By Davit Gasparyan

Escalating tensions between the Armenian government and senior figures within the Armenian Apostolic Church are more than a domestic institutional dispute. The ongoing confrontation demonstrates Armenia’s broader geopolitical recalibration and growing concerns within Yerevan that Russian influence continues to operate through religious and cultural networks. While the Armenian Apostolic Church remains one of the country’s most trusted and historically significant institutions, the political behavior of certain ecclesiastical elites has intensified debates over sovereignty, national security, and foreign interference. The dispute is an example of how religious institutions across Russia’s neighboring countries can become entangled in geopolitical competition, particularly amid Armenia’s evolving foreign policy orientation and Russia’s continued reliance on soft power mechanisms.

BACKGROUND:

Relations between the Armenian government and the Armenian Apostolic Church have deteriorated significantly in recent years and particularly recent months, with public disagreements increasingly centered on Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s allegations of corruption, political interference, and questions surrounding the Church’s institutional accountability. While these tensions have often been portrayed as domestic disputes over governance and reform, Armenian political leadership has also framed the issue in broader geopolitical terms.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has explicitly linked his government’s concerns regarding church leadership to national security considerations. During a parliamentary question-and-answer session, Pashinyan stated that he “does not need a Catholicos who will obey him,” but rather one who “will not obey a senior lieutenant of a foreign special service” or report to foreign intelligence actors. Such remarks suggest that the Armenian government views elements within church leadership as potential conduits for external political influence rather than solely domestic institutional actors.

The Armenian Apostolic Church occupies a uniquely influential position in Armenian society. For centuries, it has served as a pillar of national identity, preserving Armenian cultural, linguistic, and spiritual continuity through periods of foreign domination, including Ottoman and Soviet rule. Public trust in the Church remains consistently high, making it one of the country’s most respected institutions according to the Caucasus Barometer, outperforming political parties and figures. This legitimacy, however, also renders the Church a powerful societal actor vulnerable to political instrumentalization.

Historically, segments of the Church’s senior leadership have maintained close institutional and symbolic ties with the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state. These connections reflect broader historical patterns in which former Armenian political elites aligned closely with Moscow during Armenia’s post-Soviet transition and subsequent security dependence on Russia. Such relationships have periodically reinforced Russia’s ideological narratives across the region.

These ties became particularly visible following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That year, Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II received a Russian state honor from President Vladimir Putin, clearly signaling the continuing closeness between Armenian and Russian religious leadership. More controversially, Archbishop Ezras (Nersisyan), head of the Russian Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church and brother of Garegin II, publicly blessed the Arbat Battalion in 2023, a military unit that includes ethnic Armenians associated with Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. The act carried strong symbolic significance, depicting how certain church elites have engaged in activities aligning with and supporting Russia’s wartime mobilization narratives against Ukraine. Pashinyan later alleged in 2025 that Archbishop Ezras was recruited by the KGB.

Russian religious and political actors have also reacted sharply to Armenian government criticism of church leadership. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church have condemned perceived state interference in ecclesiastical affairs, portraying Armenian government actions as part of broader efforts to undermine traditional spiritual institutions. Russian political commentators and politicians, including Sergei Lavrov, have similarly framed Armenian reform efforts as destabilizing and influenced by Western political agendas.

The dispute has extended beyond Armenia’s borders into Russian streets. Russian authorities have permitted Armenian diaspora communities to mobilize publicly around disputes between the Armenian government and church leadership and to publicly criticize Pashinyan’s actions. These developments show how the Russian regime has allowed and implicitly endorsed such attacks on Pashinyan as such demonstrations would require extensive scrutiny and approval by Russian authorities.

IMPLICATIONS:

The confrontation between the Armenian government and segments of church leadership reflects a broader geopolitical struggle over Russia’s influence within Armenian society. Religious institutions have historically served as important channels of Russian soft power across the post-Soviet region, enabling Moscow to shape political narratives, reinforce cultural alignment, and maintain influence even where formal political leverage declines.

