By Rafis Abazov

For more than three decades, economic integration in Central Asia has been shaped by ambitious declarations, multilateral communiqués, and periodic summit diplomacy. Yet tangible outcomes have often lagged behind political rhetoric. The emerging shift from abstract integration models toward corridor-based, infrastructure-driven cooperation marks a potentially decisive turning point. Recent developments between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan—notably the revival of the Almaty–Bishkek Economic Corridor with support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the creation of industrial and logistics hubs along their shared border—suggest that Central Asia may finally be moving from declarative regionalism to functional economic integration.

BACKGROUND:

Since independence, Central Asian states have repeatedly endorsed the idea of regional economic integration. Initiatives ranging from customs cooperation to Central Asian Economic Union (CAEU) were designed to lower barriers, stimulate trade, and create a single economic space. In practice, however, these frameworks often lacked operational depth. Divergent regulatory regimes, weak cross-border infrastructure, and limited coordination between national development strategies constrained their impact. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan provide a revealing case. Despite geographical proximity and strong historical ties, economic cooperation long remained below potential. According to official data, bilateral trade turnover remained under US$ 2.0 billion in 2025, yet this figure still represented only a fraction of what integrated logistics, industrial cooperation, and value-chain development could deliver. Another indicator underscores this gap: more than 70 percent of bilateral trade consisted of raw materials and low value-added goods, highlighting the structural limitations of existing trade patterns. Against this backdrop, corridor-based integration has emerged as a pragmatic alternative. Rather than attempting to harmonize entire economies at once, economic corridors focus on specific geographic axes where infrastructure, trade facilitation, industrial policy, and investment can be aligned. This logic underpins the renewed focus on the Almaty–Bishkek Economic Corridor, one of the most densely populated (with population about 4.4 million people) and economically dynamic cross-border zones in Central Asia. The Almaty–Bishkek Economic Corridor (ABEC) was initially conceptualized in the mid-2010s as a pilot for cross-border integration. Supported by the ADB, the corridor connects two major urban agglomerations—Almaty and Bishkek—located less than 250 kilometers apart. Together, they account for a significant share of both countries’ GDP, population, and industrial capacity.

IMPLICATIONS:

The renewed political momentum behind ABEC is notable. In 2025, the official visit of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev to Kyrgyzstan elevated economic corridor development to the level of strategic priority. The visit reaffirmed both governments’ commitment to moving beyond symbolic cooperation toward concrete joint projects, particularly in logistics, agri-processing, and light manufacturing. Perhaps the most innovative element of the new integration model is the creation of joint industrial trade and logistics complexes (ITLCs) along the Kazakhstan–Kyrgyzstan border. Unlike traditional free trade zones, these hubs are designed as shared economic spaces, with coordinated infrastructure, customs regimes, and investment incentives. The first pilot hub in the Kordai area represents a qualitative shift. It is not merely a transit point but a platform for joint production, storage, processing, and distribution. By co-locating enterprises from both countries, the hub aims to shorten supply chains, reduce logistics costs, and encourage value-added manufacturing. Early estimates suggest that efficient corridor operations could reduce cross-border transport costs by 15–20 percent, significantly improving competitiveness for small and medium-sized enterprises on both sides, create thousands of jobs, and increase bilateral trade turnover to US$ 3.0 billion by 2030. Importantly, these hubs are embedded in a broader political framework. Their creation followed mutual state visits, meetings of the Kazakh–Kyrgyz Intergovernmental Council, and sustained high-level engagement. This alignment between political leadership and technical implementation has been largely absent in earlier regional initiatives.

The shift from declarations to corridors carries broader implications for Central Asia’s integration trajectory. First, it reframes free trade agreements as enabling instruments rather than endpoints. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) alone do not generate trade; infrastructure, logistics, and industrial cooperation do. The Kazakhstan–Kyrgyzstan experience suggests that FTAs are most effective when embedded in spatially defined economic corridors with clear investment pipelines. Second, corridor-based integration offers scalability. Success along the Almaty–Bishkek axis could be replicated along other strategic routes, linking Central Asia more effectively to South Asia, China, and the Caucasus. In this sense, corridors function as building blocks for a wider regional economic space. Third, the model strengthens resilience. By promoting regional value chains and reducing dependence on distant markets, corridor integration can buffer Central Asian economies against external shocks. For landlocked countries, improved cross-border connectivity is not a luxury but a strategic necessity. Finally, the political economy dimension is crucial. Sustained leadership engagement—illustrated by the 2025 presidential visit and repeated intergovernmental consultations—signals a recognition that economic integration requires long-term commitment, institutional coordination, and trust-building. This is a departure from the episodic diplomacy that characterized earlier phases of regional cooperation.

