Discusses the historical evolution of the modern nation-state as the institutional carrier of emotional communities, covering the transition from empires to nation-states and the post-WWII process whereby nation-states became the dominant units of international order; analyzes the unfinished propositions of identity construction faced by newly independent states after the 1991 Soviet dissolution, noting that the Russia-Ukraine conflict exemplifies the extremity of post-Soviet identity issues; emphasizes that due to identity legacies, demographic structure, and geographical attributes, Kazakhstan's national identity construction is deeply embedded in geopolitical transformations; introduces the research framework of this paper, namely a systematic examination of three geopolitical ideas adopted by the Kazakh government to reveal their operational mechanisms and evolutionary logic in identity construction, condensing the constructive practices into two paths of "spatialization" and "historicization" to provide new perspectives for understanding post-Soviet state transformation.

I. The Internal Logic of Geopolitical Ideas and Identity Construction

Explores the intrinsic connection between national identity construction and geopolitical ideas, noting that geographical space is continuously imagined and reconstructed in political discourse, with Kazakhstan's national identity construction thus exhibiting interwoven characteristics of "spatialization" and "historicization." At the international relations level, identity is shaped by both internal self-perception and external other-cognition; among the four types of state identity proposed by Wendt, "collective identity" is most crucial as it drives self and other toward identification, yet this identification process inherently contains the tension between exclusion and inclusion. Based on different treatments of this tension, modern national identity construction has formed three paths: ethnic identity, state identity, and their mixture, while state legitimacy ultimately depends on citizens' obedience to political authority and collective identification with cultural belonging. At the level of geopolitical imagination, national identity is established through the dialectic of other-difference and historical continuity; post-Soviet states cannot avoid Russia as the "other" when reconstructing identity, with its constraints manifested in three dimensions: nested ethnic structures, Russian-language social capital, and Russia-dominated multilateral organizations; states typically adopt dual internal-external strategies, strengthening central-regional integration domestically and reshaping their image through geopolitical narratives externally. From a critical geopolitics perspective, Kazakhstan's "spatialization" aims to construct civic pride through multiple spatial values to dilute Russian pressure, while "historicization" proves the historical inevitability of sovereignty by excavating indigenous civilizational symbols, countering others' challenges to legitimacy.

II. The Instrumentalized Practice of Geopolitical Ideas and the Evolution of Identity Construction in Kazakhstan

Systematically reviews the three evolutionary stages of Kazakhstan's national identity construction and their underlying geopolitical logic. The first stage (1991–1995) was the sovereignty consolidation period, when the nascent regime faced dual challenges of domestic identity rupture and ethnic fragmentation alongside external power vacuum and intervention risks, thus instrumentalizing the "CIS geopolitical view" to achieve smooth transition through "coordinated spatialization" and "restrained historicization." Economically, it implemented "re-integration" to hedge transformation risks, retaining the ruble as transitional currency and positioning Russia as a strategic transit hub; politically, it embedded itself in multilateral institutional frameworks to obtain sovereignty recognition and security endorsement, pursuing a denuclearization policy to align with international norms. Simultaneously, it handled ethnic relations prudently, using inter-ethnic shared memories to reassure Russian-speaking groups, establishing Kazakh as the state language through the 1993 Constitution while retaining Russian for inter-ethnic communication, maintaining a fragile balance between "Kazakhization" and "Russification." However, the 1995 collapse of the "ruble zone," the persistent decline of CIS effectiveness, plus the 1995 "Concept on the Formation of Historical Consciousness" critiquing Soviet linear historiography, marked the paradigm's end.

The second stage (1995–2013) was the cultural reconstruction period, when regime consolidation and positive economic growth fundamentally shifted the development logic. The Kazakh government adopted indigenized "Eurasianism" as the core narrative, using "inclusive spatialization" and "mutually-constitutive historicization" to build bridges between Slavic and nomadic civilizations. Externally, it proposed "economic Eurasianism," advocating in 1994 to replace the inefficient CIS and participating in the Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan Customs Union in 2010, but explicitly rejecting supranational political institutions and single currency, establishing equal partnership rather than subordinate vassal status; internally, it shaped the "Eurasian bridge" civic state image, providing shared belonging for multiple ethnic groups. Historically, it fused "nomadic civilization" with "Slavic imprint," strategically invoking Gumilev's theory to support Kazakh-Russian cultural symbiosis, frequently holding Abai, Dulati commemorations and ancient city millennium celebrations after 1995, promoting deep integration of steppe traditions with modern civic consciousness. After 2012, nationalist concerns about sovereignty erosion intensified, and the 2014 Crimea crisis fundamentally altered Kazakhstan's "geopolitical psychology," with Eurasianism degenerating into an ideological tool for Russia to restore great power status, fundamentally conflicting with Kazakhstan's open and balanced principles, thus completing functional downgrade.

