By Emil Avdaliani 

Azerbaijan, akin to nations in Central Asia and the Gulf, endeavors to balance relations among major powers in order to avoid exclusive alignment with any singular geopolitical axis. Baku’s recent diplomatic initiatives reflect this strategy, which has contributed to enhancing the nation’s regional standing: relations with Iran have improved, engagement with China has intensified, and the European Union now seeks deeper political cooperation with Baku.

BACKGROUND: Ever since the return of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan in 2023 the country has pursued a much more diversified foreign policy by simultaneously building closer ties, beyond what it already had with Turkey and Russia, with China, Iran, the EU, the Persian Gulf countries, Pakistan, Israel and has moved to improve relations with the United States, which suffered during the Biden administration due to the latter’s emphasis on human rights and democracy building issues.

Since the reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan in 2023, the country has adopted a markedly more diversified foreign policy, strengthening existing ties with Turkey and Russia while simultaneously deepening relations with China, Iran, the EU, the Persian Gulf states, Pakistan, and Israel, and taking steps to improve strained relations with the U.S., which had deteriorated under the Biden administration due to its prioritization of human rights and democratic governance.

This dynamic has become particularly pronounced in recent months. In April, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian visited Baku to engage in discussions aimed at enhancing bilateral relations. Similarly, in April, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, visited Baku, where she met with President Ilham Aliyev and Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov; during the visit, both parties agreed to resume negotiations on a new partnership and cooperation agreement.

A significant shift occurred in Baku–Beijing relations when, in April, the two countries elevated their ties to the level of a comprehensive partnership during the Azerbaijani president’s visit to China. While the development of the Middle Corridor remains a priority, the agreement with Azerbaijan places additional emphasis on enhancing bilateral cooperation in investment and business. As the largest economy in the South Caucasus, Azerbaijan serves as a key entry point for China into the region.

Similarly, in April and May, Azerbaijan conducted meetings with Ukrainian officials—an uncommon move given Baku’s cautious stance on the war. However, in the context of increasingly strained relations with Russia, Baku’s outreach to Kyiv appears intended to signal displeasure to Moscow. Russia continues to deny any involvement in the downing of an Azerbaijani aircraft over its territory, a claim Baku maintains. Consequently, relations have deteriorated, with President Ilham Aliyev declining to attend the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow in May.

In May, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan formalized their strategic partnership, enabling Tashkent to become a party to the Shusha Declaration, originally signed between Turkey and Azerbaijan in 2021. Azerbaijan has maintained an active diplomatic presence in Central Asia, and although the Caspian Sea functions as a geographic divider, the South Caucasus and Central Asia are increasingly interconnected.

In late May, Azerbaijan hosted a trilateral summit with the leaders of Turkey and Pakistan, marking a new chapter in their cooperative relations. The geopolitical dimension of this partnership is becoming increasingly significant, particularly in light of Pakistan–India tensions and New Delhi’s growing ties with Armenia. The three Islamic nations also advanced collaboration in the political, economic, and military spheres.

Azerbaijan has also recently emerged as a venue for negotiations between opposing parties. For example, in April, Turkish and Israeli delegations convened in Baku to discuss the establishment of a potential “deconfliction mechanism” aimed at preventing direct clashes between the two states in Syria. In May, Baku also hosted Russian and German political representatives for talks on reviving the “Petersburg Dialogue,” which had been suspended since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This dimension of Azerbaijan’s diplomacy is particularly noteworthy, underscoring the country’s growing reputation as a credible and impartial facilitator of dialogue between the conflicting sides.

IMPLICATIONS: This diplomatic activism underscores Azerbaijan’s rising regional significance and its strategic efforts to position itself as a capable middle power—one that can exert influence within its immediate neighborhood while simultaneously acting as a crucial partner to rival great powers.

Evolving patterns of connectivity across Eurasia have been a key factor in enhancing Azerbaijan’s regional role. The Middle Corridor, which extends from the Black Sea to Central Asia and effectively links the EU with China, traverses Azerbaijan (alongside Georgia). This route enables both the EU and China to circumvent Russian territory, while Azerbaijan’s significance is further elevated by the EU’s demand for Caspian gas. Additionally, Brussels has intensified outreach to Central Asia, with which European leaders are increasingly engaging in trade and investment. The recent EU–Central Asia summit, where the Union pledged €12 billion in investments, exemplifies the rising importance of the Middle Corridor. A portion of this investment is earmarked for infrastructure upgrades along the route, particularly in Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan has also assumed a more critical role for China than in previous years. From Beijing’s perspective, Azerbaijan functions as a gateway to the Black Sea region. Moreover, China views Azerbaijan as a promising market for its rapidly expanding electric vehicle (EV) industry. Data from the past year indicate that Chinese brands are gaining increasing popularity in Azerbaijan, with discussions underway regarding potential joint production ventures. The country may also serve as a strategic hub for the distribution of Chinese EV models throughout the South Caucasus and beyond.

