By Farkhod Tolipov

In mid-December 2025, several Russian state-controlled media outlets spread a rumor that Russia could apply for membership in the Central Asian Community. This statement followed Azerbaijan’s entry into the regional grouping in November at the 7th Consultative Meeting of the Heads of State of Central Asia, held in Tashkent. The rumor reminded of Russia’s accession to the Central Asian Cooperation Organization in 2004, which led to the merger of that body with the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Community. Once again, Russia seeks to join the Central Asian Community, potentially worsening geopolitical tensions in the region.

BACKGROUND: Twenty years ago, in 2004, Russia applied for membership in the Central Asian Cooperation Organization (CACO). At that time, the presidents of two key states, Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev of and Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov, were unable to refuse Moscow. This external membership in CACO eventually led to the organization’s collapse. One year after Russia’s admission, CACO was merged with the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Community (EvrAzES) on the grounds that the two organizations duplicated each other. Uzbekistan withdrew from EvrAzES in 2008. The structure itself existed until 2014, and in 2015, it was replaced by the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Only two Central Asian states, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, are now members of the EAEU. 

In 2019, the Russian side suddenly announced that Uzbekistan could become a member of the EAEU. Uzbekistan never confirmed either its desire or the possibility of such membership but decided in December 2020 to become an observer in the EAEU. Since then, Moscow has constantly and officially reminded Uzbekistan that the EAEU is waiting. Recently, the President of Belarus Aleksandr Lukashenko even stated that “we are looking forward to Uzbekistan’s membership in the EAEU.” Notably, such statements come only from Russia or Belarus; other EAEU states are not focused on this, and Uzbekistan does not show a strong interest in joining the organization.

Against this backdrop, two geopolitical issues cause concern in Moscow. First, without Uzbekistan in the EAEU, Central Asia cannot be brought under full Russian control. Second, the EAEU remains a very small entity, consisting of only five former Soviet republics. This limited composition does not support Russia’s image as a great power but, on the contrary, highlights its difficulty in asserting such a status.

It has become a tradition that the informal summits of the EAEU and the CIS are held in Saint Petersburg on the same days. On 22–23 December 2025, both events took place in the city. Reports on the CIS/EAEU summits were quite modest and contained no serious statements, except positive remarks about increased trade within the CIS/EAEU during the year. These largely symbolic events took place against the background of the war in Ukraine, which has dealt a serious blow to Moscow’s international reputation. In this context, Russia is using different means to preserve its influence in Central Asia while losing control over other parts of the former Soviet space.

IMPLICATIONS: Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev did not attend the EAEU summit, citing his country’s non-membership in the organization. He also did not travel to Saint Petersburg for the CIS summit, referring to his busy schedule. However, in November Azerbaijan became a full participant in the Consultative Meetings of the Heads of State of Central Asia (CMHS).

Although Baku’s accession to the CMHS is assessed differently across the region, this expansion of the “C5” format into a “C6” is likely viewed in Moscow as a new challenge to Russia’s position in the region of the “stans.” This may explain the appearance of rumors that Russia could apply for membership in the CMHS. At the same time, the increasingly pro-Russian policies of all Central Asian states, whether genuine or aimed at avoiding Moscow’s displeasure, raise concerns that history may repeat itself and that the Central Asian Community could again open its doors to Russia.

Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev delivered a speech at the meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council that resembled a statement from a full member. He described EAEU countries as “our strategic and natural partners.” According to the president, Uzbekistan actively participates in all key Eurasian formats. He also stated that “we believe it is necessary to strengthen coordination between the institutions of the CIS and the EAEU.”

Mirziyoyev highlighted several issues, including the elimination of trade barriers and the creation of an Uzbekistan–EAEU coordination group on tariff and non-tariff barriers; the development of industrial cooperation and the launch of joint projects in machinery, energy, agriculture, and the chemical sector; the digitalization of trade and customs administration; participation in EAEU technological platforms, from biomedicine and new materials to robotics; and the creation of a unified tourism space that would combine products of the Union’s member states.

