Knyazeva T., LaRoche C.
CONSOLIDATING POWER AND ENDURING AUTHORITARIANISM: THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN EURASIA *
Аннотация:
in a “world of regions,” international institutions are expected—per liberal theory—to reduce conflict through the joint effect of democracy, interdependence, and organizations. This article explains why post-Soviet Eurasia diverges from that expectation. Using a theory-guided qualitative design, it juxtaposes the Kantian triangle (Russett & Oneal), ideational accounts of Eurasian regionalism (Izotov & Obydenkova), and the literature on authoritarian regionalism (Libman & Obydenkova), and applies process-tracing to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The analysis identifies a recurrent mechanism whereby regional institutions are repurposed as authoritarian coordination devices: they provide external legitimation, enable intra-elite coordination, and supply coercive backstopping during regime-threat episodes. The contribution is a mechanism-level framework that clarifies how liberal institutional forms can be re-instrumentalized under illiberal conditions, reconciling observed Eurasian practices with—rather than refuting—liberal theory’s boundary conditions. Policy implications include transparency and accountability rules for regional bodies, protections for societal linkages across borders, and incentives that privilege public, not incumbent, benefits. The conclusion outlines scenario trajectories for Eurasia’s regional order: authoritarian consolidation, hybrid fragmentation, or technocratic reframing.
Ключевые слова:
Eurasia, international institutions, EAEU, CSTO, authoritarian regionalism, legitimation, elite coordination, coercive backstopping
The contemporary world of regions is prone to dysfunctions and instabilities, but dangers posed by Eurasian regional organizations belong to a category of their own. In the early 1990s, as the Soviet Union crumbled apart, Western liberal democracies emphasized the rise of new global institutions, including multinational corporations and international and non-governmental organizations. The West further expected the post-Soviet Eurasian states would follow suit and embrace a democratic transition joining liberal institutions. Contrary to expectations, autocratic regimes in Eurasia only imitated democratic nations exploring opportunities created by globalization for their own advantage. The autocratic states prioritized establishing special regional organizations or joining existing ones with mixed political regimes. These shady cooperative tendencies spark a two-part question: why would autocracies seek regional cooperation, and what is the role of international organizations in post-Soviet Eurasia?Table 1. Competing views of institutions vs. Eurasian adaptation.One possible reason for this cooperation is the strategy of the autocratic regimes to strengthen their grip on power and ensure the same governmental systems in the neighborhood. In this respect, the international organizations’ primary role in post-Soviet Eurasia is sustaining authoritarian regimes. This role is backed by scholarly works on the value of international organizations in peace theory, Eurasian ideationalism, and authoritarian regionalism. Specifically, Russett and Oneal’s book Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations supports the idea that autocrats utilized peace theory to legitimize the establishment of their organizations. Additionally, Izotov and Obydenkova’s article “Geopolitical Games in Eurasian Regionalism: Ideational Interactions and Regional International Organizations” underline that ideationalism, not the pursuit of peace and security, is the fundament of Eurasian organizations, such as the Eurasian Economic Union.Lastly, by introducing the concept of “authoritarian regionalism,” Libman and Obydenkova’s “Global Governance and Eurasian International Organizations” proves that Eurasian institutions, such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization, maintain a clear focus on influencing the domestic politics of their members. All mentioned works provide a clear impression of the intricate interplay between authoritarianism and international organizations in post-Soviet Eurasia. To unravel the intricate dynamics between regional institutions in post-Soviet Eurasia and sustained authoritarianism in the region, it is necessary to examine the underlying factors that led to the establishment of international organizations worldwide in the first place.Figure 1. Authoritarian use of regional institutions in Eurasia.One of the initial premises backing the establishment of international institutions is the promotion of peace. The role of international organizations in promoting peace among nations is a topic of interest to scholars and policymakers alike. Bruce Martin Russett and John R. Oneal, for instance, in their seminal work Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, argue that international organizations, together with democracy and economic interdependence, can serve as catalysts for peace among nations. To support their claims, the authors draw on the intellectual legacy of Emmanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace and Kantian Triangle. The Kantian Triangle is a concept that refers to the idea that a peaceful international system requires the presence of three elements: democracy, economic interdependence, and international