Abstract
Introduction. The relevance of the topic is determined by the need to assess how youth initiatives are included in the humanitarian dimension of Eurasian integration and what place Kazakhstan occupies in these practices. The scientific novelty of this study lies in the development of a Kazakhstan-centric analytical framework for classifying these institutions based on their function, degree of institutionalization, format of participation, and verifiable outcomes. Methods and materials. The research is based on structural-functional analysis, comparative analysis, and case studies. The cases were selected according to four criteria: connection with the EAEU or the CIS-EAEU agenda, documented participation of Kazakhstan, availability of open sources, and humanitarian or youth orientation. The comparison was carried out by institutional status, target group, scale of Kazakhstani participation, continuity of the project, and presence of post-project support. The source base consists of regulatory documents from the EAEU and the CIS, materials from the Eurasian Economic Commission, reports from the organizers, and publicly available statistics. For the critical analysis of these sources, the views of researchers as reflected in the academic literature were also taken into account, including critical works on issues of Eurasian integration. Analysis. The article distinguishes institutional, forum, educational, media-cultural, and volunteer formats of cooperation. The participation of Kazakhstani youth is considered not a background element of the general EAEU agenda but three dimensions: representation, initiative, and infrastructure. Results. The study shows that Kazakhstan is regularly represented in key youth formats, but its participation is uneven and often quantitatively limited. The measurable effects of the initiatives are most reliably recorded at the level of contacts, project proposals, and institutional discussion, while claims about the formation of Eurasian identity or a stable community of leaders require additional sociological verification. The main problems are limited institutionalization, fragmented information support, barriers to academic mobility, and insufficient post-project support.