Authoritarian regionalism constitutes a challenging topic for empirical research due to a substantial gap between official mandates and the actual practices of regional organizations (ROs). While formally most authoritarian ROs “download” the global script of regionalism and imitate the European Union, in practice, they are used by their member states for different purposes than economic integration—in particular, to legitimize the nondemocratic regimes. At the same time, there are also examples of authoritarian ROs that go beyond simple autocracy-sustaining rhetoric and have actual policy implications. This paper argues that the differences between authoritarian ROs can be better observed if one looks not at the official mandates but at the background of their key officials. Using the case of post-Soviet Eurasia with its proliferation of authoritarian ROs, I show that a look at the biographies of officials clearly reveals the existence of two generations of ROs—one with primarily symbolic importance and one with actual economic integration ambitions.