By Sergey Sukhankin

Armenia’s agreement with the U.S. on cooperation in the civilian nuclear energy may signify a major geopolitical shift in the South Caucasus. Specifically, the deal signals Yerevan’s effort to diversify its energy partnerships and reduce long-standing dependence on Russia, which has dominated Armenia’s nuclear sector since the Soviet era. Moscow`s response to the news has been very critical. Russian experts and policymakers warned about technological risks and questioned the feasibility of U.S.-supplied Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Russian officials and state media frame the initiative as both a security concern and a geopolitical challenge, emphasizing Rosatom’s experience and warning that Armenia could become a testing ground for unproven technologies.

BACKGROUND:

Armenia’s nuclear sector has historically been closely linked to Russia. Armenia’s Nuclear Power Plant at Metsamor, built during the Soviet period, supplies up to 31 percent of the country’s electricity. The plant’s second unit continues operating after modernization programs that extended its lifetime (until 2036) and upgraded its capacity. Due to particularities of the nuclear-producing energy sector, Armenia’s dependence on Russia is complex and multidimensional extending to maintenance of infrastructure, scientific cooperation and other aspects, deepening the dependency on Russian involvement in the country’s energy system. Metsamor’s aging reactors and the country’s growing electricity needs have forced Armenian authorities to consider constructing a replacement facility. Thus, the government began evaluating options for new nuclear capacity examining potential cooperation with multiple countries including Russia, the U.S., China, and South Korea. Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan emphasized that the government would select the partner offering the most competitive combination of price and technology. 

The turning point came in February 2026, when the U.S. and Armenia finalized a civil nuclear cooperation agreement. The agreement establishes the legal framework for exporting nuclear technology to Armenia and opens for U.S. companies to participate in building a new nuclear facility. Furthermore, during a visit to Yerevan (9–10 February), U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance announced that Washington could invest up to US$ 9 billion in Armenia’s nuclear energy sector, which includes long-term fuel and maintenance contracts. 

Small modular reactors are central to Armenia’s new strategy – this was clearly voiced by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in October 2024, when he mentioned that the Armenian government aims to build a small modular reactor as the next nuclear facility. The main competitive advantages of these facilities is that they are viewed as more flexible and potentially cheaper to deploy in smaller energy markets. Armenia’s government believes that over the years the technology could provide a suitable replacement for the Metsamor facility while maintaining the country’s energy security. 

Predictably, the initiative has triggered a strong and quite negative reaction in Moscow: Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom currently plays the key role in Armenia’s nuclear sector and has long been interested in building new reactors in the country. Therefore, the possibility that Armenia might select an American reactor technology threatens Russia’s economic interests and influence in a region traditionally considered part of Moscow’s geopolitical sphere. Russian media outlets have framed the agreement as a major strategic shift in Armenia`s foreign economic policy, and rather unfriendly toward Russia. Commentators in Russian publications argue that Pashinyan’s decision could weaken Russia’s position in the South Caucasus while strengthening US influence in Armenia’s energy infrastructure, establishing a long-term strategic foothold. Clearly, the debate therefore extends beyond energy policy and touches on the broader geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West.

IMPLICATIONS:

In Russian argumentation, Armenia’s nuclear agreement with the US carries multiple strategic implications where two factors tower above others. First, the deal is described as threatening both Russia’s dominance in Armenia’s energy sector and its global position as a leading actor in nuclear technologies. Rosatom has invested significant resources in maintaining the Metsamor plant and extending its operational life. Russia, primarily through Rosatom and state-backed financing, has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the modernization of Armenia’s nuclear plant, including a US$ 270 million loan, a US$ 30 million grant, and additional upgrade contracts. Russian officials have also repeatedly highlighted Russia`s global leadership in nuclear construction and its extensive experience in operating reactors abroad. In this context, losing the Armenian market to U.S. competitors would represent both an economic loss and a symbolic blow to Russia’s international nuclear industry. 

