asian “water–energy–food” nexus is inherently conflict-prone due to divergent seasonal priorities: upstream states, particularly Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, seek to maximize winter electricity generation, while downstream countries depend on summer water flows for irrigation. From a policy perspective, the deployment of an SMR could offer a structural advantage by providing reliable winter baseload generation, thereby reducing reliance on hydropower and creating space for more predictable and cooperative water–energy arrangements with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. However, this opportunity entails significant trade-offs. An SMR would deepen long-term technological and financial commitments to an external partner and could become entangled in regional and extra-regional geopolitical bargaining. If politicized, the project risks undermining trust, constraining policy flexibility, and further securitizing energy governance in Central Asia rather than contributing to its stabilization.

CONCLUSIONS:

Russia’s proposal to build an SMR in Kyrgyzstan represents a pivotal choice that extends well beyond energy policy. While the project could substantially enhance electricity security and reduce vulnerability to hydrological shocks, it would also bind Kyrgyzstan to long-term technological, financial, and regulatory dependence on Russia. In a politically pluralistic and socially sensitive environment, such dependence entails significant domestic and regional risks. Ultimately, the project’s impact will depend on whether Kyrgyz authorities can balance short-term energy gains against strategic autonomy, address public concerns transparently, and prevent the SMR from becoming an instrument of geopolitical leverage rather than a catalyst for sustainable development.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Dr. Sergey Sukhankin is a Senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation and the Saratoga Foundation (both Washington DC) and a Fellow at the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network (Canada). He teaches international business at MacEwan School of Business (Edmonton, Canada). Currently he is a postdoctoral fellow at the Canadian Maritime Security Network (CMSN).

By Lindsey Cliff

The Organization of Turkic States has expanded beyond its cultural foundations to address regional challenges through green finance, digital innovation, and artificial intelligence initiatives. Led by Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the OTS established the Turkic Green Finance Council and proposed collaborative AI networks, responding to economic pressures from sanctions and oil price fluctuations. Key initiatives include the Turkic Green Vision promoting renewable energy development and the Green Middle Corridor for sustainable transport, alongside digitalization programs for customs procedures and cybersecurity cooperation. The establishment of institutional mechanisms—councils with rotating leadership, working groups of technical experts, and concrete investment vehicles—suggests organizational maturation. Whether these programs deliver tangible results will determine if the OTS evolves from primarily aspirational declarations into substantive economic and technological cooperation.

BACKGROUND:

The Organization of Turkic States has recognized the interconnected nature of climate, technology, and economy-related challenges. As such, the OTS has recently pushed, with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan leading the charge, for greater collaboration and integration in response to these threats. The fields of green energy, digital transformation, and smart innovation have become areas of pragmatic cooperation.

At the 2025 Gabala Summit, OTS leaders stressed "the importance of cooperation in the field of artificial intelligence and promote the integration of AI, green and digital technologies, and smart manufacturing systems into industrial strategies of the Member States, with a view to enhancing productivity, sustainability, and regional competitiveness through coordinated innovation and capacity-building efforts." This declaration marks a significant evolution for an organization that began with primarily cultural ambitions.

These initiatives respond to practical challenges facing landlocked Central Asian states. The growing global confrontation between the West and a loose anti-Western axis has added economic challenges for countries in the region. Mutual sanctions imposed by Russia and the West from 2014 onward hit the region hard, in combination with dramatic fluctuations in oil prices. Large-scale devaluations took place in the years following 2014, lowering purchasing power. While some entrepreneurs benefited from helping Russia circumvent sanctions, this hardly benefited the economy as a whole or reduced unemployment.

IMPLICATIONS:

In the domain of green finance and sustainability, the OTS has taken several concrete action steps. In Bishkek in November 2024, the Turkic Green Finance Council was established, with the Kazakh Astana International Finance Centre taking the lead. The Council will "provide OTS member states with an additional boost for developing green finance and attracting sustainable investments into regional projects."

The Council's inaugural meeting in September 2025 was attended by "heads and representatives of financial regulators, ministries of economy and finance, as well as stock exchanges from OTS Member States and Observers," supporting the possibility of tangible integration among all levels of the region's public and private sectors. Unlike summit-level photo opportunities, this meeting brought together the officials responsible for day-to-day implementation and strategy. The meeting resulted in the adoption of a joint communique expressing commitment to progress in sustainable development and environmental protection, "guided by the principles of Turkic Green Vision, as well as the Turkic World Vision 2040, and the OTS Strategy for 2022-2026."

The practical objectives of the Council, along with attendance by multiple levels of government and business leaders, suggest the OTS is moving from broad declarations toward institutional mechanisms for sustainable finance. The Turkic Green Vision proposes creation of several working groups: the Turkic Renewable Energy Alliance would promote renewable energy development; the Green Middle Corridor would create a sustainable transport route; the Turkic Biodiversity and Ecosystem initiative would promote collaboration in environmental protection and restoration; the Climate Change and Educational Awareness Program would promote study of climate issues and community disaster resilience.