Azerbaijan’s increasing regional significance has prompted Iran to pursue full normalization of relations with its northern neighbor. During the Iranian president’s visit to Baku, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev declared, “Our goal, our primary goal is to raise Azerbaijani–Iranian interstate relations to a higher level.” This aspiration was accompanied by tangible measures. On May 21, Iran announced the execution of the sole assailant responsible for the 2023 attack on the Azerbaijani embassy. Additionally, Iran and Azerbaijan conducted joint military exercises—Araz-2025. Diplomatic relations have now been fully restored, and cooperation on the International North–South Transport Corridor has been expanded. Consequently, Tehran and Baku have reduced tensions to levels seen prior to 2020, before the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Iran’s strategic calculations also reflect concerns about preventing Azerbaijan from decisively aligning with Israel or the U.S. Azerbaijan has recently been identified as a prospective candidate for inclusion in the Abraham Accords, a U.S.-led initiative aimed at improving Israel’s relations with the Islamic world. The U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, indicated that Azerbaijan could join the Accords in the near future. While he mentioned other potential members—including Armenia, Syria, and Lebanon—Azerbaijan stands out due to its geographic location north of Iran. Although Baku and Tel Aviv have historically maintained close ties, formal accession to the Accords would significantly elevate Azerbaijan’s stature in the Middle East and strengthen its relationship with the U.S. Given the persistent challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program, the Islamic Republic will remain a central focus of U.S. foreign policy for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, Azerbaijan’s position north of Iran will only enhance its strategic relevance for both the U.S. and Israel. This development will, in turn, improve Baku’s bargaining leverage, thereby motivating Iran to pursue increasingly cordial relations with its northern neighbor.

Another factor driving normalization is the Islamic Republic’s growing interest in maintaining peaceful relations with Azerbaijan, particularly as it faces mounting challenges. These include sustained Israeli strikes against its Axis of Resistance, the continued impact of the U.S. maximum pressure campaign, and tensions with Turkey arising from the evolving balance of power in Syria. In this context, Tehran appears increasingly inclined to avoid additional regional friction. Indeed, it may ultimately be compelled to tolerate Azerbaijan’s potential accession to the Abraham Accords, provided such a development does not constitute a direct security threat to the Islamic Republic.

CONCLUSIONS: The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Azerbaijan underscores the country’s rising significance in regional affairs. Transit, trade, and investment constitute the central pillars of Baku’s engagement with regional and global powers. This approach aligns with what is commonly termed a multi-vector foreign policy—a strategic orientation wherein no single major power is prioritized. Instead, multi-alignment is pursued as a means to enhance a country’s international standing. In a global context marked by great power rivalry, the erosion of international norms, and the ascendance of middle powers, Azerbaijan—like many states in Central Asia and the Middle East—seeks to balance among dominant actors to avoid exclusive alignment with any one geopolitical center. Thus far, this strategy has served Baku well, and it is likely to persist amid the continuing emergence of an increasingly multipolar international system.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Emil Avdaliani is Professor of International Relations at the European University in Tbilisi, Georgia, and a scholar of the Silk Roads. He can be reached on Twitter/X at @emilavdaliani.

By John DiPIrro

The Central Asia and Caucasus Institute’s proposed ‘American Strategy for Greater Central Asia’ (ASGCA) offers a timely recalibration of US engagement, centering on sovereignty, investment and regional interconnectivity. It challenges those of us steeped in democracy and governance work – that is, human rights, transparency, rule of law and institutional reform – to look beyond the normative ideals and confront the hard, often uncomfortable realities of power politics. It offers a serious and rare opportunity for the United States to redefine its role in a region that remains strategically vital and capitalize on a fleeting window of geopolitical advantage. Yet, without a robust policy of Russian containment, the strategy misses a key opportunity. To be effective, the US must help solidify a regional bulwark capable of resisting Russian military, economic and ideological coercion, while cultivating durable, mutually beneficial partnerships

BACKGROUND: For decades, U.S. engagement with Central Asia rested on flawed assumptions that development assistance, conditioned on commitments to democratic reform, would gradually yield stable, pro-Western partners. In reality, democratic reforms were largely performative and cosmetic, designed to appease U.S. interlocutors and secure continued funding. Russia and China, by contrast, offered a far more attractive alternative to Central Asian elites, including security guarantees, regime support, non-interference in internal affairs and tacit acceptance of corruption. These partnerships came with fewer conditions, demanding only loyalty.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. promise of prosperity through democratic transformation remained abstract and unconvincing in the face of authoritarian realpolitik. Even reformist leaders or color revolutions were quickly co-opted or violently displaced. In private, many regional elites sought a different offer: security, investment and recognition of sovereignty…without the "democracy business." Beijing and Moscow responded with infrastructure development and military cooperation, creating entrenched dependencies.

The Trump administration’s pivot toward transactional diplomacy that prioritizes economic and security partnerships over ideological demands has opened a window of opportunity to recalibrate U.S. engagement on terms regional governments find more palatable. Washington cannot and should not replicate the corrupt bargains offered by authoritarian powers, but it can offer something categorically superior: access to global markets, cutting-edge technologies, diversified security cooperation and entry into a predictable, rules-based order. This model, though imperfect, offers autonomy without the coercion, instability and dependency imposed by Moscow or Beijing. A pragmatic U.S. strategy grounded in sovereignty, prosperity and alignment could finally forge resilient and durable partnerships.

Meanwhile, Central Asia’s younger, urban, and globally connected populations are increasingly disillusioned with both domestic authoritarianism and foreign exploitation. Nationalist and pro-sovereignty sentiment has surged, particularly in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its denial of Central Asian sovereignty and its mobilization of ethnic minorities into the Russian war effort have further fueled this backlash. Many citizens across the region have grown tired of being pawns in great-power rivalries.