The third stage (2014–present) is the ethnic intensification period. The Crimea crisis triggered irredentist analogies that exposed Kazakhstan's vulnerability from heavy reliance on Russian-language information space, prompting the government to swiftly turn to the "Turkic World" geopolitical view. This idea originated from pan-Turkism promoted by Turkey after Soviet dissolution, but Kazakh elites did not fully embrace it early on due to sovereignty defense concerns, only accelerating integration after the 2021 upgrade of the Organization of Turkic States. The Kazakh government used "strategic spatialization" and "source-tracing historicization" to complete decoupling from "Russia-centric" identification: internally, it deployed "Homeland," "Sacred Geography" and other ideological constructions in 2017, making social consciousness modernization the core of the "Third Modernization," achieving spiritual revival and strengthened Turkic identity; externally, it facilitated the "Integration Concept of Turkic-Speaking States" in 2018, using the Turkic World to consolidate regional autonomy and balance external influences, ultimately establishing a middle power identity with high autonomy.

III. Kazakhstan's National Identity and Strategic Autonomy After the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Examines the challenges to Kazakhstan's national identity and practices of strategic autonomy after the Russia-Ukraine conflict. External pressures triggered an identity crisis, with geopolitical camp-ization severing organic Eurasian continental connections and Russian population inflows complicating the social ecology; the conflict simultaneously intensified colonial history discussions, bringing security and identity issues back to policy center. The Kazakh elite's geopolitical cognition underwent three transformations: Russia's image as "security public goods" weakened, Russia-centered economic and trade networks became development obstacles, and new elites tended to cut spiritual-cultural dependence on Russia. At the practical level, Kazakhstan combines diversified diplomacy with Turkic World geopolitical construction: deepening "enhanced strategic partnership" with the U.S., integrating into Western global security frameworks; promoting the Organization of Turkic States toward higher-dimensional cooperation, constructing the Trans-Caspian "Middle Corridor" as strategic alternative; strengthening Central Asian regional solidarity, expanding "C5+1" to "C6." In the "historicization" dimension, it accelerates Kazakh language promotion, national history retelling, and systematic renaming of Soviet-era place names, with the 2026 new Constitution reducing Russian status, reshaping historical orthodoxy through Golden Horde memory. Kazakhstan is shaping a "composite national identity": maintaining pragmatic support for Eurasian collective cooperation at the economic-security level, while deeply connecting with the Turkic World at the political-cultural level, attempting to enter the global middle power ranks.

IV. Conclusion

From a critical geopolitics perspective, analyzes Kazakhstan's national identity construction journey since independence, noting that its political elites successively invoked three geopolitical views—CIS, Eurasianism, and Turkic World—achieving identity transformation through coordination between "spatialization" strategies and "historicization" narratives: the CIS period emphasized coordination and restraint, the Eurasianism stage stressed inclusion and mutual constitution, while the Turkic World period turned toward strategic expansion and source-tracing reconstruction. After the 2022 Russia-Ukraine conflict, Kazakhstan accelerated "de-Russification," establishing a "Turkic cradle" civilizational center positioning, combining diversified diplomacy to expand strategic space. Yet this process contains dual tensions: global geopolitical polarization squeezes its maneuvering room, with "spatialization" strategies only achieving replacement of dependence objects rather than fundamentally changing passivity; historical narrative reconstruction obscures Soviet cross-ethnic identification through titular nation expansion, marginalizing minority contributions. The Tokayev government is attempting to balance multiculturalism with patriotism, harmonize tradition and modernity through the principle of separation of religion and state, seeking dynamic equilibrium between openness and historical continuity, to consolidate a middle power identity with both cultural roots and strategic autonomy.