Already in the 1990s and increasingly after 2001, experts and academics in the field indicated that the empowerment of the transnational networks of production and distribution of narcotics and the rise of terrorist activities were not separate phenomena. The authors challenge what they define as the established approach to trafficking-terrorism connections and advance what they claim to be the novel one.

The argument is based on cases of four Central Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan). The authors point to the main paradox: the region notorious as one of the main Eurasian drug trafficking corridors has demonstrated relatively low levels of terrorist activity. They argue that the paradox cannot be properly understood without considering the impact of the state (and its complexity). So, there is “the nexus”—persistent interconnections between the state, criminal organizations, and radical ideological groups pursuing political goals. It is presented in the book as the axis around which the post-Soviet history of the Central Asian republics evolved.

The first chapter is intended to provide a theoretical and conceptual framework for analyzing the nexus. The attempt leaves much to be desired, especially in light of the claims to novelty. The authors employ mostly rhetorical reasoning and conveniently confront “conventional wisdom” (mostly picked up from the scholarship and journalism in the field) with their “counterintuitive” propositions. Any reference to contemporary studies outside the field is virtually absent, although adding an interdisciplinary perspective into the exploration of, say, the “polyvalent” nature of the state could be a merit. The conceptual framing of four “ideal types” of state involvement into the “nexus” may be insightful for a general audience, but it is for experts to assess its significance.

The techniques of empirical testing in Chapter 2 are not that sophisticated as, for example, in modern economics. But to the authors’ merit, they do not multiply regressions on the basis of relatively scarce and not necessarily objective data (it is demonstrated in the following chapters of the book that under widespread corruption, the data on drug seizures may reflect the fight among different criminal and political actors, rather than trends in trafficking and counter-trafficking activities). The main critical consideration upon its reading is that the empirical findings surprisingly conform to intuitive and commonsense ideas. This is not a problem in itself—after all, if formal modelling does not contradict profane knowledge, it speaks in favor of both. This, however, leaves the notion of nexus in a sort of metaphysical limbo.

The last two chapters can reinforce the claim that the nexus is not merely a speculative proposition—if read by a sympathetic reader. There is room for criticism though. First, the chosen way of presenting the country case studies results in a somewhat messy narrative, which at times might have caught the authors themselves: hence, the mention of Iosif Stalin ordering a deportation in 1994 (68). Second, there is a set of conceptual issues. The omission (except for a few remarks) is China, both as a potential market for Central Asian trafficking and as a policy actor increasingly present in the region. The trafficking in question is that of opiates from Afghanistan. There are mentions of local production of opiates and cannabis, but the issue does not receive systematic treatment in the text, while the consideration of the effects (real or potential) of synthetic drugs on the network of trafficking is absent. That could clarify (or challenge) the conceptual framework of the book.

The authors are quite consistent in substantiating their main thesis: it is not the export of drugs and/or terror that makes the state fight or fail, but rather the state that shapes the pattern of co-existence between organized crime and political radicalism. State coercive power channels the motives of those involved into illicit activities, which may mitigate the incentives for terror. Hence they propose to follow the recommendations on changing the mode of post-2001 western security assistance. This book offers material for critical discussion, which is a merit in itself. Overall, it is a valid contribution to the field that can be recommended also as supplementary reading on the post-Soviet history of Central Asia.