Аңдатпа
Introduction This study examines China’s humanitarian presence in Central Asia as a structured system of educational, cultural, public-diplomatic, media-digital, and institutional channels rather than as emergency aid or disaster relief. The research addresses the question of why Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan demonstrate different degrees of institutional consolidation, channel diversification, and public reception despite operating within a broadly shared regional foreign-policy environment. Methods The study applies comparative country analysis, an institutional approach, source triangulation, and a structured expert-coded ordinal scoring procedure. The baseline comparison covers the completed period of 2021–2024, while confirmed developments from 2025 are treated separately as preliminary contextual evidence. The empirical model includes seven retained indicators: the Institutional Density Index (IDI), Educational and Language Diplomacy Index (ELDI), Cultural Diplomacy Index (CDI), Public Diplomacy Index (PDI), Media and Digital Presence Index (MDPI), Composite Channel Presence Index (CCPI), and Regional Comparative State Index (RCSI). Results The findings show that educational and language diplomacy is the most stable channel of China’s humanitarian presence in Central Asia. Cultural, public-diplomatic, and media-related channels become more intensive where a dense institutional base has already been formed. Kazakhstan holds the leading position across the comparative matrix, with an IDI of 0.889, a CCPI of 1.000, and a final RCSI of 0.945. Kyrgyzstan follows with respective values of 0.711, 0.639, and 0.675. Uzbekistan records 0.355, 0.612, and 0.484, while Tajikistan records 0.355, 0.417, and 0.386. These results identify Kazakhstan as a comprehensively institutionalized model, Kyrgyzstan as a network-based model, Uzbekistan as a scale-driven potential model, and Tajikistan as a compact participation model. Discussion The analysis demonstrates that institutional expansion does not automatically translate into stronger public attractiveness. Across the region, China’s humanitarian presence is received selectively: educational, economic, and cooperative dimensions tend to be viewed more favorably than politically or symbolically sensitive domains. The study contributes a transparent ordinal comparative matrix for assessing the scale, channel structure, and institutional organization of China’s humanitarian presence in Central Asia and provides a basis for further interregional comparison.