1 In essence, she suggests that the concept of ‘incomplete state’ underlying her work implies that these countries are not fully sovereign. In this review, we aim to provide a critical perspective on Akchurina’s arguments and offer a contrasting viewpoint. Specifically, we aim to show that the concept of ‘incompleteness’ (‘failed’ or ‘unfinished’) is misapplied and inappropriately used in the book. We argue that this concept, when viewed through the lens of political transitology and fragmentation theory, does not accurately reflect or explain the current state of these countries. Furthermore, the term ‘incomplete’ is used in the book with an ideologically charged meaning and in an emotionally biased manner. While Akchurina acknowledges that it is somewhat inappropriate to apply the term ‘failed state’ (‘underdeveloped’ or ‘irreparable’ states) to Central Asian countries, she does not completely abandon it and instead uses the term ‘incomplete state’ (‘unfinished’