Russia’s use of religious networks as instruments of influence has been particularly evident in Ukraine. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent full-scale invasion in 2022, tensions between Ukrainian authorities and Moscow-affiliated religious structures intensified. Kyiv’s eventual support for the establishment of an independent Orthodox Church reflected concerns that religious institutions could function as vehicles for Russian political influence and intelligence activity. Similar dynamics have been observed in Moldova, where Moscow-aligned religious organizations have maintained strong societal influence and occasionally reinforced pro-Russian political narratives. In Georgia, Russian-linked religious messaging has also been used to amplify conservative social discourse and skepticism toward Western integration.

Armenia’s current church-state tensions appear to follow comparable patterns. Pashinyan’s government has increasingly pursued foreign policy diversification, strengthening relations with the EU, the U.S., and regional partners while reducing reliance on Russian security and economic guarantees. These shifts have heightened the Armenian leadership’s sensitivity to domestic institutions perceived as linked to Moscow’s influence infrastructure.

Pashinyan has suggested that segments of church leadership have been used in forms of “hybrid warfare” targeting Armenian sovereignty. While such claims remain politically and legally contested and strongly rejected by church representatives, they highlight the degree to which religious institutions have become intertwined with national security discourse in Armenia. The framing reflects broader concerns within Armenian political circles that Russian influence persists through societal and cultural networks even as formal bilateral relations undergo strain.

The dispute also carries significant domestic political implications. Armenia’s 2026 parliamentary elections are expected to take place amid heightened geopolitical competition. Russia has historically demonstrated interest in influencing Armenian electoral processes and public discourse and there are reports that it already has commenced influence operations. Given the Armenian Apostolic Church’s deep societal legitimacy, internal church disputes could become politically mobilized, shaping electoral narratives and public perceptions of government legitimacy.

At the same time, aggressive state action against church leadership risks generating backlash among segments of Armenian society that view the Church as inseparable from national identity. Balancing institutional reform with respect for religious tradition will remain a very delicate political challenge for Armenian authorities. Certain Western human rights and religious organizations have already criticized the Pashinyan regime for its targeted crackdown on Armenian church members.

More broadly, Armenia’s experience demonstrates how religious institutions across Eurasia continue to operate at the intersection of identity, politics, and geopolitical competition. As Russia’s conventional political leverage in parts of the post-Soviet space declines, Moscow has increasingly relied on cultural and religious networks to preserve influence. Armenia’s internal church-state confrontation demonstrates how such networks can become focal points of broader geopolitical realignment.

CONCLUSIONS:

The escalating conflict between the Armenian government and senior figures within the Armenian Apostolic Church should be understood as both a domestic institutional dispute and a manifestation of broader geopolitical transformation. While the Church remains a foundational pillar of Armenian identity and social cohesion, the political, pro-Russian alignment of certain ecclesiastical elites has contributed to growing concerns regarding foreign influence.

Pashinyan’s confrontation with church leadership reflects Armenia’s efforts to redefine its geopolitical orientation and reduce Russian soft power penetration within Armenian society. The outcome of this struggle will likely influence not only Armenia’s internal political stability but also its future strategic alignment. As Armenia navigates a changing regional security environment on the eve of its 2026 Parliamentary elections, the interaction between religious authority, national identity, and external geopolitical competition will remain a critical factor shaping the country’s trajectory.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Davit Gasparyan researches security dynamics in the South Caucasus and Russia’s regional strategy. He conducts research with the Institute for Security and Analysis and previously served as a Russia researcher at the Institute for the Study of War, and has worked with the Carnegie Endowment and Caucasus Watch.

By Sudha Ramachandran

A recent attack by the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP) on a Chinese restaurant in a supposedly secure district in the Afghan capital, Kabul, is a setback for the Taliban regime. Not only was it an embarrassment to the regime as it laid bare its limited capacity to provide foolproof security to foreign nationals; it is also likely to have drawn the ire of the Chinese, who have promised investment in Afghanistan. Other countries keen on investing in Afghanistan will have taken note.

BACKGROUND:

A suicide attack in a Chinese restaurant in Kabul’s Shahr-e-Naw district on January 19 claimed the lives of seven people, including a Chinese Muslim man, who co-owned the restaurant with his wife and an Afghan partner. The others killed in the attack were Afghans. Over a dozen people, including a Chinese national, were injured in the explosion. Claiming responsibility for the attack, the ISKP warned that it “has placed Chinese nationals on its target list, especially in light of the increasing crimes committed by the Chinese government against the persecuted Uyghur Muslims.” Chinese nationals reportedly frequented the Kabul restaurant that was attacked. The bomber aimed to cause maximum Chinese casualties; according to the ISKP statement, he waited for a large number of Chinese to enter the restaurant before he blew himself up. 

The ISKP has been targeting China both in its propaganda and violence for several years. ISKP propaganda slams China’s persecution of Uighur Muslims. Its criticism of China’s policies and actions in Xinjiang is primarily aimed at drawing Uighur Muslims in the region into its fold. ISKP often calls on Muslims to take up arms against “red atheists whose hands are soaked with the blood of innocent Uyghur Muslims.” The ISKP has also targeted Chinese nationals and interests abroad, including the kidnapping and killing of two Chinese teachers in Quetta in Pakistan’s Balochistan province in 2017. ISKP attacks targeting Chinese nationals in Afghanistan include the January 2022 suicide bombing outside the Foreign Ministry building in Kabul, minutes ahead of the arrival of a Chinese delegation; the December 2022 attack on the Kabul Longan Hotel, which is frequented by Chinese businessmen, that left at least five Chinese nationals injured; and the January 2025 killing of a Chinese mining worker in Takhar. The targeted killing of Chinese nationals working in mines in Tajikistan has surged in recent months, although it is not clear whether the ISKP carried out these attacks.

Since the Taliban captured power in Kabul in August 2021, China’s role in Afghanistan has grown significantly. Chinese investment in the Afghan economy, particularly in the mineral sector, has grown. Such investment provides the internationally isolated Taliban regime in Kabul with much-needed funds and serves to help it consolidate control over power in Afghanistan. The ISKP’s targeting of Chinese nationals in Afghanistan is likely aimed at prompting Beijing to rethink its collaboration with the Taliban, the ISKP’s sworn enemy, and withdraw investments from the Afghan economy.

IMPLICATIONS:

Reports, including from the United Nations, from last year have stated that ISKP attacks have declined both in frequency and scale. ISKP propaganda publications have also fallen in frequency. They rarely provide new content, and often regurgitate topics and articles previously published. It is possible that the ISKP’s recent attack in Kabul on January 19 and the targeting of a Shia Mosque in Islamabad on February 6 were aimed at signaling that it remains a potent jihadist group. However, it may be too early to conclude that the ISKP is on the path of revival and resurgence, since the two major attacks this year were on soft targets. Yet, the fact that the ISKP was able to target a Chinese restaurant in the Shahr-e-Naw neighborhood cannot be dismissed lightly as this is a tightly guarded area of the Afghan capital. 

UN reports have been pointing out that terrorist groups like al-Qaida, ISKP and Tehreek-e-Taliban continue to operate from Afghanistan, a claim that the Taliban regime has often rejected. The January 19 attack reveals that at a minimum, the ISKP is present in Afghanistan, and remains a clear and present danger even in Kabul. This punches holes in the Taliban’s oft-repeated claims to prospective foreign partners that Afghanistan is safe for investment, and that their nationals are secure here, laying bare the fragility of these security guarantees. This is a major embarrassment and setback to the Taliban, which can be expected to further intensify operations against the ISKP in the coming days. The Taliban has been collaborating closely with China to crack down on Uighur Muslims living in Afghanistan and the regime can be expected to double down on them, especially since they form an important component of the ISKP’s fighting cadre.  

