Over the last few weeks, the president of Azerbaijan, and the prime ministers of Armenia and Georgia, have made separate calls for regional co-operation among the three South Caucasus countries, highlighting the benefits that can come out from such co-operation. This is a big shift in positions, especially for Azerbaijan. There is no doubt that regional co-operation can bring great benefits to the three countries and the wider region. The three leaders need to get together and ideally sign some kind of joint declaration outlining their regional vision. Work on this should start at senior diplomat level as soon as possible. There is an alternative vision to the trilateral regional co-operation, and this is the idea of adding to the core three South Caucasus countries, the three regional neighbours: Russia, Iran and Turkey. Meetings in this format, with the Georgians absent, have taken place in Moscow and Tehran. Those pushing for this format, whether consciously or unconsciously, are trying to destroy the idea of South Caucasus regional co-operation between the three core countries. Most things that can be done between the three (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia), cannot be done between the six. The 3 + 3 – useful only once the Georgians join, can be a talking shop. No doubt someone will come up after with the idea of the 3 + 2 – providing a forum between the three South Caucasus countries and the EU and US that can be yet another talking shop. But realistically, neither can form the basis of regional co-operation. It is clear that in the South Caucasus three is a company but six is a crowd.

The Karabakh conflict, which has persisted for the past century, appears to have reached its inevitable conclusion. For Azerbaijan, this marks the end of separatism and the restoration of sovereignty. For the Armenians, it signifies the end of a long-held belief in a policy of confrontation with Azerbaijan. However, the  Azerbaijani-Armenian enmity still lingers, and we must earnestly assess whether it is moving towards stabilization, de-escalation, settlement, or forging a new equilibrium, writes Ramazan Samadov in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "The current situation drags the region into some kind vicious circle. The three years that passed since the 2020 war were a bright example of such a circle, however it was stopped by Azerbaijan in a lighting style military operation in September 2023 and some new equilibrium emerged. Will  history repeat itself? We will see in the next few weeks and few months", he argues

Kyz Ala Kachuu is an obvious and unapologetic form of protest by Mirlan Abdykaylkov against the archaic and violating nature of the bride kidnapping traditions in Kyrgyzstan, writes Silvan Lochteken in this commentary for commonspace.eu. Its success at the Busan International Film Festival not only brings the international spotlight on the controversial practice, but reignites the contested debate on bride kidnapping that has polarized the Kyrgyz public for decades.

It was overshadowed by more dramatic events in the world, yet despite this, the 19th  EU-Central Asia Ministerial meeting held in Luxembourg on 23 October was a significant event, and another step in the process of building closer co-operation between Europe and the countries of Central Asia. A statement from Brussels said that “for the EU, the Ministerial meeting was an opportunity to highlight its strong commitment to the region and stress the importance of deeper cooperation in the context of the challenges emerging from regional dynamics, with a focus on the fall-out of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the situation in Afghanistan.” A joint communique issued after the meeting covered a wide range of issues, and indicated the expanding agenda in the relations between the two group of countries. commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment that the documents coming out of the Luxembourg Meeting of EU and Central Asia foreign ministers on 23 October are significant – they are not only declaratory as sometimes such statements are, but also offer a large number of tangible frameworks, proposals and action points that should keep officials on both sides busy for a while. The two sides have set an ambitious agenda for their future co-operation, but implementing this agenda is going to require political commitment. That will ensure its success up to a point. More will depend on public engagement on both sides, and securing that may be even more challenging.

The United Nations General Assembly on Friday (27 October), voted overwhelmingly, with 120 countries in favour, 14 against and 45 abstentions, to a resolution calling for an end of hostilities in Gaza and for humanitarian relief to the Palestinian people of Gaza. The resolution calls for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities.” The vote, whilst not binding, gives moral support to efforts to get a similar resolution passed in the Security Council. As decided by the General Assembly earlier, the resolution required a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting to be adopted. There are 193 members of the United Nations. Most members of the Non-Aligned Movement, eight members of the European Union, and UN Security Council members France, China  and Russia were amongst those voting for the resolution. There could be noted however divisions in the voting patterns of EU members: Several of the EU 27 member states voted for the resolution, including: Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Spain and Slovenia. Five, joined the United States and Israel to vote against, namely Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary Most EU countries abstained, including Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland and Romania, Slovakia and Sweden. Of the three South Caucasus countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan voted for the resolution, Georgia abstained. Ukraine and Moldova also abstained.