Artificial intelligence and digitalization have also become main focuses of OTS integration. At the 2024 Bishkek Summit, Secretary General Kubanychbek Omuraliev highlighted collaborative projects across "e-commerce, technoparks, digital infrastructure development and cybersecurity" and suggested creation of a Turkic AI network and further investment in AI innovation and education. The organization also aims to streamline trade through digitized customs procedures, enabling more efficient transportation of goods.

Uzbekistan has been at the center of much of the AI and digitization agenda. Domestic investment in the digital sector has led to rapid modernization, increasing domestic internet access and speed, expanding IT service exports from $170 million to $1 billion, and attracting foreign investment. In AI, Uzbekistan has been investing within the framework of its "Strategy for the Development of AI Technologies through 2030." The goal is to "create a national AI model and train 1 million specialists." Already, the country has spent $50 million toward this goal, with 86 projects started and free online training programs launched. Through OTS AI Forums, the organization hopes to follow Uzbekistan's lead toward a more digital future with international investment in local IT and AI.

Kazakhstan is also attempting to lead in areas of AI and digital innovation, suggesting an intra-OTS Digital Monitoring Center. Kazakhstan's President Tokayev recently proposed dedicating an upcoming informal OTS summit to the theme of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Development, and he made digitalization and AI the centerpiece of Kazakhstan's national strategy in a September 2025 public address. The aim is to set up Kazakhstan as a "fully digital country" within three years, establishing a dedicated ministry for digitalization and AI, developing legal codes for AI governance, and developing digital currencies.

In these areas, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are taking leading roles. Kazakhstan not only hosted the inaugural Green Finance Council but also suggested its creation. Of course, Uzbekistan now leads the region in AI readiness and is making significant domestic progress on its digitization and AI agendas. Future OTS summits will likely maintain continued focus on AI, digital innovation, and sustainable development.

CONCLUSIONS:

The Kazakh-proposed Digital Monitoring Center represents potential cybersecurity and defensive integration—a real avenue for pragmatic cooperation. The transnational nature of climate threats and the internet necessitate a collective regional response. While the Turkic Green Vision adds language about supporting "cultural and natural values of the region," and third-party observers recognize IT as a way to "preserve cultural heritage," the primary drivers are practical: economic development, energy security, and regional competitiveness.

These initiatives respond to genuine needs. The rapid development of initiatives in finance, digitalization, and green energy demonstrates that the OTS is expanding beyond its cultural foundations. However, questions remain about implementation. As with many OTS initiatives, movement from declarations to concrete results will determine whether these programs represent genuine integration or remain primarily aspirational.

The establishment of institutional mechanisms—councils with rotating leadership, working groups of technical experts, and concrete investment vehicles like the Turkic Investment Fund—suggests a maturing organization. If these initiatives deliver tangible results in coming years, they will mark the OTS's evolution from a primarily cultural organization into a platform for substantive economic and technological cooperation.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Lindsey Cliff is a junior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, who is also pursuing a Master’s degree at Georgetown University in Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies.

By Rafis Abazov

As the global race for digital supremacy accelerates, Kazakhstan is positioning itself not merely as a participant, but as a regional architect of artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure and foresight. Over the past decade, the Republic of Kazakhstan has methodically repositioned itself not just as a raw-material exporter in Central Asia but as a proactive knowledge and innovation actor. The recent launch of the AI Silknet initiative by the National Academy of Sciences marks a pivotal step in the country’s broader digital transformation strategy—one that seeks to fuse scientific modernization, regional leadership, and strategic foresight into a cohesive national vision. It may well mark its transition into a digital actor on a regional scale.

                                                                                Credit: Pexels

BACKGROUND: Kazakhstan’s digital transformation journey has been steadily gaining momentum over the past decade. From the “Digital Kazakhstan” program to the more recent “Digital Bridge” forums, the country has signaled its intent to become a regional hub for innovation and technology. The Government of Kazakhstan has invested over US$ 100 million into flagship AI-Sana (meaning “consciousness” or “intelligence” in Kazakh), a state-funded program launched to develop the country’s National AI Platform and position Kazakhstan as a regional leader in artificial intelligence.

In this context, the AI Silknet project, developed in partnership with the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI), represents a new step in this trajectory. AI Silknet is not merely a technological platform; it is a national knowledge infrastructure designed to consolidate scientific, technological, and socio-economic data into a unified digital ecosystem. Its core function is to provide predictive analytics and strategic foresight for decision-makers, researchers, and policymakers. By integrating machine learning algorithms with vast datasets, the system aims to anticipate trends, model development scenarios, and support evidence-based governance.