The January 19 attack in Kabul can be expected to prompt a strong response from the Chinese government. Although there were few Chinese nationals among the casualties in the restaurant attack, the fact that the bomber was able to enter a restaurant and areas reportedly secured by Chinese guards will rattle Beijing. It will raise the issue of security for its nationals and interests in Afghanistan with the Taliban regime and has already issued advisories to its nationals travelling to and living in Afghanistan. Yet while the Chinese government can be expected to step up pressure on the regime in Kabul, China is unlikely to throw in the towel with regard to investment in Afghanistan. Other countries that are looking to enhance their role in Afghanistan, for example India, will have taken note of the still unstable security environment in the country. They will be cautious in deciding on investments and taking on infrastructure-building activities in Afghanistan. 

For the ISKP, the January 19 attack on the Kabul restaurant brings mixed returns. Although the attack may not have resulted in many Chinese casualties, it has given the ISKP the propaganda boost it was looking for. This will enhance the group’s image, especially in jihadist circles. It also served to roil relations between Beijing and the Taliban regime, while the ISKP can expect a boost to its recruitment efforts. However, the group can also expect to increasingly be in Beijing’s crosshairs.

CONCLUSIONS:

The ISKP attack on a Chinese Muslim restaurant in Kabul has once again turned the spotlight on the jihadist group. While it may not signal a revival of the ISKP’s flagging image and declining capacity, it will serve to boost morale and recruitment of fighters. Importantly, it is a major setback for the Taliban regime’s credibility and for its relations with China, its most important international partner. While the attack may not prompt Beijing and Chinese businesses to review their decision to invest in Afghanistan or revise their investment strategies in the country, more such attacks, especially on hard targets and those that damage Chinese infrastructure could prompt China to go slow or scale down investment in Afghanistan. However, such a rethinking is not imminent.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Dr Sudha Ramachandran is an independent South Asian political and security analyst. She is also South Asia editor at The Diplomat. Her articles have appeared in publications like The Diplomat, Asia Times, China Brief and Terrorism Monitor.

By Nargiza Umarova

During the first week of February, the leaders of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan paid state visits to Pakistan. For Islamabad, these visits represented a new stage in relations with the Central Asian states, based on shared interests in trade, transport logistics, industrial production, and military affairs. Thus, the prospect of Pakistan becoming a key link in the emerging regional connectivity architecture is becoming increasingly realistic, which could accelerate the development of joint infrastructure projects with the active participation of Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND:

Due to its geographical isolation from the open seas, Central Asia is extremely interested in making effective use of Pakistan’s transit capabilities, particularly its maritime infrastructure, which has undergone extensive development in recent years thanks to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The Pakistani ports of Karachi and Gwadar are seen by regional countries as an alternative outlet to the Indian Ocean, complementing Iran’s southern ports. The fastest route to Pakistan is via neighboring Afghanistan, where large-scale infrastructure projects involving Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan are underway. Despite continuing tensions on the Afghan–Pakistani border and the conflictual nature of relations between New Delhi and Islamabad, these states are accelerating their strategic initiatives in Afghanistan. 

On January 27, Kazakhstan’s ambassador to Pakistan announced that Astana was prepared to cover the full cost of constructing the western Trans-Afghan Railway, from Torghundi to Herat, Kandahar and Spin Boldak, with an extension to Chaman in Pakistan’s Balochistan province and on to the country’s seaports. The preliminary cost of the project is approximately US$ 7 billion, and the route’s length will be 687 kilometers. Construction is expected to be completed within three years.

