1. ^aDepartment of Political Science, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. E-mail: gleasong@unm.edu
2. ^bInternational Relations Faculty, Kazakhstan State University, Bishkek, Kazakhstan. E-mail: kasel@mail.ru
3. ^cHistory of International Relations, Kazakhstan State University, Astana, Kazakhstan. E-mail: sbako@yandex.ru

Abstract

Realists characterize the contemporary international system as a field of competing units of various sizes and capabilities, struggling by means of strategies of self-advancement to achieve goals that are sometimes common, sometimes contradictory. The nation-state is the fundamental unit in the realist constellation of actors. Large and resourceful states can achieve their goals through partnership, influence, alliance, demand, and coercion. Small and less resourceful states find the strategies at their disposal more constrained. Hence small states are encouraged by realist doctrine to pursue strategies of aggregation, coalition-formation, and integration. Thus, realist prescriptions for the small state encourage strategies that run counter to the realist explanation of international dynamics. Are realist policy prescriptions for the small state necessarily anti-realist? This paper addresses this question through an analysis of realist theory with respect to the foreign policy strategies of a small Central Asian state, Kyrgyzstan.