This initiative reflects a growing recognition within Kazakhstan’s leadership that digital transformation must be underpinned by robust institutional frameworks. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), long a bastion of academic excellence, is now being retooled as a digital think tank, one capable of generating real-time insights and long-term strategies through AI-powered analysis.

The collaboration with South Korea’s KISTI illustrates Kazakhstan’s attempt to improve the management of the national economy and planning process. South Korea’s own transformation into a digital powerhouse offers a compelling model for Kazakhstan, particularly in the realm of AI-driven science and innovation policy. The AI Silknet project draws directly from KISTI’s experience with the NTIS (National Science & Technology Information Service), adapting its architecture to Kazakhstan’s unique developmental context.

This partnership is not merely technical, it is strategic. It signals Kazakhstan’s intent to align with leading digital economies while maintaining agency over its own data and development priorities. In doing so, Kazakhstan is crafting a hybrid model of digital modernization: one that leverages global expertise while reinforcing national sovereignty and regional relevance, improving efficiency of budget management and making its national economy more competitive.

IMPLICATIONS: The name of the initiative: AI Silknet, is no accident. It evokes the historical Silk Road, positioning Kazakhstan as a digital bridge between East and West. But unlike its ancient predecessor, this new Silk Road is not about the movement of goods; it is about the flow of data, knowledge, and innovation.

Kazakhstan’s leadership in AI infrastructure has significant implications for Central Asia. As the region grapples with uneven digital development, Kazakhstan’s model offers a scalable blueprint for integrating AI into national planning, education, and economic diversification. By opening AI Silknet to regional collaboration, Kazakhstan could catalyze a new era of scientific diplomacy and data-driven cooperation across borders.

Moreover, the initiative aligns with broader geopolitical trends. As global powers compete for influence in Eurasia’s digital space, Kazakhstan’s proactive stance allows it to shape—not merely respond to—the emerging rules of engagement. In this sense, AI Silknet is not just a tool of governance; it is a statement of intent.

At its core, AI Silknet is a foresight engine. It is designed to help Kazakhstan anticipate technological disruptions, model policy outcomes, and align national priorities with global trends. This is particularly critical in a world where the pace of change often outstrips the capacity of traditional institutions to respond.

Embedding AI into the heart of its scientific and policy apparatus carries many risks and uncertainty yet Kazakhstan is embracing a new paradigm of governance—one that is anticipatory, adaptive, and analytically grounded. This shift has the potential to transform how decisions are made, how resources are allocated, and how national goals are pursued.

The system’s ability to integrate diverse datasets, from academic publications to patent filings, from demographic trends to economic indicators, makes it a powerful tool for cross-sectoral analysis. Organizers claim that it can, for example, identify emerging research clusters, forecast labor market shifts, or simulate the impact of policy interventions. In doing so, it empowers decision-makers with the kind of strategic intelligence that is increasingly indispensable in the 21st century.

No digital transformation is complete without a corresponding investment in human capital. Kazakhstan’s AI Silknet initiative is closely tied to efforts to modernize the country’s education system and cultivate a new generation of data scientists, AI engineers, and digital policymakers.

The NAS, in collaboration with universities and research institutes, is developing training programs that align with the competencies required to operate and expand the AI Silknet system. These include courses in machine learning, data governance, computational modeling, and science policy.

CONCLUSION: Kazakhstan’s AI Silknet is more than a technological upgrade — it is a strategic platform for national renewal and regional leadership. By investing in predictive analytics, institutional capacity, and international collaboration, Kazakhstan is laying the groundwork for a digital future that is inclusive, intelligent, and interconnected.

By embedding the technologies into its national economy and new skills into academic curricula and professional development pathways, Kazakhstan is not only building technical capacity—it also aims at improving governance, budget spending and creating thousands of new jobs in the IT and AI sectors. This is essential to ensure that AI Silknet remains a living system—continuously evolving in response to new challenges and opportunities. According to estimates by Tengrinews Agency, Kazakhstan could undergo a workforce shift or restructuring affecting up to one million positions over the next 5 to 10 years due to automation and the implementation of AI.

As Central Asia navigates the complexities of digital transformation, Kazakhstan’s experience offers valuable lessons. It demonstrates that with vision, partnerships, and a commitment to data-driven governance, even mid-sized states can shape the contours of regional development.

In the years ahead, the success of AI Silknet will depend not only on its technical sophistication but on its ability to foster trust, transparency, and shared purpose—both within Kazakhstan and across its borders. If it succeeds, it may well become the backbone of a new digital Silk Road, linking the region’s past to its most promising futures.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Rafis Abazov, PhD, is a director of the Institute for Green and Sustainable Development at Kazakh National Agrarian Research University. He is author of The Culture and Customs of the Central Asian Republics (2007), An Effective Project Manager (2025) and some others. He has been an executive manager for the Global Hub of the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI) on Sustainability in Kazakhstan since 2014 and facilitated the International Model UN New Silk Way conference in Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries.