Central Asia on the march, but challenges ahead

Central Asian leaders have been busy the last month, forging new ties in a changing geopolitical landscape. The presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan travelled to the White House to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump in the C5+1 format. The format, established in 2015, aims to deepen U.S. collaboration with Central Asia, emphasising security and economic cooperation. The U.S. is not the only power looking to maintain its influence in the region. The European Union, Russia, China, and increasingly, India, have all shown their interest in securing economic cooperation and inking energy and trade deals, recognising Central Asia’s strategic position as a key energy and transfer hub situated between East and West. Central Asian states are keenly aware of their leverage and have not only engaged in multi-lateral diplomacy with all of the aforementioned external actors but also adopted a pragmatic regional approach to increase cooperation amongst themselves and taken concrete steps to foster a more unified ‘Central Asian Community’. This was evident by last weekend’s Seventh Consultative Meeting of Heads of State, also known as the C5, where Central Asian leaders officially admitted Azerbaijan as a full member, effectively transforming it into the C6. However, although Central Asia has the unique opportunity to multilaterally engage with all of the world’s biggest economic and security powers, while continuing to shape regional politics and cooperation on its own terms, new security and economic issues are arising that may well reshape Central Asian states’ connections to external actors and potentially strain intra-regional relations.

Regional Cooperation

During the Seventh Consultative Meeting of Heads of State in Tashkent, Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev proposed to transition this meeting mechanism into a more formal regional body called “Community of Central Asia”. The C5 format, initially set up in 2018 to create a space for dialogue on security and confidence-building between the Central Asian nations, was meant for leader-level exchanges between the states after several years of stagnating communication. Azerbaijan’s regular presence since 2023, allowed Baku to evaluate the suitability of its own connectivity and energy agenda with the broader Central Asian initiative, and has now culminated in the group officially expanding to include Azerbaijan as a full member. Furthermore, President Ilham Aliyev emphasised Central Asia and Azerbaijan as “a single geopolitical and geo-economic region whose importance in the world is steadily growing”, citing developments in Azerbaijan’s section of the Middle Corridor and cross-Caspian energy links.  

Another overlapping regional forum for cooperation and political dialogue is the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), whose twelfth summit was hosted last month and attended by the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Türkiye, and Turkmenistan, with Hungary and Northern Cyprus participating as observers. Once again, security and connectivity topics took centre stage, as the OTS member states agreed on the importance of having a collective Turkic effort towards peace and stability in the South Caucasus, following the Joint Declaration signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan on August 8 2025. Defence cooperation and intelligence sharing were also highlighted as important areas of collaboration to improve the security situation of the region. Finally, connectivity and transport projects also took centre stage, such as the Trans-Caspian International East-West Middle Corridor and the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway.

Security

The U.S. has long been a significant security partner for the Central Asian region, starting after the collapse of the Soviet Union to ensure regional stability and prevent nuclear proliferation, to shifting towards a more counter-terrorism focused form of security cooperation in the wake of September 11, 2001. This was further exacerbated by the U.S. Afghanistan campaign, requiring significant infrastructure in Central Asia to ensure the deployment of troops and materiel to Afghanistan. Terrorism remains a critical security issue in the region and a top priority in U.S.-Central Asian security cooperation, especially after the Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow, March 2024, by Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) militants. However, although the Trump administration is still clearly interested in maintaining influence in the region, some of its actions, such as the slashing of parts of its federal budgets and USAID, have also severely impacted its dominance in the information space. The dismissal of around 1,300 State Department personnel focused on Central Asia, along with the almost complete elimination of USAID, has not only depleted funding for key news outlets, such as Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, but also reduced the capacity to combat disinformation, in particular from Russia.

On the other hand, Russia’s historically strong security cooperation with Central Asia has often been described as being on the decline, due to needing to divert attention and resources to the Ukraine-Russia war, since the start of the 2022 invasion. However, Russia continues to be the main security provider in Central Asia, leading the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), stationing roughly 7,000 troops in Tajikistan, and maintaining several bases throughout the region, such as the Russian Joint Military base in Kyrgyzstan, the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, and the 201st Military Base in Tajikistan. Furthermore, Russia remains the largest weapons provider to the region, even after 2022, and Central Asian officers undergo significant lengths of their training at Russian military universities and academies. Additionally, Russia, China and Central-Asian states also regularly hold combined military exercises under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), adding another security cooperation dimension to the fold.    