institutions. According to Kant, democratic nations are less likely to engage in war with each other as they have a shared commitment to peaceful conflict resolution and respect for individual rights. Economic interdependence, or the degree to which nations are economically reliant on one another, can further reduce the likelihood of conflict as the cost of war becomes too high to bear. Finally, international institutions provide a forum for nations to resolve disputes peacefully and promote cooperation.Russett and Oneal export the ideas of Kantian triangle to build a theoretical foundation for their argument, highlighting the importance of international organizations in promoting peace. According to the authors, “the more international organizations to which two states belong together, the less likely they will be to fight one another or even to threaten the use of military force.” The scholars further argue that international organizations can reduce the likelihood of conflict by serving as agents of mediation and arbitration, directly coercing, and restraining those who break the peace, or reducing uncertainty in negotiations by conveying information. Therefore, for Kant and his successors, international organizations play a critical role in promoting economic interdependence and increasing transparency, and in turn, contributing to peace and stability among nations. For the Eurasian autocracies, however, the role of the international organization goes beyond solely promoting peace and stability. Under a disguise of supporting liberal ideas of peace and integration, the Eurasian states established regional organizations aimed at another mission: to endure autocratic regimes. Examples of such organizations are the Eurasian Economic Union and Collective Security Treaty Organization.Since its establishment in 2015, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) has neglected liberal ideas of economic integration and prioritized ideationalism. The EAEU’s disregard for liberal norms is not a surprise – the organization was conceived at the behest of the primary regional autocrat - Vladimir Putin. Using economic leverage, Putin effectively coerced the presidents of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan to join the Russia-dominated economic union.The Moscow-led block of five countries signed a seemingly liberal treaty that contradicts what the organization stands for in practice. On paper, the EAEU ostensibly states that the organization “provides for free movement of goods, services, capital and labor, pursues coordinated, harmonized and single policy in the sectors determined by the Treaty and international agreements within the Union,” equally benefitting all member-states. The reality, however, proves different. The instruments of the EAEU, such as the control over "free" movement of goods and labor, made Russia’s economy only further overshadow the economies of other members. As of 2020, Russia’s GDP stood at $41.5 trillion, the closest EAEU economy was Kazakhstan at only $170 billion. This drastic gap in the size of the economies illustrates how autocratic leaders, such as Putin, use their influence to create regional organizations that align with their interests and impose their ruling models on neighboring countries.While the EAEU is ostensibly based on liberal ideas of economic integration and interdependence, the actual fundament of the organization is ideationalism. The ideational grounds of the EAEU are emphasized in Izotov and Obydenkova’s article “Geopolitical Games in Eurasian Regionalism: Ideational Interactions and Regional International Organizations.” In their article, the authors argue that the EAEU is rooted in the “ideological vacuum and ideational chaos” of a shared authoritarian governance model, emphasizing the need for strong leadership and centralized decision-making. This ideology promotes economic integration and a “common idea about the present and future shared cross-border identity” through the lens of authoritarianism, which appeals to their regional pride. The ideational basis has allowed the EAEU to gain support primarily from autocratic regimes in the region, who use it to consolidate their power and maintain their authoritarian rule. Thus, Izotov and Obydenkovas analysis highlights the EAEUs role as an exporter of authoritarian ideas in the region.Another way Putin secures his regime and ensures authoritarianism in the neighborhood is through the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The latter is a military alliance established in 2002 by six post-Soviet states, including Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. The CSTO was formed with the intention of promoting regional security and cooperation, but just like EAEU, CSTO has been criticized for contributing to authoritarianism in member states. According to Alexander Cooley, a professor of political science at Barnard, the CSTO’s main goal is to maintain Russias strategic dominance in the region, which can result in authoritarian policies and practices that undermine democracy and human rights. In his op-ed for Washington Post, Cooley concludes that “CSTO auspices crystallizes an ongoing trend: regional organizations, leaders and norms worldwide are bolstering autocracies and promoting illiberal norms and practices.” Consequently, CSTO has become an instrument of Russian regional dominance, enabling Moscow to exert its influence over the