In this article, the author reflects on the issues raised by two Central Asian scholars, Nari Shelekpayev and Aminat Chokobaeva, in their comments on Martin Müller’s idea of the “Global East”, as well as on this idea itself. In Central Asia, as well as in Russia, essentialism is widespread; it is difficult to call it “tactical,” as Shelekpayev and Chokobaeva do. They correctly consider the “Global East” to be a political project, but its political nature must be understood based on the concept of the “Global South” as an emancipatory project against the domination of the North and Eurocentrism. Eurocentrism, as manifested even in Müller’s article, is still strong in the academic world. However, in today’s world, where the rivalry is getting fiercer between the great powers, including the powers of the South and the East, it is difficult for the emancipatory strategies of the Global South or Global East to succeed. Small countries and middle powers need the tact to respond flexibly to changing conditions and working with different partners. In this respect, Central Asia’s multiple identities can be beneficial to it.