It is within this context that the ASGCA represents a meaningful shift. By acknowledging regional priorities and accepting transactional diplomacy, it replaces Western idealism with strategic realism. ASGCA’s central innovation is its proposal to view these states not as isolated, vulnerable peripheries, but as a potential collective bloc, with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan at its core, and Afghanistan, Mongolia and the South Caucasus anchoring each end. This corridor would align sovereign interests with US strategic goals and offer three critical advantages:

• Strategically, it would anchor a contiguous bloc that counters the Russia-China-Iran axis and dilutes their regional influence.
• Economically, it would unlock immense investment opportunities, from critical minerals and renewable energy, to trade corridors like the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (Middle Corridor), bypassing Russian chokepoints and providing an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
• In terms of security, it would foster regional self-sufficiency in counterterrorism, border control and internal stability, thereby reducing the need for US military presence. This feature aligns with both American and regional preferences.

Yet, ASGCA’s vision omits a crucial dimension. Without an explicit strategy for containing Russian influence, the project risks being strategically incoherent.

IMPLICATIONS:  While international law affirms Russia’s 1991 borders,[1] the Kremlin’s own doctrine tells another story. The Russkiy Mir (Russian World) ideology, a cornerstone of Moscow’s aggressive expansionism, asserts a transnational Russian civilization that overrides international borders whenever it is politically expedient. Russia’s borders, in its own eyes, end only where they are met with sufficient resistance. This has become painfully clear since the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 full-scale war on Ukraine. The Kremlin’s disregard for sovereignty is not the exception: it is policy. This is why any peace settlement in Ukraine is likely to be tactical, not transformational. Moscow will use the opportunity to rearm and resume aggression when conditions are more favorable. As such, the West cannot afford another cycle of accommodation and illusion. A sustainable US strategy must empower regional actors to deter Russian pressure without direct American military deployment.

For this reason, any effort to unify and empower Greater Central Asia must explicitly incorporate Russian containment. By systematically investing in the region’s defense capabilities, economic integration and institutional resilience, the US can help Central Asia and the South Caucasus form a cohesive bloc capable of withstanding Russian pressure. These nations offer unique strategic value, including deep familiarity with Russian tactics, a pragmatic understanding of hard power and a growing desire to pursue independent paths. Unlike Western policymakers who often misread Moscow through a liberal, rational-actor lens, Central Asians and Caucasians harbor no such illusions, fully recognizing the necessity of strength and self-reliance.

Six reasons underscore this imperative.

First, without containment, sovereignty will remain fragile. Russian influence is not limited to tanks and troops. It manifests itself in cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, political subversion, cultural hegemony, economic blackmail and manipulation of ethnic minorities. In Kazakhstan, Russia’s rhetoric about “protecting Russians abroad” has stoked deep anxieties among political elites. In Armenia, Moscow’s failure to intervene during the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive exposed the hollowness of its security guarantees. If Greater Central Asia is to be more than a vision, it must be hardened against the hybrid Russian threats from the outset.

Second, containment is a precondition for regional integration. The Middle Corridor, a central component of ASGCA’s economic vision, cannot function without security. However, these corridors remain vulnerable to disruption without regional security guarantees. Russian influence over rail, road and energy infrastructure, particularly in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, makes any ambitious transit strategy susceptible to sabotage or political manipulation. A concerted effort to reduce Russian leverage is essential to ensuring the viability of east-west connectivity.

Third, Russia exploits regional divisions. Moscow excels at divide-and-rule tactics. It amplifies nationalist tensions, exacerbates border disputes and fuels distrust between neighbors. The longstanding water and border tensions between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan are fertile ground for Russian interference. A Greater Central Asia bloc must prioritize coordinated responses to hybrid threats, including joint intelligence sharing, cybersecurity collaboration and counter-disinformation mechanisms. Containment is not just a military goal. It is the precondition for durable regional unity. Geographically, this effort should concentrate along Russia’s southern flank, with the support of Turkey, India, Pakistan and the United States.

Fourth, U.S. credibility depends on strategic clarity and continuity. In Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, the West’s failure to provide hard security guarantees has had devastating consequences. Central Asian states have taken note. U.S. commitments must be unambiguous and they must endure beyond election cycles. If Washington abandons this strategy after four years, it will validate Russian and Chinese narratives about American unreliability and drive regional partners back into the arms of Moscow and Beijing.

Fifth, containment can be achieved without escalation. A containment strategy does not require US troops on the ground. Instead, it must empower local states to serve as their own first line of defense, resilient enough to resist Russian coercion. This includes arms transfers, defense cooperation, cybersecurity partnerships, sanctions enforcement and media resilience. It also means supporting sovereign decision-making and reducing dependence on Russian economic systems. Containment, if done smartly, is a stabilizing force, not a destabilizing one.

Sixth, a containment strategy accelerates the end of the Ukraine war. Central Asia and the South Caucasus are critical nodes in Russia’s sanctions evasion networks. Enforcing export controls, cutting off trans-shipment of dual-use goods and closing legal loopholes in countries like Kazakhstan, Armenia and Georgia would severely disrupt Russia’s war economy, hasten its operational exhaustion and enable a faster, more favorable resolution to the conflict. Building a coalition of states committed to rejecting Russian revisionism not only weakens the Kremlin. It also creates the conditions for an eventual peace on Ukrainian terms.