Overall, the narrow, trade- and business-centered rhetoric surrounding the EAEU does not indicate the emergence of a shared regional identity among its member states, which is both a key condition for and an outcome of meaningful integration. In contrast, a broader vision of Central Asia, based on a natural sense of common identity among its peoples, is far stronger than a solely economic grouping of states. Indeed, the November summit of Central Asian leaders in Tashkent produced notable signs of deeper regional integration. In particular, it was announced that the CMHS format could be transformed into a Community of Central Asia (CCA).

Despite this major trend in Central Asia, the pro-Russian, or seemingly pro-Russian, policies of regional leaders may have a reverse effect and lead to a repetition of history, including a renewed Russian application for membership in the CCA for purely geopolitical reasons. In a recent and telling statement, Russia’s ambassador to Uzbekistan claimed that “Uzbekistan assured the Russian Federation that the era of the Great Game has passed into oblivion.” The remark suggests the opposite: the Great Game may be entering a new phase in which it is not Uzbekistan or other Central Asian states that shape geopolitical rivalry, but Russia itself, which continues to view the region through the lens of great-power competition. Throughout its independence, Uzbekistan has sought to avoid geopolitical entanglements. Therefore, if assurances about the end of geopolitical games are needed, they should come from great powers themselves, rather than from Central Asian states.

Moscow may believe that Russia’s membership in CAC would signal the end of the Great Game, whereas in reality it would represent yet another expression of Russia’s enduring geopolitical modus vivendi.

CONCLUSIONS: Central Asia is entering a new round of the geopolitical Great Game, and this game is being driven primarily by Russia. In the context of the war in Ukraine, this outcome is hardly surprising. Moscow’s foreign policy and its broader international behavior are clearly dominated by geopolitical considerations.

At present, one can observe the emergence of two opposing geopolitical configurations, the “Eurasian Five” of the Eurasian community versus the “Central Asian Six” of the Central Asian Community. The paradox of this dual trend, however, is that two Central Asian states, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, are members of both EAEU and CAC.

In 2004, Russia’s accession to CACO distorted, weakened, and ultimately destroyed the organization and the broader process of integration among the five Central Asian states. As a result, regional integration was halted for a decade and revived only in 2017. Integration in Central Asia is a distinct phenomenon: from the outset, it has been shaped in part to avoid geopolitical entanglements. By its nature, Central Asian integration cannot include any major power, regardless of which one it is, because such inclusion would inevitably introduce a dimension of geopolitical competition into the integration process.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Dr. Farkhod Tolipov holds a PhD in Political Science and is Director of the Education and Research Institution “Bilim Karvoni” (“Knowledge Caravan”) in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

By Robert M. Cutler

In late December 2025, Armenia’s Central Election Commission pointed to June 7, 2026, as the likely date for parliamentary elections, implicitly tightening the timetable for any referendum linked to the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace agreement. With the text initialed but unsigned, Yerevan and Baku face steps towards ratification, slowly continuing border demarcation work, and interim arrangements. Russia, Turkey, and Iran are signaling their interests, but Armenia’s domestic politics will be decisive for the treaty’s signature and entry into force, and for the implementation of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP).

Credit: Shutterstock

BACKGROUND: Early in 2025, Armenia and Azerbaijan moved the peace process beyond a notional document toward a text whose core provisions are settled. On March 13, 2025, the two foreign ministries publicly stated that they had concluded negotiations on the draft “Agreement on Peace and the Establishment of Interstate Relations.” At the same time, Azerbaijan framed its signature as contingent on changes to Armenia’s constitution. 

While the March 2025 step did not produce an immediate signature, it shifted the process from drafting to preconditions and sequencing. Whereas Baku treats language in the preamble to Armenia’s constitution as a territorial claim, Yerevan rejects that interpretation, pointing to the possibility of a constitutional referendum without setting a definite timeline. The draft also contains language that would bar deployment of third-country personnel along the Armenia–Azerbaijan border. That provision bears directly on any monitoring presence near the frontier and, more broadly, on how the parties intend to manage security before demarcation is complete.

On August 8, 2025, the process advanced again in Washington. The parties initialed the text, and on August 11, Armenia published the full draft by mutual agreement. This U.S.-brokered step still stopped short of formal signature. The published text is explicit on several foundational points: it affirms mutual recognition of sovereignty and territorial integrity on the basis that former Soviet administrative borders become international borders; it renounces territorial claims; and it bars the use or threat of force as well as the use of each party’s territory by a third party for force against the other.

The draft also specifies the intended machinery for implementation. Diplomatic relations are to be established within a specified number of days after completion of ratification, although the published draft leaves that number blank. Border commissions are tasked to negotiate a separate delimitation and demarcation agreement. In the interim, the parties commit not to deploy third-party forces along the border and to adopt mutually agreed confidence-building measures pending demarcation. Additional “modalities” to be negotiated later include the detailed handling of missing persons and the working rules for the bilateral commission that is meant to oversee implementation. 

IMPLICATIONS: Armenia’s domestic political timetable has become a binding constraint on the pace and sequencing of decisions. On December 24, 2025, Armenpress reported that the chairman of the Central Election Commission said that June 7, 2026, was widely regarded as the likely election day, although a presidential decree had not yet been issued. That prospective date matters because Azerbaijan’s constitutional precondition points toward a referendum route in Armenia, while the treaty text itself anticipates domestic procedures and ratification steps before it can take effect. As of January 2026, the agreement’s core commitments are public and the text has been initialed, but signature and operational implementation still depend on how Yerevan and Baku sequence domestic legal assurances, border-related work, and interim security arrangements.

The Armenia–Azerbaijan peace framework stipulates that the route remains Armenian sovereign territory, while granting the U.S. exclusive development rights for 99 years. Washington would presumably pay Yerevan for the lease, with the land sub-leased to an Armenian-U.S. joint venture that would serve as the operator, holding a long-term mandate to construct and manage rail, road, pipelines, and fiber-optic infrastructure along the approximately 25 miles of Armenian territory linking Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. The U.S. might potentially deploy limited security personnel to ensure corridor security, but official texts remain vague on any on-the-ground presence. 

The peace text, as well as official Armenian statements, emphasize that the route is to be operated under Armenian law, with Yerevan retaining jurisdiction and administrative control. That emphasis, which is intended to foreclose putative concerns about extraterritorial claims by Azerbaijan, is necessary to placate and manage domestic and diaspora opinion. However, the framework agreement does not resolve key practical questions, including customs and border management details such as who stamps cargo, how fees are shared, and whether streamlined or special customs procedures will apply.

At this stage, the issue is less about drafting than durability. If the corridor arrangement proceeds under a 99-year U.S. development right, regional capitals will treat it as a strategic marker as well as a transport project. Moscow will judge it against its South Caucasus position; Tehran will weigh it against its red lines on transit and foreign presence; Ankara and Brussels will look for leverage on connectivity and standards. In Armenia, the sovereignty formula will be measured against day-to-day control at the route. Those pressures will shape prospects more than the text itself.

The attitudes of the three major regional players – Russia, Turkey, and Iran – are important conditioning factors, but none seems willing and able to block a peace deal definitively. For example, Moscow publicly welcomed the U.S.-brokered step but also warned that involvement by “non-regional players” should not create new divisions. Russia’s core attitude appears to be conditional acceptance of a peace text, paired with resistance to a long-duration U.S. operational footprint in a sensitive strip of Armenia. The warning language is less about the agreement’s existence than about who institutionalizes it and who physically manages it. A predictable Russian preference is that any corridor implementation be folded back into regionally branded formats. Indirect Russian-linked participation remains structurally available because a subsidiary of Russian Railways holds a concession to manage Armenia’s railway network.

Iran ostensibly welcomes the peace while warning against foreign “intervention” near its borders. Its attitude thus refuses to tolerate any outcome that looks like a change in the geopolitical configuration around Armenia’s southern border. Iranian commentary has linked the TRIPP specifically to concerns about a NATO-adjacent presence on the border. A senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader used escalatory deterrent rhetoric portraying the corridor concept as unacceptable and explicitly threatened to prevent “geopolitical changes.” Tehran’s interests are actually best served by a re-ignition of the conflict and the economic impoverishment of the Armenian population, both of which would decrease Yerevan’s autonomy and open for enhanced Iranian influence. Yet of course, it cannot say this out loud. Tehran’s lacks any actual capacity for vetoing the agreement but can exercise coercive signaling through military exercises, political warnings, and pressure through regional alignments.

Turkey strongly favors any route that de-isolates Nakhchivan, welcoming the corridor concept as a gain for strategic connectivity linking Europe to Asia via Turkey. However, despite its conditional welcome of a U.S.-anchored commercial structure, Ankara still wants the region’s political center of gravity to remain in the Ankara–Baku axis rather than shifting to Washington as the indispensable actor. A commercially functioning route will accelerate Turkey’s own normalization goals with Armenia, which are explicitly tied to an Armenia–Azerbaijan peace treaty outcome. In late December 2025, Armenia and Turkey implemented a limited but concrete confidence step on visa procedures for certain official passport holders, effective January 1, 2026. Turkey will want a formula that works for Armenia, because a route that triggers prolonged Armenian internal instability would not be in Turkish interests.

CONCLUSIONS: To summarize, Russia would like to keep the process “regionalizable” and resist a precedent of long-term U.S. operating control, while Iran will treat optics as substance, especially regarding anything that looks like foreign security infrastructure adjacent to Iran’s border. Turkey’s attitude is broadly enabling, because the route advances Ankara’s connectivity vision and strengthens its ties with Azerbaijan. The evolution of domestic Armenian politics, however, is what will really determine the outcome: whether Pashinyan’s forces receive a majority of seats in the June parliamentary election, and whether a subsequent referendum will approve the necessary change in Armenia’s constitution.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Robert M. Cutler is Director and Senior Fellow, Energy Security Program, NATO Association of Canada. He was for many years a senior researcher at the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, Carleton University.

By Umair Jamal

Pakistan has upheld a policy of non-recognition of Israel since 1948, maintaining that diplomatic relations are contingent upon the establishment of a viable and independent Palestinian state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital. However, in late 2025, Islamabad’s mediation in the Gaza ceasefire and its conditional readiness to contribute forces to a UN-mandated International Stabilization Force have elevated its diplomatic profile with the U.S. and Gulf partners. Washington, alongside Saudi and Emirati counterparts, appears intent on expanding the Abraham Accords following credible progress toward a two-state solution. Pakistani participation would constitute a historic shift and unlock new economic corridors extending into Central Asia, enhancing regional connectivity to global markets.

                                                          Credit: Wikimedia Commons

BACKGROUND: Pakistan’s official position on Israel remains firmly grounded in support for Palestinian self-determination, a stance that resonates strongly with domestic public opinion and has guided foreign policy since the country’s founding in 1947. Pakistani diplomatic passports explicitly prohibit travel to Israel, and public discourse frequently interprets the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through the lens of historical injustice, particularly the mass displacement of Palestinians in 1948.

Anti-Israel sentiment intensified across the Muslim world, including in Pakistan, following Israel’s large-scale military offensive in Gaza, which began in October 2023 in response to the Hamas attacks. The operation has thus far resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian casualties and extensive physical destruction across the territory.

A majority of Pakistanis regard recognition of Israel as untenable in the absence of a sovereign Palestinian state. At the governmental level, however, pragmatic considerations have increasingly shaped Islamabad’s approach amid intensifying economic pressures, including a foreign debt burden exceeding US$ 130 billion and continued dependence on international financial institutions.

In September 2025, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif took part in a multilateral summit convened by U.S. President Donald Trump, alongside leaders from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar, to endorse a 20-point framework for a Gaza ceasefire. The initiative, which enabled hostage releases and expanded humanitarian access, marked a significant instance of Pakistan’s active mediation, coordinated through Doha and other Middle Eastern diplomatic channels.

Subsequently, in November 2025, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed Pakistan’s willingness to contribute troops to the International Stabilization Force (ISF) established under UN Security Council Resolution 2803. He stressed, however, that the mission’s primary focus would be civilian protection and post-conflict reconstruction in Gaza rather than the disarmament of Palestinian groups. “Our job is peacekeeping, not peace enforcement,” Dar stated when questioned about the prospective deployment of Pakistani forces. This position aligns Pakistan with a coalition of eight Muslim-majority states cooperating with the U.S. to support efforts toward stabilizing Gaza.

These developments coincide with the strengthening of Pakistan’s bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia, formalized through a mutual defense pact signed in Riyadh on 17 September. The agreement commits both states to regard an attack on one as an attack on the other and encompasses broad provisions for military cooperation and joint deterrence. It underscores the two countries’ shared strategic interests amid heightened regional instability.

Saudi Arabia has signaled its openness to joining the Abraham Accords—a framework for the normalization of relations with Israel—conditional on credible progress toward a two-state solution. In recent remarks to President Trump, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stated that Riyadh is prepared to participate in the Accords but seeks to secure “a clear path toward a two-state solution.”

Similarly, U.S. officials, including envoys from the Trump administration, appear to have encouraged Pakistan’s inclusion in this framework as a way to extend normalization efforts beyond the Gulf region. Although Islamabad continues to emphasize that any movement in this direction would depend on firm guarantees of Palestinian statehood, reports of backchannel exchanges suggest that discussions on the issue are evolving.

These shifts carry significant implications for Central Asia. States such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are actively pursuing diversified connectivity options to reduce overreliance on Russian and Chinese infrastructure. Kazakhstan’s formal accession to the Abraham Accords in November 2025 illustrates this strategy, with the potential to strengthen its economic linkages with Israel and Western partners, particularly the U.S.

The prospective inclusion of Pakistan in the Accords could function as a pivotal connective link, but sustaining momentum would require careful management of domestic public opinion and sensitive regional dynamics.

IMPLICATIONS: If U.S. officials were to achieve their apparent objective of incorporating Pakistan into an expanded Abraham Accords framework, an outcome likely dependent on Saudi Arabia’s formal participation following progress toward a two-state solution, it would have significant ramifications for Central Asia’s economic landscape. The region’s republics, rich in hydrocarbons, uranium, and rare earth minerals yet constrained by geographic isolation, would benefit significantly from deeper integration into multimodal trade networks.

Foremost among these initiatives is the U.S.-backed India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which incorporates Israeli routes and seeks to streamline freight transport from South Asia through Gulf ports to Europe. Designed to circumvent traditional chokepoints such as the Suez Canal, the corridor could reduce transit times by up to 40 percent. Pakistan’s participation could extend IMEC’s eastern flank through its ports at Gwadar and Karachi, interfacing with the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to provide Central Asian exporters, particularly those in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. with viable southern outlets.

Such diversification would mitigate the vulnerabilities inherent in the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), which, although operational, continues to face bottlenecks in Caspian Sea transit and persistent geopolitical frictions. In this context, enhanced Israeli technological inputs, such as advanced logistics software and desalination expertise, could improve the efficiency of these corridors, potentially generating annual trade gains amounting to billions of dollars for Central Asia by facilitating access to Mediterranean markets.

