The Bukharan Crisis: A Connected History of 18th-Century Central Asia. By Scott C. Levi. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2020. xiv, 208 pp. Bibliography. Index. Illustrations. Figures. Maps. $32.00, paper.

and actively developed a neo-imperialist project, pushing for deeper military and economic integration within the CIS, the Union State of Russia and Belarus, CSTO, and EvAzEs, utilizing energy and bilateral trade as weapons and deepening ties with the separatist regions in Georgia and Moldova. The neo-imperialism paradigm reached a new level during the Dmitrii Medvedev “interregnum,” with the invasion of Georgia and the process of almost complete absorption of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia into Russia. A display of evident neo-imperialist behavior has characterized the period since Putin’s return to the Presidency, in 2012. The expantion of military, security and economic ties with the separatist regions, the great pressure on the former Soviet countries to stay away from any close cooperation with the west, and, finally, the annexation of Crimea and the escalation of tensions in eastern Ukraine have shown how far is Russia willing to go to fulfill its strategic objectives. The author concludes that even if Russia’s neo-imperial tradition was revived more forcefully in the 2010s, its policies did not go as far as revising the entire postSoviet map and many of its actions did not produce the expected outcomes (Russia annexed Crimea but lost Ukraine). In addition, neither the integrationist projects in the former Soviet space can be seen entirely as neo-imperialist enterprises. Even if Moscow clearly considers the “Near Abroad” as an area of Russia’s “special interests,” its endeavors to develop CIS, the Union State, EvrAzEs, EAEU, and CSTO also in terms of their own security concerns and economic interdependency. In addition, the former Soviet states themselves have often welcomed and benefited from Russia’s economic, financial, or military assistance. As such, in Sagramosos’s opinion, Moscow’s policies in the former Soviet space should be seen through the lenses of an aspiring hegemon, rather than of a fully accomplished neo-imperialist power (344). The book brings important contributions to the fields of international relations and area studies and is highly recommended for both those studying or conducting in-depth research on Russian politics and the former Soviet space.