Second, Russian officials have emphasized safety concerns related to the proposed SMR project. Sergei Shoigu, secretary of Russia’s Security Council, warned that Armenia’s location in a seismically active region makes nuclear construction particularly sensitive. According to Shoigu, Soviet engineers designed Metsamor’s foundation to withstand the devastating 1988 earthquake, demonstrating the reliability of Russian technology. He argued that the introduction of unfamiliar reactor designs could introduce new safety risks that regional governments would have to consider. 

Shoigu also questioned the technological maturity of U.S. SMR designs. He pointed out that the U.S. has yet to complete a fully operational SMR project domestically, suggesting that the technology remains largely untested in practice. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that Armenia could effectively become a testing ground for experimental U.S. nuclear technologies if it proceeds with the project, and that the scale of the proposed US$ 9 billion agreement raises questions about financial risks and long-term feasibility. Safety concerns resonate strongly across the post-Soviet space due to the legacy of major nuclear accidents, most notably the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. The memory of such incidents continues to shape public perceptions of nuclear energy from Belarus to the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Thus, arguments emphasizing nuclear safety, which Russian officials frequently invoke in discussions about Armenia’s potential adoption of small modular reactors, are not merely rhetorical but can find receptive audiences in societies where historical experience has made the risks associated with nuclear technology particularly salient.

Despite these tensions, Armenian officials insist that the decision regarding a new nuclear plant has not yet been finalized and that Yerevan continues to review proposals from multiple partners, including Russia. Armenian authorities have even requested additional technical briefings from Moscow regarding Russian modular reactor technologies, indicating that competition for the project remains open. 

Another factor that could affect a potential U.S.-Armenia nuclear deal is Armenia’s upcoming parliamentary election on June 7. Some Western experts believe that the U.S.-Armenia nuclear agreement would likely be weakened or delayed if Pashinyan is defeated in the elections, however not automatically disbanded. (Pro)Russian experts suggest that an opposition win could sharply change Armenia’s foreign-policy course, improving ties with Moscow. 

The Armenian side clearly understands that the final decision, should it not comply with Russia`s expectations, would have broader geopolitical implications for the country. This has an even more pronounced meaning given that over the past several years political relations between Russia and Armenia have deteriorated as Armenia has sought to diversify its foreign policy and strengthen ties with Western partners. For Russia, the potential loss of influence in Armenia’s nuclear sector represents much more than a commercial setback – it could manifest a broader erosion of Moscow’s role in the South Caucasus at a time when Western countries are expanding their presence in the region and Russia’s influence and posture are eroding.

CONCLUSIONS:

Armenia’s nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S. marks a potentially transformative moment in the geopolitics of the South Caucasus. While the project remains at an early stage and Armenia continues to evaluate competing proposals, the possibility that U.S. companies could build the country’s next nuclear reactor has already triggered strong negative reactions in Moscow. Russian officials have criticized the proposal on technical, economic, security and geopolitical grounds, emphasizing safety concerns and highlighting Rosatom’s experience in nuclear construction. At the same time, Russian media portray the initiative as part of a broader Western strategy to expand influence in Armenia and weaken Russia’s traditional role in the region, in strategic proximity of southern Russia. For Armenia, the nuclear agreement represents an effort to diversify strategic partnerships and strengthen energy independence. Yet the decision also clearly carries risks, including exacerbated political friction with Russia. Ultimately, the competition over Armenia’s nuclear future illustrates the intensifying geopolitical rivalry shaping the South Caucasus. The outcome of this contest will influence not only Armenia’s energy security but also the balance of power in a region where infrastructure, economics, and geopolitics remain deeply intertwined.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Dr. Sergey Sukhankin is a Senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation and the Saratoga Foundation (both Washington DC) and a Fellow at the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network (Canada). He teaches international business at MacEwan School of Business (Edmonton, Canada). Currently he is a postdoctoral fellow at the Canadian Maritime Security Network (CMSN).

By Syed Fazl-e-Haider 

On February 26, Pakistan launched Operation Ghazab lil-Haq (Righteous Fury) against the Taliban regime in Kabul. The operation is widely interpreted as an attempt by Islamabad to pursue regime change in Afghanistan. Under Taliban rule, Afghanistan has effectively become a base for terrorist activities targeting not only Pakistan but also other Central Asian states, including Tajikistan. Russia has warned that Afghanistan-based ISIS seeks to expand its so-called caliphate in Central Asia, while China has expressed concern over the presence of Uyghur militants and other anti-China groups in the country. In this context, regime change in Kabul has emerged as a strategic priority for Islamabad and Beijing. Meanwhile, the persistence of terrorist safe havens in Afghanistan and the ongoing war has stalled major trans-Afghan connectivity projects intended to link Central Asia with Pakistani seaports. 

BACKGROUND:

Since 2021, following the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal under the Doha Agreement, Pakistan has experienced a significant increase in terrorist attacks. Islamabad has accused Afghanistan-based militant groups of conducting cross-border operations within its territory. Prominent among these are Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), which have been responsible for numerous high-profile attacks. Pakistan has repeatedly urged the Taliban government to take action against these groups, which continue to operate from Afghan territory with relative impunity; however, these requests have largely gone unheeded.

China, which shares a 47-mile border with Afghanistan, has long been concerned that the country could become as a sanctuary for Uyghur separatists in proximity of its Xinjiang region. The Taliban government has assured Beijing that Afghan territory would not be used for activities against China. In return, China has offered economic assistance and investment to support Afghanistan’s reconstruction and development, and has since emerged as the largest foreign investor in the country.

Other anti-China groups operating from safe havens in Afghanistan include the TTP and the BLA. Both organizations have been implicated in several high-profile attacks targeting Chinese nationals in Pakistan.

In March 2024, a suicide attack on a van killed five Chinese engineers working on the Dasu dam project in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. A similar attack at the same site in 2021 resulted in the deaths of nine Chinese engineers. The TTP was implicated in both incidents. The BLA, in turn, has conducted more attacks on Chinese nationals and assets than any other separatist organization. Notably, in 2022, the BLA deployed its first female suicide bomber, who carried out an attack outside the Confucius Institute at the University of Karachi, killing three Chinese instructors.

Although China has pursued a pragmatic engagement policy toward the Taliban since the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, investing in mining, energy, and infrastructure, the Taliban have shown limited willingness or capacity to dismantle militant networks such as the TTP and BLA operating from Afghan territory.

Tajikistan, which shares a 1,400-kilometre border with Afghanistan, has also been affected by cross-border militancy. In December 2025, five individuals, including two Tajik security officers, were killed in an armed confrontation on the Tajik–Afghan border when militants attempted to infiltrate Tajik territory.

Russia, the only country that has formally recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, has expressed concern that the regime undermines regional stability by allowing jihadist groups to operate from Afghan territory. These concerns intensified following a suicide attack on February 24 outside Moscow’s Savyolovsky Railway Station, which killed a police officer. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov linked the incident to Afghanistan-based groups. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has estimated that Afghanistan hosts between 20,000 and 23,000 militants, including approximately 5,000 to 7,000 affiliated with the TTP. Notably, Russia released this assessment of terrorist networks in Afghanistan two days before Pakistan initiated its military campaign against the Taliban, a move that may be interpreted as implicit political support.

The Taliban have also moved closer to Pakistan’s regional rival, India. Islamabad has alleged that groups such as the TTP and BLA operate as Indian proxies, a claim that New Delhi denies. The Taliban’s growing engagement with India has further raised concerns in Beijing. Amid mounting frustration over the Taliban’s inaction against militant groups operating from Afghan territory, Pakistan launched a large-scale military operation against the Taliban government on February 26, involving airstrikes across major Afghan cities, including Kabul.

IMPLICATIONS:

Operation Ghazab lil-Haq can be interpreted as an attempt to impose regime change in Kabul, though Pakistan is unlikely to achieve such an objective independently, without securing China’s support and involving Tajikistan. It must also obtain backing from anti-Taliban groups such as the National Resistance Front (NRF), led by Tajik leader Ahmad Massoud, son of the late Ahmad Shah Massoud. Tajikistan presently hosts the NRF leadership. Pakistan’s airstrikes against the Taliban regime may create opportunities for the NRF and other opposition forces to weaken the Taliban’s internal control over Afghanistan.