From a security standpoint, Pakistan’s prospective deployment of Islamic Security Forces (ISF) in Gaza, framed as a humanitarian stabilization mission, could serve as a model for multilateral engagement and potentially inspire analogous C5+1–style frameworks for managing Afghanistan’s borders. The Saudi–Pakistani defense pact concluded in September 2025 already signals deeper intelligence-sharing cooperation, which could extend northward to counter ISIS-K incursions threatening the frontiers of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Kazakhstan’s recent entry into the Abraham Accords, announced on 6 November during President Tokayev’s visit to the White House, further underscores this momentum.

Clear obstacles exist to the realization of this trajectory. Public opinion in Pakistan remains strongly opposed to normalization in the absence of Palestinian sovereignty, as demonstrated by sustained public protests and formal parliamentary resolutions. Consequently, any perceived capitulation to U.S. pressure could trigger political instability. Iranian concerns that IMEC represents an encirclement strategy, combined with its rivalry with Israel, could provoke proxy disruptions extending beyond Afghanistan into Central Asia. Moreover, China and Russia are likely to pursue countermeasures through their entrenched Belt and Road Initiative commitments, which already exceed US$ 25 billion in loans to Central Asian states. This could undermine regional cohesion and potentially exacerbate divisions, pitting Turkic-aligned states against Persian-influenced Tajikistan.

Yet a carefully calibrated strategy, linking reforms in Palestinian governance with the concurrent advancement of the IMEC corridor and an expanded role for Pakistan, could yield durable, region-wide dividends.

Israeli agricultural and water-management technologies, which have demonstrated effectiveness in arid environments, could contribute to the rehabilitation of the degraded Aral Sea basin and support the creation of tens of thousands of jobs across Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

Meanwhile, concrete U.S. incentives, such as the designation of Pakistan as a Major Non-NATO Ally Plus or the provision of security guarantees, could reinforce Islamabad’s willingness to resolve longstanding disputes with Afghanistan and India, facilitate full normalization with Israel, and finally enable the implementation of long-stalled connectivity projects, including the Uzbekistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan railway and the Trans-Afghan corridor.

The potential payoff could be transformative. Landlocked Central Asia would gain direct and competitive access to the warm-water ports of Gwadar, Karachi, and Mundra, unlocking billions of dollars in annual trade. This shift would also enable the region to diversify away from reliance on Russian and Chinese transit routes, thereby converting decades of geopolitical isolation into sustained economic prosperity.

CONCLUSIONS: Pakistan has conditioned recognition of Israel on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state for more than seven decades. That longstanding red line now appears to face its greatest pressure to date, as Islamabad’s effective mediation in Gaza and potential peacekeeping role have attracted praise from Washington and Riyadh. The U.S. is actively seeking to expand the Abraham Accords and aims to incorporate both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan once a credible two-state pathway is established. Should Pakistan ultimately accede, the economic payoff for Central Asia could be immediate, through faster IMEC and Trans-Caspian routes, expanded access to Gulf capital, and Israeli technology reaching the landlocked republics. Above all, this development could inaugurate a new era of integration adjacent to Central Asia that would benefit the region greatly.

Absent genuine Palestinian statehood, however, domestic opposition within Pakistan and regional resistance primarily from Iran could undermine these prospects. Ultimately, the outcome hinges on two factors: whether Pakistan can advance toward normalization with Israel without destabilizing its domestic political order, and whether the U.S. can deliver sufficient progress toward a credible and equitable two-state solution to provide Islamabad and other Muslim-majority states with the legitimacy required to take this step and unlock the region’s economic future.

AUTHOR'S BIO: Umair Jamal is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Otago, New Zealand, and an analyst at Diplomat Risk Intelligence (DRI). His research focuses on counterterrorism and security issues in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the broader Asia region. He offers analytical consulting to various think tanks and institutional clients in Pakistan and around the world. He has published for several media outlets, including Al-Jazeera, Foreign Policy, SCMP, The Diplomat, and the Huffington Post.