military and security forces of member states, potentially exacerbating authoritarianism in the region.Both the EAEU and CSTO demonstrate the increasing role of international organizations in what political scientists Alexander Libman and Anastasia Obydenkova have labeled as “authoritarian regionalism.” As the authors state in “Global Governance and Eurasian International Organizations,” CSTO has been “very passive in case of major conflicts in the post-Soviet Eurasia,” although the organization’s goal, at least on paper, is ensuring the security of its members. “The actual goal behind the CSTO,” as Libman and Obydenkova stress, is “the creation of the image of security actor that “keep an eye open” at near neighborhood – a sleeping dog that may be woken up should it be needed.” Thus, the current trend in Eurasia is for regional groups to support autocratic regimes by influencing the domestic politics of their members and providing political legitimacy to embattled rulers.Table 2. Security institutions as regime-support mechanisms. The findings of this article invite a broader theoretical and empirical reflection on the paradoxical role of international institutions in sustaining authoritarian rule within Eurasia. Contrary to liberal expectations derived from the Kantian triangle of democracy, interdependence, and institutions, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) illustrate how organizations that mimic liberal forms can be re-instrumentalized to reinforce illiberal governance.The Eurasian case is not an isolated anomaly but resonates with broader patterns in global politics. In Africa, the African Union has occasionally shielded authoritarian leaders under the rhetoric of sovereignty. In Latin America, organizations such as ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) blended regional integration with ideological solidarity among leftist regimes. However, the Eurasian case stands out for its combination of economic asymmetry and security dependency under Russian hegemony.The EAEU demonstrates how economic disparity allows a dominant member to extract concessions from weaker states, while the CSTO illustrates how security guarantees translate into domestic regime insurance. Together, they form a double structure—economic and military—ensuring that regional order remains tilted toward authoritarian resilience. This duality enriches comparative scholarship by offering a concrete model of how authoritarian regionalism consolidates across multiple sectors simultaneously. The theoretical novelty of this research lies in its reconciliation of liberal institutionalism with authoritarian regionalism. Rather than discarding liberal theory, the Eurasian evidence highlights its boundaries: international organizations promote peace and cooperation only when embedded in democratic and balanced contexts. Once these pillars are absent, the same organizational forms can be hijacked by illiberal actors.This insight refines, rather than contradicts, the liberal paradigm. It demonstrates that liberal institutions are not inherently liberal, their orientation depends on the political environment in which they are nested. The article thus introduces the concept of institutional repurposing, whereby liberal forms are appropriated for illiberal ends. This concept can serve as an analytical tool for studying other regions where institutions similarly camouflage authoritarian practices.The Eurasian case compels us to rethink the assumed link between institutions and liberal outcomes. International organizations are not inherently peace-promoting or democratizing, their orientation depends on the political environment and the intentions of dominant actors. The EAEU and CSTO reveal how authoritarian regimes can exploit institutional frameworks to consolidate power, coordinate elites, and suppress societal opposition. By theorizing these dynamics as institutional repurposing, this research contributes a novel lens to the study of global governance.The analysis of international organizations in peace theory, Eurasian ideationalism, and authoritarian regionalism connects the nature and effects of Eurasian regional governance to sustained authoritarianism in the region. Organizations such as EAEU and CSTO act as economic and security blocks, but only on paper. In fact, they serve as autocratic instruments of power consolidation. The member states used to tolerate the failure of Eurasian organizations to carry out their actual purpose. But thats only until the Ukrainian crisis made the Russian government and economy a pariah of global affairs. As a result, weaker countries within EAEU and CSTO structures may seek to escape the membership. But here is the caveat: as discussed, the EAEU and CSTOs Russia-dominated structures bound economically weaker countries to the membership. With these conflicting factors at play, the future of regional autocratic organizations is unclear, and it is worth future examination how the role of these organizations evolves in the increasingly unstable world.
Номер журнала Вестник науки №9 (90) том 2
Ссылка для цитирования:
Knyazeva T., LaRoche C. CONSOLIDATING POWER AND ENDURING AUTHORITARIANISM: THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN EURASIA // Вестник науки №9 (90) том 2. С. 321 - 331. 2025 г. ISSN 2712-8849 // Электронный ресурс: https://www.вестник-науки.рф/article/25589 (дата обращения: 07.02.2026 г.)
Вестник науки © 2025. 16+