By Davit Petrosyan

On 13 March 2025, Yerevan and Baku announced consensus on the peace agreement text, raising hopes of ending the decades-long conflict. The U.S. described it as a “historic peace treaty,” while the European Council encouraged both parties to proceed with signing. However, closer analysis suggests the document is more about formally closing the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict than achieving sustainable peace. The failure to resolve key disputes—such as unblocking regional transit routes and border delimitation—combined with growing military imbalance in Baku’s favor and Armenia’s concession of important deterrent tools, suggests that Azerbaijan may launch new escalations when the broader geopolitical climate becomes more permissive. 

Photo source: ffikretow

BACKGROUND: The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan dates back to the late 1980s, when a war (1988-1994) broke out between ethnic Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh region—an autonomous oblast within the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic, predominantly inhabited by ethnic Armenians—and Azerbaijani forces. With backing from the Republic of Armenia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians gained control not only over Nagorno-Karabakh but also seven adjacent districts. A ceasefire agreement brokered by Russia on 5 May 1994 effectively froze the conflict. Although Nagorno-Karabakh achieved de facto independence, it remained unrecognized by any country, including Armenia. The OSCE Minsk Group—co-chaired by Russia, the U.S., and France—was established to facilitate a peaceful resolution.

After sixteen years of stalled negotiations, the conflict reignited on 27 September 2020, when Azerbaijan—backed by Turkey—launched a large-scale offensive, reclaiming the seven surrounding districts and about a third of Nagorno-Karabakh. Following several failed mediation attempts by Russia, France, and the U.S., Russia brokered a ceasefire on 9 November 2020. The agreement commissioned the deployment of 2,000 Russian peacekeepers to the region; the establishment of a joint Russian-Turkish monitoring center; and the transferred control of the Lachin corridor, previously under Armenian control and connecting Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh, to Russian peacekeeping forces. 

In the following period, Yerevan and Baku engaged in several rounds of peace talks, initially mediated by Moscow. Over time, however, the EU and the U.S. assumed more active roles. Early negotiations focused on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and later evolved into discussions about the rights and security of Armenians living in the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. Negotiations also centered on border delimitation, humanitarian issues including the return of prisoners of war and detainees, the handover of landmine maps, and the search for missing persons. A particularly contentious issue was the unblocking of regional transit routes (connectivity), including the so-called “Zangezur Corridor”, which would connect Azerbaijan to its western exclave, Nakhichevan. 

Despite ongoing talks, Azerbaijan launched military incursions into Armenia’s internationally recognized territory between 2021 and 2022, occupying approximately 215 square kilometers. In response, Armenia invited the EU Mission in Armenia (EUMA) to monitor its border with Azerbaijan. In December 2022, Azerbaijan blockaded the Lachin corridor—with the tacit approval of Russian peacekeepers—and, following a ten-month blockade, launched an offensive that resulted in the forced displacement of 120,000 ethnic Armenians from the region. 

Since then, peace talks have continued, with Armenia seeking to avoid further escalation and Azerbaijan advancing new demands. On 13 March 2025, both parties announced a consensus on the text of the peace agreement. However, Azerbaijan added two conditions: the “amendment” of Armenia’s Constitution and the dissolution the OSCE Minsk Group. 

IMPLICATIONS: The agreement fails to resolve all disputes, leaving flashpoints that could trigger new escalations. One major issue is connectivity—the modalities for restoring road links, which is absent from the finalized text. Azerbaijan continues demanding unhindered access to its western exclave Nakhichevan, and has repeatedly threatened to open the so-called “Zangezur Corridor” by force. Conversely, Armenia views any extraterritorial corridor as a red line, signaling its resolve to respond proportionally. This marks a shift from earlier Azerbaijani incursions, when Armenian forces adopted a defensive posture, with Prime Minister Pashinyan declaring that Armenia would not retake occupied territories militarily. 

The diverging stances of regional powers on connectivity could either deter or ignite a future conflict. On February 14, 2025, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova blamed Armenia for “freezing” trilateral efforts to reopen routes. On March 26, 2025, Turkish President Erdoğan declared plans to build regional trade corridors centered on Zangezur. Conversely, on September 7, 2024, a senior Iranian official reaffirmed that the “Zangezur Corridor” was a red line for Iran. Joint Armenia-Iran military exercises in April 2025, amid increased Azerbaijani activity along the border, aimed to demonstrate Iran’s readiness to deter Azerbaijani attempts to take the route by force.

The agreement also leaves border delimitation unresolved, which has already led to military clashes, with Azerbaijan occupying 215 km² of Armenian territory. To date, only one portion of the border has been delimited. Key areas where Azerbaijani forces have advanced remain undelimited. Azerbaijan has shown no intention of withdrawing, raising doubts about the agreement’s ability to resolve tensions and establish lasting peace. Importantly, Russia can leverage disputes on this issue and connectivity to maintain its influence in the region. 

The EUMA’s removal from the Armenian–Azerbaijani border would significantly weaken Armenia’s security. Since EUMA’s deployment in mid-February 2023, not a single square meter of Armenian territory has been occupied. The mission has served as an effective external balancing tool, deterring Azerbaijani advances. Given that large portions of the border remain undelimited, EUMA’s withdrawal would eliminate a key stabilizing presence and increase the risk of new Azerbaijani aggression. 

Under the peace deal, Armenia agreed to withdraw international lawsuits against Azerbaijan, forfeiting another deterrent. Four applications to the European Court of Human Rights documented widespread Azerbaijani human rights violations during the Nagorno-Karabakh war, while Armenia's complaint to the International Court of Justice accused Azerbaijan of systematic racial discrimination. Dropping these cases not only erases the record of violations but also removes a major constraint on Azerbaijan’s future actions, freeing its hands for provocations. 

The peace agreement lacks enforcement mechanisms. No third party is designated to oversee compliance, further increasing the risk of escalation. It also fails to address the fate of at least 106 Armenian prisoners of war (POWs) and detainees, making the document resemble a “punitive” conclusion to the war rather than a genuine peace agreement. 

One of the primary motivations behind Azerbaijan’s additional conditions, “amending” Armenia’s Constitution and dissolving the Minsk Group, is to bury the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. The Constitution’s preamble cites the 1990 Declaration of Independence and references the joint statement of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR and the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan portrays this as evidence of Armenian territorial claims. The dissolution of the Minsk Group is intended to symbolize the closure of the conflict it was created to resolve.

Finally, the military balance continues to shift in Azerbaijan’s favor. While both countries allocate 4–5 percent of their GDP to defense, Azerbaijan’s spending was 3.5 times higher in 2020, 4.4 times higher in 2021, 3.8 times higher in 2022, and 2.7 times higher in 2023. Projections show that Azerbaijan’s defense budget was 2.7 times higher in 2024 and is expected to be 2.9 times higher in 2025. As the imbalance grows, Azerbaijan’s confidence in resorting to force to compel Armenia into new concessions is likely to increase.

CONCLUSION: The current peace agreement fails to resolve crucial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan, depriving Armenia of important balancing and deterrent mechanisms. The two additional conditions put forward by Azerbaijan suggest that at this stage, Baku's aim is not to achieve a comprehensive peace, but to decisively close the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. The failure to address the issue of Armenian POWs and detainees held in Baku, as well as the rights of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, demonstrates that this agreement is not aimed at bringing sustainable peace to the South Caucasus but rather at formally confirming Azerbaijan's achievements so far. 

The weak peace agreement and the continually shifting military balance in Azerbaijan's favor enables Baku to retain the necessary levers to escalate the situation when the geopolitical environment appears more favorable. It reserves options to compel Armenia into new concessions, such as securing the route to Nakhichevan on its own terms and constraining Armenia's post-conflict recovery efforts. Finally, diverging positions over the reopening of regional transit routes and conflicting interests among regional powers could serve as additional triggers for renewed escalation, providing Russia with opportunities to maintain its influence in the region. 

AUTHOR BIO: Davit Petrosyan is a Fulbright Scholar pursuing a Master’s in International Affairs at the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University. Previously, he served as an Assistant to the Secretary of the Security Council of the Republic of Armenia and as Chief Program Officer of Restart Civic-Youth Foundation.

By Tomáš Baranec

On March 1, 2025, the second round of the de facto presidential elections took place in Abkhazia. The incumbent de facto President, Badra Gunba, secured 55.66 percent of the vote, defeating opposition candidate Adgur Ardzinba, who received 42.25 percent. The 2025 elections were marked by two notable features. First, Russia directly intervened in the electoral process for the first time since the 2004 presidential elections, during which Moscow openly supported Raul Khajimba. Second, a political faction recently ousted through mass protests returned to power through electoral means. Both developments may have significant consequences for Abkhazia’s political trajectory.

Photo source: Andrey Danilov

BACKGROUND: The latter half of 2024 in Abkhazia was characterized by widespread public mobilization against the proposed so-called investment agreement with Russia. Critics expressed concern that the agreement would strip the region of its remaining de facto sovereignty and potentially threaten the precarious demographic majority held by ethnic Abkhazians. These tensions culminated in an assault on the presidential palace in Sukhumi and the subsequent resignation of de facto President Aslan Bzhania and de facto Prime Minister Alexander Ankvab on November 19.

Following the first round of the presidential elections held on February 15, 2025, two traditional political factions competed for power. Gunba represented the interests of the Ankvabist bloc (United Abkhazia), aligned with Alexander Ankvab and the ousted president Aslan Bzhania. Adgur Ardzinba of the Abkhazian National Movement led the opposing group—the Khajimbists. Initially, Ardzinba received support from Kan Kvarchia, chairman of the Aidgylara movement, and Leuan Mikaa, chairman of the Committee for the Protection of Abkhazia’s Sovereignty. However, both opposition figures ultimately refrained from actively participating in Ardzinba’s election campaign.

The catalyst for the early elections was the "unfinished revolution" of November 2024, during which President Bzhania and Prime Minister Ankvab were compelled to resign, leading to the abandonment of the highly unpopular investment agreement with Russia.

Gunba, as a representative of the recently ousted political faction, was initially expected to enter the early elections as a marginal contender. Despite the apparent achievements of the revolution, it remained incomplete. Prior to the elections, Ankvab’s faction continued to control all key ministries, administrative apparatuses, and the media landscape.