This decision is clearly driven by Kazakhstan’s desire to strengthen its position in north-south transit transport, encompassing existing routes through Iran and emerging transport corridors crossing Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Astana expresses support for the creation of the Kabul Corridor along the Termez-Naibabad-Maidanshahr-Logar-Kharlachi route proposed by Uzbekistan in 2018. In July 2025, the Uzbekistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (UAP) railway project entered a new stage of development when a trilateral intergovernmental framework agreement on the joint development of the project’s feasibility study was signed. On February 4, 2026, Uzbekistan ratified the agreement and agreed with Pakistan to begin field studies on the transport corridor.

The UAP project is paving the way for a new north-south trade route through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. This route will provide the fastest land connection between Europe, Russia and South Asia, eliminating the need for sea crossings. Against this backdrop, Tashkent has proposed the creation of a multimodal corridor connecting Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is three times shorter than sea delivery routes. Following the launch of the Kabul Corridor, the 5,532-kilometer trade route to South Asia will be entirely rail-based. This will enable Kazakhstan to receive an additional transit flow of up to 20 million tons per year — the same amount as Uzbekistan. The projected transit volumes for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are estimated at 5 million tons per year, thanks to the attraction of Chinese cargo.

IMPLICATIONS:

Astana’s participation in transit traffic from Belarus to Pakistan was discussed during bilateral talks held during Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s state visit to Pakistan on February 4 , 2026. The parties also discussed the prospects for the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) Railway Corridor.

Kazakhstan joined the initiative to construct a railway from Torghundi to Spin Boldak in Kandahar Province, which represents an alternative to the Kabul Corridor, in 2024 at the invitation of the Turkmen side. In July 2025, Astana and Kabul signed a memorandum to implement the project. Kazakhstan has announced that it will allocate US$ 500 million towards the construction of a railway line to Herat and the necessary accompanying infrastructure, including a logistics hub in northern Afghanistan. The stake has now been raised to cover the entire budget for the Western Trans-Afghan Route.

Astana’s active interest in the TAP project may be linked to current dynamics regarding the development of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas transport corridor. Work began on laying the Afghan section of the 1,840-kilometer pipeline in December 2024. It is expected to reach Herat Province by the end of 2026.

Russia is paying close attention to TAPI, viewing it as an opportunity to diversify and stabilize its energy exports following the loss of the premium European market. In this context, Kazakhstan can expect to earn transit profits, providing additional expectations for the profitability of the railway from Torghundi to Spin Boldak, as the two transport routes will clearly be synchronized.

On February 1, 2026, a meeting was held in Herat between Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, Afghanistan’s Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, and Rashid Meredov, Turkmenistan’s Foreign Minister. They discussed the progress in constructing the TAPI gas pipeline, the power line between Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Torghundi-Herat railway.

Both Ashgabat and Kabul are seeking to accelerate the TAPI project. At a recent meeting between Turkmenistan’s Ambassador, Khoja Ovezov, and Afghanistan’s Minister of Mines and Petroleum, Hedayatullah Badri, they noted the rapid pace of work on the Afghan section of the gas pipeline. It is reported that part of the route has already been prepared for pipe installation.

According to Afghan authorities, the Saudi Arabian company Delta International is interested in investing in the purchase of gas under the TAPI project, expanding Turkmenistan’s major gas fields and constructing and extending the gas pipeline from Guzara District of Herat Province to Spin Boldak District of Kandahar Province, and then on to the Indian border. The project would also involve building a large, modern gas hub at Pakistan’s Gwadar port.

CONCLUSIONS:

The dynamic development of relations with Afghanistan presents Central Asian states with the challenge of strengthening mutual coordination to ensure their infrastructure initiatives have complementary political and economic effects. To this end, it is advisable to hold regular consultations at the level of the heads of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and other relevant ministries in the region, to agree on a unified negotiating position when interacting with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to ensure the involvement of all five republics in interregional connectivity projects.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Nargiza Umarova is a Head of the Center for Strategic Connectivity at the Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS), University of World Economy and Diplomacy (UWED) and an analyst at the Non-governmental Research Institution ‘Knowledge Caravan’, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Her research activities focus on developments in Central Asia, trends in regional integration and the influence of great powers on this process. She also explores Uzbekistan’s current policy on the creation and development of international transport corridors. She can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

By Stephen Blank

While Central Asian cohesion and regional cooperation grow; the South Caucasus is fragmenting. This process increasingly affects the nature and scope of regional interactions with key international actors. Russian influence has declined precipitously in Armenia, which is turning to the West, and Azerbaijan, which is expanding its circle of partners. However, in Georgia the state increasingly resembles Russia in its autocratic and legal structure and thus its state practices.