Officially, Beijing has called on both Islamabad and Kabul to exercise restraint and has advocated a ceasefire. However, Pakistan’s ongoing military campaign against the Taliban likely carries tacit Chinese approval and support for a potential regime change effort. For such an operation, Islamabad would first need to secure control over the Wakhan Corridor in northeastern Afghanistan. This narrow strip of territory, often referred to as Afghanistan’s “Chicken Neck,” extends approximately 350 kilometers to China’s Xinjiang region, separating Tajikistan from Pakistan. Control of the corridor would provide Pakistan with direct access to Tajikistan and Central Asia beyond Afghanistan. For China, the Wakhan Corridor represents a critical node for safeguarding its strategic connectivity with South and Central Asia under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While China appears to be adopting a cautious, “wait and watch” approach, Pakistan is actively seeking to reshape Afghanistan’s political landscape.

The Pakistan–Afghanistan conflict is likely to adversely affect trans-Afghan connectivity projects aimed at linking Central and South Asia, whether in the planning, negotiation, or implementation stages. For example, regional connectivity featured prominently in Pakistan–Kazakhstan discussions during President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s visit to Islamabad in February 2026. A proposed US$ 7 billion railway project envisaged connecting Kazakhstan to the Pakistani ports of Karachi and Gwadar via Afghanistan and Turkmenistan.

Similarly, the Uzbekistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan (UAP) railway project is a trilateral initiative designed to connect Central Asia with the ports of Gwadar and Karachi through Afghanistan. Envisioned in 2021, the 850-kilometer corridor is expected to provide the first direct railway link between Central and South Asia. The US$ 4.8 billion project, scheduled for completion by 2027, will connect Tashkent to the Pakistani city of Peshawar via Kabul.

The US$ 10 billion Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India (TAPI) gas pipeline is a major strategic energy project intended to transport gas from Turkmenistan’s Galkynysh field, the world’s second largest, to energy-deficient markets in South Asia, particularly India and Pakistan. However, the project has already been delayed for over three decades due to persistent instability and conflict in Afghanistan.

Regime change in Kabul that ensures peace and stability in Afghanistan would facilitate a conducive environment for the implementation and completion of strategic connectivity projects between Central and South Asia. Conversely, if such efforts intensify conflict in the already war-torn country, these projects are likely to face indefinite delays.

CONCLUSIONS:

Officially, Islamabad frames its military campaign as an effort to compel the Taliban regime to withdraw support for Afghanistan-based militant groups targeting Pakistan. However, the operation also appears intended to convey that regime change is a clear option, should the Taliban fail to take verifiable action against such groups operating from Afghan territory. For a comprehensive regime change effort, Pakistan, China, and Tajikistan would have to align their positions on the jihadist threats emanating from Afghanistan, which, after more than four years of Taliban rule, has effectively become a safe haven for militant groups. The outcomes of the current operation will in turn have a significant impact on the future of trans-Afghan connectivity projects.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Syed Fazl-e-Haider is a Karachi-based analyst at the Wikistrat. He is a freelance columnist and the author of several books. He has contributed articles and analysis to a range of publications. He is a regular contributor to Eurasia Daily Monitor of Jamestown Foundation.

Email:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . 

By Lydia Sawatsky

Azerbaijan is increasingly stepping away from Russian influence as Russia’s military dominance in the Caucasus slips due to its involvement in the war in Ukraine. Baku has responded to these changing dynamics through a series of policy measures, including border closures, restrictions on Russian soft power, and surveillance of Russian-aligned organizations.  This shift has only grown more visible in recent weeks as Vice President JD Vance made a historic visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan, and President Aliyev met Ukrainian President Zelensky for the third time at the Munich Security Conference. At Munich, Aliyev publicly accused Russia of deliberately striking the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Kyiv on three separate occasions, underscoring just how strained the Baku/Moscow relationship has become. 

BACKGROUND:

Historical episodes of Soviet and Russian military intervention in Azerbaijan, including the Soviet Union’s crackdown on Azerbaijani protesters in Baku in January 1990 and Moscow’s long-standing support for Armenia, have reinforced Azerbaijan’s efforts to safeguard its sovereignty. Azerbaijan has often maneuvered around the consequences of openly opposing Kremlin positions by maintaining a cautious and cordial relationship with Moscow despite recurring tensions. Even when differences emerged over regional conflicts or broader geopolitical alignments, Baku prioritized diplomatic stability within the structural constraints imposed by Russia’s dominant role in the South Caucasus. 

Azerbaijan gained regional confidence as Turkey stepped into the role of security guarantor. The alliance with Turkey signaled to Baku that it would not face regional threats alone. The Shusha Declaration promised military support against any foreign aggression. Military cooperation with Turkey intensified after Iran’s direct provocation of Azerbaijan by conducting a military exercise on the border simulating a military crossing of the Araz River. In response, Turkish troops, along with the Turkish Chief of the General Staff, participated in a similar joint drill to cross the river. Turkey’s promise of military aid and quick responses to military provocations reinforced Azerbaijan’s sense of security and showed Russia’s declining role as the primary regional power in the Caucasus. 

Despite diverging interests, Baku largely accommodated Moscow’s continued involvement in regional security affairs to preserve stability. Following Azerbaijan’s victory in the Second Karabakh War in 2020, Russia rapidly deployed “peacekeeping” forces to the region. Similarly, the 2022 Declaration of Allied Cooperation with Russia, signed two days before the Ukraine war, is most revealing for the reaction it provoked rather than its substance, as it sparked concerns that Azerbaijan was drifting back into Moscow’s sphere of influence. In practice, however, Baku’s foreign policy remained largely unchanged, showing how Azerbaijan used symbolic accommodation to create misleading perceptions of alignment. 

Russia’s withdrawal of its peacekeeping forces from Karabakh in 2024, largely driven by mounting military demands in Ukraine, marked a critical turning point in Azerbaijan’s assessment of its regional environment. The redeployment signaled a reduced Russian capacity to sustain its military presence in the region, giving Baku a window to increase its autonomy. While Azerbaijan did not pursue openly anti-Russian policies, Moscow’s growing preoccupation elsewhere encouraged a more assertive approach to Azerbaijani national sovereignty. 

Beyond the military realm, Russia’s persecution of ethnic minorities has grown more visible due to widespread social media use, as reports of unlawful arrests of Azerbaijani citizens, beatings across Russia, and Chechnya’s deportation of Azerbaijani nationals to forcibly fight in Ukraine have become increasingly more common. Azerbaijanis have become more vocal in voicing their anger, with one journalist going so far as to call for the destruction of the Embassy of Russia in Baku. 

Azerbaijan’s frustration with Russia intensified significantly after Russia shot down Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 over Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, in December 2024, allegedly mistaking the passenger aircraft for a Ukrainian drone. After the plane was hit, Russian authorities denied it permission to land and redirected it to the Kazakh city of Aktau, an action analysts suggest was meant to cover up the incident, possibly hoping the plane would crash into the Caspian Sea. The previously maintained cordial and diplomatic relationship between Chechnya and Azerbaijan devolved so rapidly that when Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov tried to call Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev on December 30, Aliyev refused his call. 

The crash of the Azerbaijani airline and the diplomatic fallout underscore why this matters for Azerbaijan. The incident exposed the risks of non-transparent and highly centralized security structures operating near its border. Azerbaijan’s refusal to allow the issue to be dismissed and its insistence on formal acknowledgment and compensation reinforced Baku’s insistence on formal state accountability rather than relying on informal crisis management.

As Azerbaijani-Russian relations were slowly returning to normal, Azerbaijan agreed to the US-backed TRIPP plan, moving towards closer economic ties with the U.S. and the West. Aliyev further raised the stakes at the February 2026 Munich Security Conference, publicly accusing Russia of deliberately striking Azerbaijan's Kyiv embassy three times in 2025, even after Baku had provided the coordinates of its diplomatic missions. Azerbaijan again directly and publicly criticized Russia, with little of the political cordiality that Azerbaijan has extended towards Russia in the past.

IMPLICATIONS:

These developments have coincided with a broader set of Azerbaijani policy adjustments. Azerbaijan's government is clearly considering the potential instability caused by its policies toward Russia. To mitigate the fallout, Azerbaijan is heavily restricting contact and influence with Russia in numerous ways. 

Despite its geographic proximity to Russia, Azerbaijan has separated itself significantly from its neighbor in the last few years. Azerbaijan closed its borders with all neighbors in 2020 during the COVID pandemic and has kept each of them closed for political reasons, severing many regional ties. Citizens who once crossed the border regularly to shop or visit relatives now face near-total separation. There are no longer direct flights from Baku International Airport to the Dagestani cities of Grozny, Makhachkala, or Derbent, forcing travelers to travel instead through Moscow, often with long layovers. This not only makes it more difficult to travel but also significantly raises the financial burden, with an average ticket costing around $500, which is more than the average monthly salary for most Azerbaijanis, especially outside the capital. This means that there is much less flexibility in migration across the border. 

Azerbaijani attitudes toward Russification and Kremlin narratives have also shifted dramatically.  Leaked Kremlin documents dated to December 2025 acknowledge this reality, noting that Russian-speaking Azerbaijani citizens now face increased security surveillance and that organizations protecting Russian minority interests have been eliminated or restricted to the purpose of promoting interethnic harmony between Russians and Azerbaijanis. 

Russia’s inability to pivot away from Ukraine or divert resources to the Caucasus has driven Azerbaijan’s move away from its neighbor and toward greater independence. This strategy will protect Azerbaijan from potential unrest in Russia spilling over into its borders and accelerate Azerbaijan's pivot away from Russian soft power toward diverse global partnerships. The border closures, flight cancellations, and restrictions on Russian influence are more than temporary precautions: they reflect a permanent change.

Azerbaijan has already structurally insulated itself from Russia’s northern periphery, and recent shocks have only revealed how far that decoupling has gone. Recent tensions did not create Azerbaijan’s distancing, but exposed Azerbaijan’s preexisting insulation strategy as it enacted restrictions on cross-border movement, limited soft power influence, and asserted itself diplomatically. Russia is an increasingly unpredictable and unstable partner, and though Azerbaijan remains economically and geographically tied to Russia, it can now better pursue multi-vector diplomacy and diversification. Azerbaijan’s recent actions and diplomatic posture suggest not a geopolitical realignment, but a calculated effort to reduce exposure to instability stemming from Russia while preserving functional interstate relations.

CONCLUSIONS:

Ultimately, Azerbaijan’s response to Russia’s declining power is a policy of calculated insulation. This shift is structural rather than merely reactionary, as the permanent closure of land borders and the dismantling of transport links to the North Caucasus serve as a physical barrier against potential Russian instability and soft power.

Measures such as increased surveillance of Russian-speaking citizens and the removal of pro-Kremlin interest groups indicate a shift away from Russian soft power toward a new era of regional cooperation with Central Asia and Turkey, as well as Western-led global partnerships. Vice President J.D. Vance's February 2026 visit to the South Caucasus signals the kind of high-level Western engagement that Azerbaijan and its neighbors are now actively courting. While the fundamental, pragmatic ties between Baku and Moscow are unlikely to fully rupture, Azerbaijan is working harder than ever to decouple its security from Russia’s influence. While Azerbaijan is unlikely to fully sever its ties with Russia, given enduring geographic and economic constraints, its current diplomatic trajectory marks an unprecedented departure from decades of accommodating Russian regional dominance, opening a timely window for deeper Western engagement and the advancement of a more durable strategic partnership in the South Caucasus.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Lydia Sawatsky is a researcher with American Foreign Policy Council’s Central Asia-Caucasus Institute. A recent graduate of Wheaton College, she grew up in Sumqayit, Azerbaijan, and has spent extensive time in the Caucasus and Central Asia. She previously worked with International Literacy and Development (ILAD) in Baku, Azerbaijan, researching access to education for Afghan and Pakistani refugees residing in the country.