The Ankvab faction also secured a strategic advantage during the election campaign. Employing black PR tactics, they compelled Ardzinba’s campaign team to focus their efforts on countering numerous accusations and rumors. Consequently, the opposition leader had limited opportunity to engage with issues that were critical and sensitive for the Ankvab group, including cryptocurrency mining, the investment agreement, and the deterioration of the energy infrastructure.

The Ankvab faction structured its campaign around two principal narratives. In the first, Ardzinba was portrayed as anti-Russian, implying that only Gunba could guarantee the continuation of Russian support. In the second, Ardzinba was depicted as a proponent of Turkish interests, thereby suggesting that the opposition harbors hostility toward the Armenian community in Abkhazia.

By maintaining control even after the revolution, Ankvab’s supporters were able to utilize the local media’s propaganda apparatus and deploy the standard array of administrative resources in the lead-up to the elections.

However, the Kremlin’s overt intervention in support of Gunba introduced a new variable into an otherwise conventional electoral equation. In addition to supplying Abkhazia with so-called humanitarian gas at a reduced rate, senior Kremlin officials publicly aligned themselves with the candidate representing the Ankvab faction. Simultaneously, Russian media at all levels, along with coordinated bot networks on social media, intensified the black PR campaign against Ardzinba and the opposition with unprecedented intensity. Within this framework, the revocation of Russian citizenship from Mikaa and Kvarchia at the end of January functioned as a broader signal of warning to the entire Abkhazian populace.

IMPLICATIONS: The Ankvab faction secured electoral victory shortly before the plebiscite through the implementation of several active measures. At the last moment, it blocked the establishment of a polling station in Turkey, out of concerns that the diaspora electorate there might favor the opposition. Conversely, reports of significant, organized voter fraud surfaced at polling stations in Moscow and Cherkessk. Additionally, allegations emerged that Abkhaz authorities were distributing driver’s licenses in exchange for votes cast in favor of Gunba.

However, none of these measures alone guaranteed a seamless victory. The decisive factor was a targeted campaign directed at the Armenian minority, bolstered by substantial support from Russian media and the influential Armenian diaspora based in Sochi. For the first time, a majority of this demographic explicitly endorsed a single candidate—Gunba. Given that ethnic Armenians constitute approximately 17 percent of the population, according to local expert Said Gezerdava, their unified support proved pivotal in enabling the Ankvab faction to retain political control.

Despite achieving a lead of over 13 percent against the opposition candidate, the position of the Ankvab faction remains precarious, particularly considering probable expectations from Moscow. A victory by the Khajimba faction would have brought minimal change for Russia regarding Abkhazia, as one pro-Russian bloc would have merely supplanted another. The intensity with which the Kremlin committed to overtly supporting Gunba—even at the expense of discrediting the opposition and estranging segments of the local populace—indicates that it anticipates reciprocal concessions.

Moscow’s demands are well known. The Kremlin outlined them in the so-called protocol of August 19, calling on Sukhumi to lift restrictions preventing Russian citizens from purchasing real estate in Abkhazia and to adopt a commercial pricing model for electricity supply. An additional, longstanding demand includes the privatization of Abkhazia’s energy sector in favor of Russian enterprises.

In such a scenario, the outcome of the presidential election would merely represent a return to the political deadlock of summer 2024, which culminated in Bzhania’s downfall only a few months later. Given this reset, it is unreasonable to expect that identical measures, implemented under the same conditions, will yield a different result.

Therefore, if Russia and the de facto administration under Gunba aim to produce a different outcome, they will be compelled to fundamentally alter either the basic conditions or their approach.

Altering the terms in this context effectively entails changing public opinion within Abkhazian society regarding the agreements, which are widely perceived as posing a threat to the survival of the Abkhazian nation. A more conciliatory final version of the agreement, accompanied by a comprehensive and persuasive information campaign, could potentially lessen societal resistance. However, this would necessitate significant concessions from oligarchic groups in Russia closely affiliated with the Kremlin. A shift in approach would likely involve heightened repression, relying on coercion and intimidation to impose compliance amid sustained and widespread local opposition.

Events following Gunba’s electoral victory quickly revealed that the Kremlin is amenable to this scenario. On March 7, prominent Abkhazian journalist Inal Khashig was added to Russia’s list of foreign agents. That Khashig’s case was not an isolated incident, but indicative of a broader trend became evident two weeks later, when two other well-known journalists, Izida Chania and Nizifa Arshba, were similarly designated as foreign agents.

CONCLUSION: For Russia, the 2025 Abkhazian presidential election was less about preserving regional influence and more about securing the passage of a widely unpopular investment agreement. Two key factors support this interpretation: the unprecedented extent to which the Kremlin committed its support to Gunba, despite the fact that an Ardzinba victory posed no real threat to its position; and the revocation of citizenship from Kvarchia and Mikaa—not for their early endorsement of Ardzinba, but for their involvement in the events of November 2024.

Gunba’s victory, secured with Russian support, is likely to result in three key developments: increased direct control by Moscow over the region (with both Bzhania and Ankvab reportedly being gradually sidelined from power, according to Gezerdava); the advancement of Moscow’s interests through the use of repressive measures; and heightened tensions between ethnic Abkhazians and Armenians.

Drawing on the experience of recent years, it is reasonable to expect that local resistance to Russia’s unpopular demands will persist. However, the effectiveness of this resistance will largely depend on the extent to which the new repressive strategy impacts local elites, journalists, and activists. A key early indicator of future developments will be whether self-censorship emerges among local journalists following the designation of three of the most prominent media figures as foreign agents.

AUTHOR BIO: Tomáš Baranec is the Founder and Executive Director of the Centre for Black Sea Studies as well as a Research Fellow and Head of the Caucasus Program of the Slovak think tank Strategic Analysis. He worked as a field researcher on the Georgian-Ossetian ABL. Tomas studied Balkan, Central European and Eurasian Studies at Charles University in Prague. 

By Michael Tanchum

The Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea are one natural waterway forming the core of a multi-modal connectivity arc that can serve as the transportation backbone of a commercial corridor spanning the Middle East and Central Asia. Azerbaijan’s inclusion in a wider Abraham Accords framework could radically reconfigure trade patterns and manufacturing value chains across the southern rim of Eurasia, to the benefit of U.S. strategic interests and those of its partners. While strengthening U.S.-Israel-Azerbaijan trilateral defense cooperation is a response to the looming prospect of a military showdown with Iran, the geo-economic significance of Azerbaijan’s inclusion in the Abraham Accords is of long-term strategic consequence. With the ports on Israel’s Eastern Mediterraneancoast and Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea coast serving as anchor points, the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor can be linked to the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, creating an crescent of commercial cooperation from India to the Central Asian Republics via the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, providing counterweight to the westward expansion of Chinese economic hegemony across the Central Asia-Caucasus region and the Middle East.

Photo source: Michael Tanchum

BACKGROUND: In early March 2025, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made public that it favors elevating the trilateral partnership between Israel, Azerbaijan and the U.S.. Following a motion in the Israeli Knesset on "Upgrading the Strategic Alliance between Israel and Azerbaijan," a flurry of calls arose for Azerbaijan’s inclusion in the Abraham Accords. The September 15, 2020, agreement normalized relations between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel, followed by the establishment of relations between Israel and Bahrain and Sudan, respectively, and the restoration of relations with Morocco. The Abraham Accords also consists of an expanded framework of strategic and economic initiatives among the participants, developed in partnership with the U.S.

Azerbaijan and Israel have enjoyed an all-weather strategic relationship since diplomatic relations were established in the early 1990s following Azerbaijan’s independence. The two states have developed deep defense cooperation over the past 30 years, based on countering the threat Iran poses to both Israel and Azerbaijan, which shares a 428-mile (689 km) border with the Islamic Republic. Key proponents of extending the Abraham Accords to Azerbaijan have emphasized the Azerbaijani-Israeli defense relationship’s durability and Azerbaijan’s reliability as a principal oil supplier to Israel. Azerbaijan and Israel enjoy commercial cooperation in telecoms and other technology sectors. The State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR) recently established the new subsidiary “SOCAR Tamar” following its March 17, 2025 acquisition of a 10 percent stake in Israel’s Tamar offshore natural gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean. Azerbaijan has also played an important mediating role between Baku’s close partner Turkey and Israel during times of tension.

Netanyahu’s public commitment to strengthen Israel’s trilateral relationship with Azerbaijan and the U.S was preceded by a collection of letters sent to U.S. President Donald Trump at the end of February by prominent rabbis advocating Azerbaijan’s inclusion in the Abraham Accords. Among them was a senior rabbi in the UAE and personal friend of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who played a key role in the signing of the Abraham Accords. Additionally, opinion pieces from Israeli and American policy communities, including in the Wall Street Journal, added further political momentum amidst escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Two days after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s March 12, 2025, rejection of the U.S. proposal to hold negotiations about Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff visited Baku after an overnight visit to Moscow, in what appears to be a coordinated effort to prepare for possible military action against Iran by Israel or the U.S., following the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts.

IMPLICATIONS: Beyond defense cooperation, a compelling strategic and geo-economic logic exists to include Azerbaijan in a wider Abraham Accords framework, building upon the Azerbaijan’s parallel and separate bilateral economic relations with Israel and the UAE. Extending the Abraham Accords framework outside the Arab World has precedence in the quadrilateral cooperation among India, Israel, the UAE, and the U.S. – the “I2U2” framework – emerging from India’s robust yet parallel commercial cooperation and joint venture investments with Israel and the UAE. Trilateral cooperation emerged organically from the synergies between India’s commercial ventures with Israel and the UAE, traditionally India’s third-largest trading partner and Arabian Sea neighbor.

In February 2022, the UAE signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with India followed by the May 2022 signing of a similar UAE-Israel free trade agreement. The two trade agreements paved the way for initiating three-way coordination in developing an India-Middle East Corridor. Quadrilateral cooperation involving the U.S. was then formalized with the July 2022 I2U2 summit.

The extended Abraham Accords cooperation gave rise to a vision of an India-to-Europe commercial corridor in which the UAE’s ports serve as the Indian Ocean connectivity node with Israel’s Eastern Mediterranean ports serving as the maritime outlet to Europe, connected by a UAE-to-Israel railway network transiting Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Once the transportation route is operational, Indian goods leaving Mumbai could arrive on the European mainland in as little as 10 days. An initiative to realize this corridor, now known as the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) was formalized with the signing of the September 9, 2023, Memorandum of Understanding at the New Delhi G20 Summit, with India, the U.S., the UAE, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Italy, and the EU as signatories.

