Methodology

This geopolitical landscape map assesses the relative importance of each of the actors, as well as the relations between them. It does so by providing quantitative scores to both the relevance of the actors and the strength of their relationships, as well as by giving a qualitative assessment of the relationships themselves.

Actors are ranked according to their regional influence in Central Asia, i.e., not their power as a whole, using the following scores:

4: The five states of Central Asia;

3: Regional powers with major influence over events;

2: Individual countries with particular interests or ties with specific countries;

1: Distant powers with limited interests.

For the purpose of this exercise, the European Union is taken as a single actor, although individual member states (such as Germany) also have a degree of ‘actorness’ themselves.

Relations between the actors are characterized as ‘good’, ‘bad’ or ‘ambiguous’. They are scored according to the intensity of the relationship, as follows:

5: Direct or indirect military confrontation or alliance;

4: Strong political, economic, or military support, but no direct involvement;

3: Significant level of interaction (confrontation or support) but no security assistance;

2: Low level of engagement, no military or economic support;

1: Lack of relations.

The relations are scored according to the extent that they influence geopolitics in Central Asia, not on world politics as a whole; i.e., the US and Russia or the US and China have a much broader range of relationships that are not included in this exercise. The following table underpins the interactive geopolitical landscape map visualised in Kumu: