Kassym-Jomart Tokayev Comments on Nazarbayev-Putin Meetings

Under the spotlight of international politics, formal meetings between heads of state often carry a heavy sense of ceremony and a clear agenda, with their outcomes frequently published in the form of joint statements or agreements. However, "informal meetings," without publicly announced schedules or specific topics, sometimes have a more subtle and profound significance and impact. Recently, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev's comments on a series of meetings between Kazakhstan's first president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, and Russian President Vladimir Putin provide a unique window into the complex political interactions in the post-Soviet space and the diplomatic balancing act during a country's power transition.

The Normalization of Informal Meetings: Substantive Communication Beyond Etiquette

According to Tokayev's disclosure and Putin's own confirmation, meetings between Nazarbayev and Putin "have become the norm, but are all informal." This statement first reveals a unique pattern of bilateral interaction. In contemporary international relations, informal meetings typically imply a more relaxed atmosphere, more direct dialogue, and greater space for discussing sensitive issues. Russian President Vladimir Putin, known for his personal diplomatic style and his "warm friendliness towards friends and colleagues," made time for a relaxed and pleasant conversation with Kazakhstan's first president on a Saturday, despite his busy schedule. Putin's side emphasized that the meeting was "at Nursultan Nazarbayev's urgent request," indicating that Nazarbayev still retains channels and influence to initiate high-level dialogues, and also suggesting that the meeting may have addressed matters requiring immediate communication that were inconvenient to handle through formal diplomatic channels.

From a global perspective, regular informal communication between major powers and retired leaders of former close allies is a not uncommon but highly significant diplomatic practice. It often signifies the continuation of traditional special relationships and the current leadership's respect for and reliance on the political legacy and relationships of their predecessors. For Russia, Nazarbayev was not only a political figure who led Kazakhstan for nearly three decades after independence, but also a long-term advocate and collaborator on Eurasian integration. Putin highly praised him as "an experienced politician and a pioneer of Eurasian integration, in which Russia plays a leading role." Behind the regular meetings lies Russia's aim to maintain its influence in the CIS region, which it considers its "neighbor" and "strategic rear," ensuring policy continuity, particularly in foreign and security policy, among key partner countries during periods of political succession.

Tokayev's Position: Between Respecting the Founder and Defending Current Authority

As the current president of Kazakhstan, Tokayev's comments demonstrate a delicate art of balance. He first clearly defined Nazarbayev's historical status: "I have repeatedly referred to him as the founder of the modern Kazakh state. His contributions to the establishment of state institutions, the construction of economic market mechanisms, and the building of the new capital are evident to all." This assessment is public and lofty, consistent with Tokayev's consistent emphasis since taking office on affirming the achievements of the Nazarbayev era. This helps maintain domestic political stability, appease supporters of the still influential old power structure, and demonstrate the coherence of Kazakh politics to the international community.

However, Tokayev then quoted his own explanation of the country's development direction: "As you know, we hope to build Kazakhstan into a just, law-abiding, and orderly country. Therefore, the work of every citizen should be fairly evaluated, without any personal bias. This also applies to our country's first president, Nursultan Nazarbayev." This statement is quite significant. Discussing Nazarbayev's evaluation within the context of emphasizing "justice," "rule of law," and "no personal bias" is essentially a rational examination of this founder's achievements within the framework of the national system, rather than resorting to personality cult or unconditional historical positioning. This can be interpreted as Tokayev, in steadily advancing his political agenda, including possible reforms and adjustments, attempting to construct a new political discourse system based on the rule of law and procedural legitimacy, rather than merely on the authority of historical figures.

Crucially, Tokayev's statement on the power transition—"It is too early to talk about the power transition now, because 'there is still a lot of hard work to be done in the coming years'"—directly addresses speculation about a possible "dual center" in Kazakhstan's power structure (i.e., Nazarbayev continuing to exert influence through his retained positions as life-long chairman of the Security Council and his personal influence). Tokayev's statement, on the one hand, acknowledges the long and complex nature of the transition period, and on the other hand, clearly directs the political focus towards the current challenges of national governance, implicitly asserting the primacy of the current constitutional order and his own agenda.

Multi-dimensional Interpretation from a Global Perspective: Geopolitics, Regional Integration, and Domestic Transformation

Placing this event within a broader global geopolitical context reveals multiple layers of significance:

1. Managing Russia's Relationship with the "Post-Soviet Space": Russia has always considered the CIS region as its core area of ​​interest. As the largest and most economically powerful Central Asian country, Kazakhstan's domestic and foreign policy direction is crucial to Russia. By maintaining close informal ties with Nazarbayev, the Kremlin is not only preserving a personal bond with an old friend, but also maintaining a "parallel channel" of communication with the core of Kazakhstan's power structure, ensuring that its interests and concerns are heard even amidst shifting internal political dynamics in Kazakhstan. This informal contact complements formal interstate relations and sometimes even serves as a testing ground for circumventing official differences and exploring solutions.

2. Leadership and Driving Force of Eurasian Integration: Putin's praise of Nazarbayev as a "pioneer of Eurasian integration" highlights the historical consensus between the two on this crucial strategic issue. Integration projects such as the Eurasian Economic Union are core mechanisms led by Russia aimed at reshaping economic and political ties within the region. Nazarbayev, as an early initiator, continues to support this concept, symbolizing an endorsement of integration. While the Tokayev government continues to participate in the Eurasian Economic Union, it also demonstrates a more diversified diplomatic stance, including deep integration with China's Belt and Road Initiative and interactions with Western countries. By maintaining dialogue with Nazarbayev, Russia is, to some extent, indirectly influencing and monitoring Kazakhstan's future orientation on integration, attempting to build consensus and resist potential centrifugal forces from other external powers.

3. An International Case Study of Authoritarian Legacy and Political Transition: Kazakhstan's case serves as a vivid example for studying political transitions in countries following long periods of authoritarian rule. Nazarbayev voluntarily resigned as president in 2019, but retained significant influence through constitutional arrangements and political traditions. Tokayev, as his chosen successor, faces the complex task of both inheriting legitimacy and shaping his own leadership authority while guiding the country to adapt to the challenges of the new era. His statements of "uninterested" in the Nazarbayev-Putin meeting and "never asking such questions" may appear detached, but they could actually be intended to draw a line, emphasizing that state affairs should be handled by the current constitutional institutions according to law and regulations, avoiding the impression that national diplomacy is unduly influenced by non-constitutional factors. This cautious separation and selective respect is a common challenge for leaders of many countries undergoing similar transitions. 4. The Modern Value of Informal Diplomacy: In today's world of increasing global transparency and the growing institutionalization of diplomacy, informal meetings between national leaders remain irreplaceable. They provide invaluable space for frank exchanges of views, building personal trust, and handling unexpected or sensitive issues. The regular informal meetings between Nazarbayev and Putin exemplify this ancient diplomatic art in the modern relationship between major powers and key regional nations. Freed from the constraints of strict diplomatic protocol, it offers greater flexibility and acts as a "lubricant" and "safety valve" for managing complex and ever-changing bilateral and regional issues.

Conclusion

Tokayev's comments on the informal meetings between Nazarbayev and Putin are far more than a simple response to an event. This is a politically rich text reflecting Kazakhstan's multiple balancing acts at a crucial historical juncture, both domestically and internationally: domestically, seeking a balance between honoring its historical founders and building a new paradigm of governance based on the rule of law and oriented towards the future; in foreign relations, seeking a balance between maintaining its special ties with Russia, its traditionally most important strategic partner, and expanding its all-round and diversified diplomatic space; and in its regional role, seeking a balance between participating in the Russian-led Eurasian integration process and actively responding to other global initiatives.

This dynamic clearly reveals the complexity of the post-Soviet spatial political landscape—historical ties, personal relationships, current interests, and future visions are intricately intertwined. Informal diplomatic interactions and the internal processes of power succession and positioning within the country interact and jointly shape the regional geopolitical landscape. Tokayev's words, calm, restrained, and strategic, aim to guide domestic and international attention to the country's current and future "hard work," while carefully managing relations with a predecessor of immense historical prestige and a powerful neighbor. This process itself is a vivid example of how middle-power countries seek independent development and stability in a complex geopolitical environment in contemporary international politics.