The EU, the EEU, and the War in Ukraine: Political Risks and Management Options

Oxana Karnaukhova
The new wave of transformation is characterized by remarkable features. Deepening integration
and mushroom-like rising regional associations found MNCs as conductors and agents. The
dramatic increase of technology as a strategic industry has changed the perception of market
constraints, bringing production to a level beyond national markets. A transnational network of
relations, operating outside states, is becoming a modern characteristic. Markets migrate to a
cyberspace messing up virtual and physical region of activities.
These circumstances not only raise the question of the role of the state in the world-system,
but also how leadership is exercised regionally or globally. The concept of leadership (Lake
1993; Kai/Skaperdas 2005) describes how a group of highly developed states predetermines
the nature and pace of global economic development and acts as a natural ‘centre of gravity’ for
developing economies. In a sense, regional associations are structurally composed of drivers
promoting association and weaker economies or geopolitical actors. Such centres of gravity –
drivers often use patronage as a political economy tool to create a special relationship between
the dominant and the dependent; this is usually done for cultural reasons. In other words,
patronage as a mechanism for exercising leadership is a strategy for acquiring, maintaining, and
enhancing political power by patrons (Kaufman 1974). Patronage is a particular type of dyadic
exchange, characterized by unequal power and status (perceived or real); a particularistic and
private r elationship governed by the principle of reciprocity. However, this complementarity
does not necessarily mean unidirectional dominance. “Clients”, i.e. emerging economies also
use this mechanism to build strategies to protect and promote their interests, and their use is
conditioned by the set of incentives and disincentives provided to them (Peimani 1998; Piattoni
2001). As I have argued elsewhere (Karnaukhova 2022), that, since patronage implies that it
imprints on the behaviour of politicians and influences the way these politicians represent their
interests, patron leaders use this tool by binding their clients with strong historical and cultural
ties which resist radical political transformations. As global development shows, on the one
hand, the way relations between global geopolitical actors are shaped and represented depends
on the strategies and instruments applied, and on the other hand, on the recognition of the
equal importance of Western and non-Western, non-European actors (Bossuyt 2019; Laruelle
2021). Thus, within the trend of regional integration and competition of leadership strategies, the
question of sovereignty, and, even more so, of economic sovereignty receives new impetus as
the question of embedding oneself in global networks of geo-economic relations to strengthen
one’s own competitiveness. Within the Westernized discourse of geoeconomic leadership,
striving for national competitiveness and following economic sovereignty does not undermine
global cooperation; on the contrary, openness promotes competitiveness. Central Asia demonstrates
that the complex geopolitical context impedes the harmonious development of relations
in the region.
40 Wirtschaft und Management · Band 33 · März 2023