Joint Security Cooperation or Regional Disintegration? Why the West Should Engage Russia in Central Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the West, Russian influence in the post-Soviet realm is often perceived in a negative light. In the case of Central Asia, Russia is often held responsible for trying to minimize Western involvement in region viewed by Moscow to be its -back yard. According to this view, Russian influence in Central Asia hampers the Western -war on terrorism in Afghanistan and also props up corrupt authoritarian regimes in regional capitals, which hinders the region's economic and political development. Typical of this worldview is the work of Stephen Blank, who considers the Russian resurgence in Central Asia dangerous for the West and holds Moscow responsible for the -consolidation of authoritarian regimes in Central Asia. 1 Scholars and policymakers who share this view see Russia as a rival who competes with the West for influence in Central Asia because of its geostrategic location and energy resources. However, this attitude ignores the fact that Central Asia faces multiple security threats, and also increases the danger of rivalry between the West and Russia. This approach is counterproductive, as it can fuel instability in the already volatile region. The necessity of cooperation with Russia in the region is advocated by a number of more pragmatic scholars and policymakers, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is otherwise known for his tough stance towards Moscow. In his key work The Grand Chessboard, he states in regards to Central Asia that -the exclusion of Russia from the area is neither desirable nor feasible. 2
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".