Research has shown that commercial corridors only emerge where the requisite large investments in port and rail infrastructure are coupled with an industrial base anchored in manufacturing value chains. The IMEC is highly conducive for value chain integration because of the existing synergies between India’s commercial ventures with its Arab Gulf partners and its commercial ventures with Israel, as exemplified by the manufacturing value chain in food production that is one of the leading drivers of the IMEC’s development. India’s “Food Corridor to the Middle East” is driven by India’s investment partnerships with the UAE and Saudi Arabia that rely on the transformation of India’s agriculture and water management sectors being implemented through India’s partnership with Israel. Similar synergies exist in other sectors, with the most promising in green energy and innovative technology, which has already lead to joint venture production facilities in green manufacturing.

The inclusion of Azerbaijan, along with Georgia, in the wider Abraham Accords framework holds a similar potential to create a new trans-regional commercial architecture. The UAE is Azerbaijan’s top Arab trading partner, accounting for 40 percent of Azerbaijan’s trade with the Arab World. The UAE is also the largest Arab investor in Azerbaijan and one of the top 10 global investors in Azerbaijan, accounting for 7 percent of Azerbaijan’s FDI inflow. In 2023, the UAE’s Abu Dhabi National Oil Company acquired a 30 percent stake in Azerbaijan’s Absheron natural gas field in the Caspian Sea. Similarly, the UAE is Georgia’s largest trading partner in the Arab world, accounting for 63 percent of Georgia’s trade with the region. Trade is likely to increase further with the UAE-Georgia CEPA, which came into effect in June 2024. The UAE is also invested in solar power plant development in both Azerbaijan and Georgia. Most significantly, in March 2024, the UAE’s AD Ports group, acquired a 60 percent ownership share in the Tbilisi Dry Port, a new custom-bonded and rail-connected intermodal logistics hub in Georgia. At the heart of the Trans-Caspian Route, the port is a key logistics facility for the rail connection linking Georgia’s Black Sea coast and Azerbaijan’s Caspian coast.

Azerbaijan’s Baku port is the connectivity node from where the Wider Black Sea region connects to Central Asia across the Caspian Sea. The Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR) connecting the Caspian and Black Seas via Azerbaijan and Georgia, commonly referred to as the Middle Corridor, was developed as an alternative to the Russia-based Northern Corridor for China-to-Europe trade. The TITR consists of multi-modal transportation links for container transshipment via Kazakhstan’s Caspian port Aktau to the specially constructed port of Baku at Alat from where goods can be shipped by railway connection from Azerbaijan to Georgia’s Black Sea ports and in turn to Israel’s Eastern Mediterranean ports. By linking IMEC and the TITR, India will possess its own multi-modal corridor to access Central Asia, enabling India to effectively compete with China in Eurasia without being reliant on Russia or Iran. IMEC provides India with a streamlined alternative to its 25-year effort to establish the troubled International North-South Transit Corridor (INSTC) to access Central Asia through Iran’s Chabahar port, serving as the Indian Ocean connectivity node with overland transportation links running northward via Iran and Afghanistan.

The multi-modal corridor connecting India to Central Asia would also open the opportunity for Turkey to participate in IMEC. The UAE’s ports and logistics giant DP World operates Turkey’s Yarımca port, reputed to be the most technologically advanced in Turkey. Yarımca’s Marmara coast location is highly suited for intermodal transportation in which cargo can be transshipped to the Black Sea or Georgia and Azerbaijan by rail from Kars via the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway.

CONCLUSION: The September 2023 signing of the IMEC declaration was preceded by the July 2022 I2U2 summit, the first convening of the heads of government of India, Israel, the UAE, and the U.S. As a step toward linking IMEC with the Trans-Caspian Corridor, a CC-I2U2 summit should be convened with the heads of Azerbaijan and Georgia participating. The format can be extended to include Central Asian Republics as well as Saudi Arabia and Jordan in anticipation of the extended arc of joint venture manufacturing investments and commercial cooperation.

By including Azerbaijan in a wider Abraham Accords framework, the U.S. can upend the geopolitics of connectivity in Central Asia, halting the westward expansion of Chinese commercial hegemony across the Eurasian landmass. Linking the IMEC corridor to the Caspian shores of Kazakhstan via a multi-modal sea route with trans-shipment across Georgia and Azerbaijan will effectively end India’s isolation from Central Asia – a strategic objective long sought by New Delhi. Consolidating the triangle of bilateral economic relationships among Azerbaijan, Israel, and the UAE into a multilateral framework through U.S. facilitation under the Abraham Accords is a necessary first step and a boon to the U.S. strategic position across Eurasia’s southern rim.

AUTHOR BIO: Prof. Michaël Tanchum teaches international relations of the Middle East and North Africa at the University of Navarra, Spain and an associate fellow in the Economics and Energy at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. He is also a Senior Associate Fellow at the Austrian Institute for European and Security Studies (AIES) and an affiliated scholar of the Centre for Strategic Policy Implementation at Başkent University in Ankara, Turkey (Başkent-SAM) and the NTU-SBF Centre for African Studies in Singapore. @michaeltanchum