BACKGROUND:

Writing in 2024, the Azeri scholar Gulshan Pashayeva observed that a defining feature of the Caucasus was its fragmentation. This fragmentation is deepening and in effect, relationships between the South Caucasus and key external actors have quickly grown and assumed new shapes in 2025. Georgia’s dependence on Russia has grown, whereas Russian influence in Armenia and Azerbaijan has visibly declined as these states are turning to Washington and Europe. 

Georgia is paying the supreme price of colonial status as it over time loses territory to Russia as both South Ossetia and Abkhazia virtually included in the Russian Federation. The Russian-driven borderization whereby Russian or pro-Russian forces either overtly or surreptitiously move border posts demarcating Russian-controlled from Georgian territories to expand Russia’s holdings occurs with impunity.

The mounting discord between the Georgian government and the EU also exemplifies Georgia’s regression. Georgia’s government, possibly at Moscow’s behest, is trampling upon processes necessary for Georgian admission into the EU and frustrating both Brussels’ conditions and the continuing support for EU membership among a majority of the Georgian population. 

Armenia’s government is implementing a program of democratic reform and ultimate membership in the EU while striving to make a conclusive peace with Azerbaijan and normalize ties to Turkey despite staunch resistance by domestic, diasporic elements, the Church and Russian influencers. None of these groups supports peace and many of them, including Russia, fear democratization as signaling a decisive political defeat at home as well as a threat to Russia. It is no surprise that the Church with Russian backing emerged as the leader of an attempted coup in 2025 to replicate Russia’s success in Georgia and reverse Yerevan’s turn to the West.

Azerbaijan’s case is even more striking. Beyond its military-diplomatic success in forging an alliance with Turkey and partnership with Israel to strengthen its military capability, it neutralized Russian support for Armenia while improving ties with key European states and the U.S. The Trump Administration has now built a permanent monument to its military-economic presence in the Caucasus, namely the Trump International Road for Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). This project brings Washington into the Caucasus as a permanent player and checks Iranian threats to Azerbaijan and links to Armenia, while giving Yerevan a tangible reward for its pro-Western and anti-Russian policies. Meanwhile, Russia’s downing of an Azerbaijani airplane in 2024 and attacks on Azerbaijani residents in Russia have generated enormous resentment in Azerbaijan. 

IMPLICATIONS:

The Caucasus has become a battleground where the great powers and their favored local governments are not only on opposite sides, but where these powers’ rivalry also spills over into trade routes. The TRIPP has duly triggered Georgian apprehension since that project’s inauguration may well push aside Georgia as a preferred partner in the Middle Corridor project that ties together China, Central Asia, and ultimately Europe. But the significance of TRIPP far transcends its potential impact upon Georgia.

This project is only the latest manifestation of the declining Russian influence in the Caucasus and the parallel ensuing fragmentation of the region. While Moscow still holds many levers of influence and has no scruples about using them; they are fewer, less potent than before, and Russia faces a greater and more sustained foreign presence in the Caucasus than at any time since the disintegration of the USSR. Neither is this foreign influence strictly economic as in China’s case and as seen in its sponsorship of the Middle Corridor trade and transportation route through Azerbaijan that bypasses Russia. Türkiye’s alliance with Azerbaijan is of an explicitly military nature that provides an enduring supply of weapons, training, and presumably logistical and intelligence support for Azerbaijan. Türkiye also buttresses this support by providing the primary terminus for Azerbaijan’s increasing energy exports to Europe. Beyond these increasingly deep-rooted connections to Azerbaijan, through the Organization of Turkic States Türkiye now also has an institutional base for enduring outreach to Central Asia and the provision of all manner of military and economic ties to that region. 