Although the threat of terrorism from groups such as ISKP remains a salient issue, the security situation in the region has the potential to become more precarious following the border clashes between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The cross-border fighting, initially between the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the armed forces of Pakistan, has escalated into a broader conflict, reigniting tensions on the Durand line, involving both Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban government. For Central Asian nations, particularly Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, who share a border with Afghanistan, these developments are worrying. If the Afghan Taliban refused to, or were unable to, control the militant groups within their country and prevent them from attacking Pakistan, will these Central Asian countries face a similar threat from Afghanistan in the future? It is worth remembering that Pakistan was the longest and most extensive supporter of the Afghan Taliban during the 20-year War in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the contested nature of the Durand Line between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a lasting issue still stemming from the colonial time, also applies to Afghanistan’s borders with Central Asia. In fact, there have already been recent border clashes between Afghanistan and Tajikistan, reportedly revolving around disputes over water diversion from the Amu Darya river, an issue that may be further exacerbated in the future as water scarcity becomes a critical issue for Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The potential security threats emanating from Afghanistan may put Central Asian nations’ multi-faceted and multi-lateral approach to security to the test. The situation in Afghanistan is a prime example of a regional security threat and begs the question: will Central Asian nations break from history and look to tackle the issue unilaterally or through their regional mechanisms and frameworks? Or will they revert to relying on external partners, as last seen by Russian intervention into Kazakhstan in early 2022 through the CSTO?

Connectivity, energy, infrastructure

Despite the potential security issues emanating from Afghanistan, Central Asian states seem committed to integrating the war-torn nation and its fledgling government into the region. This summer, all five Central Asian countries were looking to increase cooperation, trade, and connectivity with Afghanistan. Better relations and economic integration were seen as key drivers to improve regional stability and security. This also involved four out of the five countries (except Tajikistan) officially recognising the Taliban government, being some of the first countries to do so. However, full integration and deepening of economic ties have stagnated, as terrorism, cross-border trafficking, and now Afghanistan’s ongoing conflict with Pakistan continue to hamper cooperation. Some Central Asian states seem more eager to continue Afghanistan’s integration despite all the recent developments, as Uzbek Energy Minister Jorabek Mirzamahmudov confirmed that Uzbekistan will continue to deliver electricity supplies to Afghanistan throughout 2026, and that there will be continued commitment to joint energy infrastructure projects within Afghanistan, such as high-voltage power lines and substations. Furthermore, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev continuously emphasised the importance of supporting the Afghan people and fostering the country’s development, both at the 80th U.N. General Assembly and the recent C6 Summit. However, at the same time, Tajik-Afghan relations remain relatively cool in comparison. Tajikistan is continuing to carry out deportations of Afghan refugees and only has limited engagement with the Taliban government, the status of which is now unclear following the border clashes 3 weeks ago.

Central Asian states have shown their affinity to leverage their strategic location and energy exports to forge meaningful relationships with powerful global actors in both the East and West, while at the same time continuously engaging in regional dialogue and pushing for greater connectivity and security cooperation throughout Central Asia. Central Asian governments now have a multitude of regional and international forums and mechanisms they can engage with. However, Afghanistan now presents itself as a regional security issue that has the potential to become a critical concern for the region in the near future, especially now that most Central Asian nations have begun integrating Afghanistan into the regional economy. The problem creates an interesting dilemma that Central Asian governments will need to respond to and may indicate what the region’s dominant security approach will be going forward. Will Central Asian governments' security posture vis-à-vis Afghanistan be defined through unilateral actions, regional cooperation, or calls for support to China, Russia, or the U.S.?

source: This commentary was first published in the Briefing Section of Central Asia Concise, on 20 November 2025

photo: In Tashkent, on 13 November 2025, the C5 became C6 when Azerbaijan formally joined the group.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)