Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Commentary

Critical mineral discussions in Astana

12 June 2026

Critical mineral discussions in Astana

Kazakhstan hosted a new round of high-level C5+1 critical mineral talks in Astana on Wednesday (10 June). As a reminder, the C5+1 format includes the 5 Central Asian nations, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan, as well as the United States, which makes up the ‘+1’ element. The C5+1 format, along with the recent U.S. intensifying push for critical minerals in Central Asia has been covered extensively in previous newsletters. The talks brought together the U.S. Special Envoy for South and Central Asian Affairs Sergio Gor with several senior officials from the Central Asian nations. These talks did not happen in isolation, as the Astana Mining and Metallurgy Congress and Exhibition (AMM 2026) also took place from 10-11 June. Furthermore, the U.S. Special Envoy also likely attended several bilateral meetings with Central Asian ministers, having reportedly met Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev beforehand, and also having discussed a wide range of topics with Kazakh Foreign Minister Yermek Kosherbayev covering foreign investment, innovation, education, artificial intelligence, critical minerals and the implementation of previous agreements reached between President Tokayev and U.S. President Donald Trump. Following the C5+1 critical mineral dialogue, The AMM 2026 took place, bringing together industry, investors, and government representatives. At the AMM 2026 David L. Fogel, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service, made it a point to frame the U.S. support and involvement in critical minerals in the region as part of a broader strategic push to strengthen supply chains in the current global climate of hostility and competition. He also did not shy away from highlighting critical minerals as a top U.S. priority, thereby also making U.S. involvement in Central Asia’s critical mineral production crucial to strengthening the U.S.’ industrial base, national and economic security. Preceding this week’s flurry around critical minerals the C5+1 forum also set its sight on the cultural dimension, as culture ministers from the C5 and the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs met in Tashkent. Culture was recently made a priority for cooperation at the C5+1 heads of state meeting in Washington in November 2025. The meeting addressed topics such as joint training for museum staff, film and music exchanges, and workshops for tourism and other cultural exchange opportunities. As was the case with the talks on critical minerals, this meeting took place in the context of a larger series of bilateral meetings as the Under Secretary toured the region. 

Russia’s recent engagement in Astana

This sequence of American activity is contrasted by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Astana two weeks ago. The presidents of Russia and Kazakhstan discussed and signed an agreement to build a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan. This power plant would supplement the existing research reactors and overall allow Kazakhstan to better leverage its considerable uranium reserves towards independent energy. Crucially, however, Putin did not arrive alone, staffing the delegation with a slew of high-level officials and technocrats, most notably Elvira Nabiullina, the Governor of the Central Bank of Russia. Nabiullina is known as one of the Kremlin’s most competent and independent officials, having played a large part in so far effectively navigating the Russian economy through the complications of the Ukraine-Russia war. A result of Putin’s visit, which is likely why Nabiullina was there, was an extensive Kazakh Tenge/ Russian Ruble currency swap, as well as a Memorandum of Understanding between the two nation’s central banks. Although underreported, these developments are significant, as they show Kazakhstan’s intention to continue pursuing integration with the neighboring Russian economy. Tokayev’s government while constantly courting the current Trump administration, clearly still prioritizes cooperation with its large and historically entwined neighbor in Russia. Russia for its part, of course also continues to remain engaged with the region, only recently having signed a defence deal with Taliban Afghanistan focusing on repairing existing Russian or older Soviet equipment already used in Afghanistan. The weapons will likely be shipped to Tatarstan in Russia to be repaired before returning back to Afghanistan. However, Zamir Kabulov, Russia’s Special Envoy for Afghanistan, already hinted that the deal may later expand to include future defence contracts. Russia’s rhetoric is centered around aiding Afghanistan against the Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP), responsible for the deadly Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow. Nevertheless, defence agreements between Russia and Afghanistan, are likely to make Central Asian governments uneasy, especially Tajikistan, which has been repeatedly engaged in sporadic clashes along the Afghan border. Ultimately, although Central Asian countries, especially Kazakhstan, are currently able to pursue economic integration, foreign investment, and cultural ties with great powers like the U.S., Russia, and China, as this Russian-Afghan defence pact demonstrates, these powers may still take actions that run counterintuitive to Central Asia’s general stance towards regional issues such as engagement with Taliban Afghanistan. As Central Asia continues to strive towards boosting its economic development and global integration through securing contracts with powerful external forces, Kazakhstan currently emerging as a clear frontrunner, it will also be important for Central Asia to account for other near regional neighbors benefiting from similar arrangements, that may not always align with their own interests. 

Source: This Briefing was prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu for VOL. V ISSUE 9 of Central Asia Concise 
 

Latest

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

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
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).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

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

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

7 September 2026
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)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

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

21 September 2026
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)
Dennis Sammut