Azerbaijan is also increasingly tied to the Middle East through its long-running defense and economic ties to Israel, their mutual collaboration against Iran and its membership in both the Abraham Accords and President Trump’s Board of Peace. Likewise, the EU and Azerbaijan have embarked upon a mutually rewarding series of ties independent of Russian influence and also primarily based on Azerbaijani energy exports in return for EU investment and political support.

Moreover, the advent of the TRIPP has launched what looks like a sustained U.S. presence in the Caucasus. This project is taking physical shape and Vice-President Vance’s visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan demonstrates that sustained interest. Under this project, “American companies could develop railways, roads, and pipelines linking Azerbaijan proper to its Nakhchivan exclave via a corridor through the south of Armenia’s Syunik Province.” Since Azerbaijan is now providing Armenia with energy, a formal peace treaty terminating the state of war over Nagorno-Karabakh under U.S. auspices seems likely. Beyond those signs of U.S. influence, President Trump has just stated that Vance’s tour will, “strengthen our strategic partnership with Azerbaijan, a beautiful Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation with Armenia, Deals for our Great Semiconductor Makers, and the sale of Made in the U.S.A. Defense Equipment, such as body armor and boats, and more, to Azerbaijan.” If this lasting multi-domain U.S. presence materializes, it will represent a major blow to Russian ambitions but also codify the fragmentation of the Caucasus and exclude Georgia from the growing and long-term international competition in the region for a long time to come.

CONCLUSIONS:

Russia certainly still has cards to play. It has a long-term military base at Gyumri, Armenia, and well-established connections among the Armenian opposition that is both unreconciled to the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh and to the Pashinyan government’s democratizing reforms and efforts to join the EU. Russia also has substantial economic connections to Georgia and what looks like a secure base of influence in Georgia’s government. 

Nevertheless, it is a declining power economically if not militarily and cannot stop the rising foreign presence in the Caucasus. Indeed, it depends on trade coming from Armenia and Central Assia to circumvent Western sanctions and access vital Western goods. Iran, whose back is to the wall due to combined U.S., Israeli, and European military-economic pressure, cannot bail it out. Nor will China, the primary sponsor of the Middle Corridor, rescue it in the Caucasus. Despite the Russo-Chinese “no-limits” partnership, Beijing has never lifted a finger to allow Russia to become a viable economic competitor across Eurasia or regarding inter-continental trade, transport, and connectivity issues.

Therefore, the fragmentation of the South Caucasus and the heightened presence of competing major international actors is likely to continue. Central Asian states, in contrast, forge ahead with mounting cohesion and collaboration. Indeed, those states, recognizing Azerbaijan’s critical geographic position and rising heft, have now included it in what used to be the 5+1 relationship with Washington, transforming it into a 6+1 formation. This development will also contribute to regional fragmentation. Azerbaijan is increasingly a power whose perspectives must embrace Washington, Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia, not just the Caucasus.

The ethnopolitical rivalries that made the Caucasus a zone of conflict for a generation after 1991 may, however, be coming to an end as the new ties between Baku and Yerevan and greater foreign connections show. To the extent that Georgia can be helped to resolve its ethnic and other domestic cleavages that Russia continues to exploit, it may become possible for the South Caucasus to emulate the discernible regional cooperation now appearing in Central Asia.

That outcome would be to the benefit of the entire Caucasus as well as to its neighbors and interlocutors. While disappointing to Moscow, its regional clients and those “dead-enders” who wish to rekindle the fires of ethnic conflict, that way has been tried and founds wanting in the balance.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Stephen Blank is a Senior Fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute (www.fpri.org.)