The main strategies that the leadership of Kyrgyzstan can implement during the forecast period until 2020 can be conditionally summarized as follows:
1. “Flexible course” — a multi-vector foreign policy. This course is difficult to implement for Kyrgyzstan, as a weak economy, limited armed forces, and a small population predetermine relatively limited opportunities for conducting a truly independent foreign and economic policy.
2. “Entering the sphere of influence of Kazakhstan” — a growing political and economic dependence on the Republic of Kazakhstan. In principle, this is a variant of delegating authority in choosing a strategic path of development to a state that is ethnically and mentally close but more powerful, primarily economically. In its pure form, this scenario is also difficult to implement, as although Kazakhstan has significantly greater capabilities than Kyrgyzstan, its potential is also relatively small on a global scale. The implementation of this scenario essentially means that the choice of Kyrgyzstan's development path will be determined in Astana in accordance with four other scenarios.
3. “Eurasian integration” — one of the most acceptable scenarios for Kyrgyzstan, as it potentially allows Kyrgyzstan, along with other Central Asian states, to become a system-forming unit of a large geopolitical association, similar to how small European states increase their weight and influence on the international stage through EU membership. However, Kyrgyzstan's opportunities for development under this scenario are limited by relatively slow progress in building full-fledged integration structures of the EAEU and CSTO.
4. “Entering the sphere of influence of China” — a highly probable scenario, considering the growing economic power of China and its geographical proximity. The main danger in implementing this scenario is related to the threat of ethnic and cultural dissolution. Although the main negative consequences lie somewhat beyond the chosen forecast horizon (2020), they must be taken into account in strategic planning. Additionally, there is a risk of copying the Chinese model of extensive development (using industrial production schemes that disregard environmental standards and are based on low-paid labor), which may lead to the loss of Kyrgyzstan's competitive advantages as a unique biospheric zone and the preservation or even increase of social instability in the country.
5. “Euro-Atlantic choice” — despite the apparent attractiveness of entering the sphere of influence of the most economically developed countries in the world, it carries significant threats, as the development of economically weak states in an open liberal economy system typically reinforces economic peripherality. This is evidenced by Kyrgyzstan's own experience with hasty and thoughtless accession to the WTO. The examples of the East Asian Tigers (Taiwan, South Korea, etc.) in relation to Kyrgyzstan are not conclusive, as their economic formation occurred under the conditions of fierce geopolitical confrontation during the Cold War, when the USA and NATO countries were extremely interested in forming strong allies in the Asia-Pacific region against the communist USSR and China. Furthermore, Kyrgyzstan's landlocked position increases its dependence on neighbors, through whose territories the main transport routes connecting it to the outside world pass. Kyrgyzstan's desire to play the role of a major transit hub can only be realized against the backdrop of good-neighborly relations with the major powers of the region. In these conditions, building the country's development strategy based on Euro-Atlantic orientation, from the perspective of key geopolitical factors affecting Kyrgyzstan's development, appears shortsighted.