CONCLUSIONS:

ADB-supported assessments emphasized several corridor advantages: proximity to markets, complementary labor and production structures, and existing transport links that could be upgraded at relatively low cost. Recent investments have focused on modernizing border crossing points, improving road and logistics infrastructure, and harmonizing customs and sanitary standards. These “soft infrastructure” reforms are as critical as physical upgrades, reducing transaction costs and uncertainty for businesses. 

This ADB’s evaluation illustrates the choices for Central Asian republics. The region can continue to produce integration declarations with limited practical impact, or it can invest in functional mechanisms that deliver measurable economic outcomes. The evolving partnership between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan suggests that the latter path is increasingly viable. By anchoring integration in corridors, logistics hubs, and targeted industrial cooperation, the two countries are experimenting with a new model of regionalism—one that is pragmatic, incremental, and results-oriented. Supported by institutions such as ADB and reinforced by high-level political will, this approach moves integration from aspiration to implementation. If sustained and expanded, corridor-based integration could redefine economic cooperation across Central Asia. It offers a way to translate geography into advantage, proximity into productivity, and political goodwill into shared growth. In doing so, it may finally allow the region to move from declarations to durable economic corridors—and, ultimately, toward a genuinely integrated economic space.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Rafis Abazov, PhD, is a director of the Institute for Green and Sustainable Development at Kazakh National Agrarian Research University. He is author of The Culture and Customs of the Central Asian Republics (2007), An Effective Project Manager (2025) and some others. He has been an executive manager for the Global Hub of the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI) on Sustainability in Kazakhstan since 2014 and facilitated the International Model UN New Silk Way conference in Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries.

By Syed Fazl-e-Haider 

China is reshaping Central Asia’s nuclear energy sector, challenging Russia’s long-standing dominance in the region. In September 2025, Uzbekistan explored a contingency agreement with China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), amid concerns that the contract signed in June with Russia’s state-owned nuclear monopoly, Rosatom, for the construction of nuclear power units might face delays. While Rosatom leads the consortium responsible for building Kazakhstan’s first nuclear power plant, CNNC has emerged as the principal alternative competitor. Under current plans, CNNC would assume a leading role in the construction of Kazakhstan’s second and third nuclear power plants.

BACKGROUND: Nuclear energy has been a central instrument through which Russia has sustained its presence in Central Asia. Experts argue that nuclear power projects tend to create long-term dependencies for host states, particularly when nuclear energy constitutes a significant share of national electricity generation. Such projects also entail security risks, including the potential for sabotage. A 2023 study on Russian nuclear energy diplomacy published by the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs notes that “Central Asia has a special place in Russian nuclear energy diplomacy because of the post-Soviet heritage, meaning that Rosatom’s operations in the region are easier and smoother than elsewhere.”

Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 intensified Russia’s diplomatic isolation, undermining its dominance in Central Asia’s nuclear energy sector. As a sanctioned and increasingly isolated Russia gradually loses its influence in the region’s nuclear landscape, Beijing is capitalizing on the opportunity to secure new clients for its nuclear reactor technology.

During a visit to Uzbekistan in 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an agreement with Tashkent for the construction of a 2.4-gigawatt nuclear power plant, valued at approximately US$ 11 billion. However, the project failed to progress as planned and was revised in 2024, when the two sides concluded a new agreement for a facility comprising six small reactors, each with a capacity of 55 megawatts (MW).

In June 2024, Russia concluded an agreement with Uzatom to carry out a feasibility study on constructing a nuclear power plant comprising two to four VVER-1000 reactors in Uzbekistan. In 2023, Kyrgyzstan held discussions with Rosatom on a small nuclear power plant with a capacity of 110 MW. However, the talks failed to progress after Bishkek lost interest.

In June 2025, Kazakhstan announced the selection of Rosatom to lead the construction of the country’s first nuclear power plant. In a separate statement, however, Astana also confirmed that CNNC would head the development of the country’s second nuclear facility. In August 2025, Kazakhstan’s First Deputy Prime Minister Roman Sklyar further stated that CNNC would also lead the construction of the country’s third nuclear power plant. In September 2025, Uzbekistan’s nuclear agency, Uzatom, unveiled an upgrade plan for its two small nuclear reactors (RITM-200N), scheduled for completion by 2030, and for two large nuclear units (VVER-1000) by the mid-2030s. By pursuing a multi-vector diplomatic strategy, Uzbekistan has signed nuclear energy agreements with both Russia and China.

China’s nuclear energy cooperation in Central Asia is expanding rapidly. In September 2025, Beijing–Tashkent nuclear cooperation featured prominently in a meeting between Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Shen Yanfeng, Chairman of CNNC, held on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in China. Following the Mirziyoyev–Yanfeng meeting, new mining agreements valued at US$ 5 billion, including a uranium mining deal, were announced.

IMPLICATIONS: Energy-constrained Central Asian states, such as Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, have looked to Rosatom, the world’s leading constructor and exporter of nuclear reactors. International sanctions imposed on Russia over its war in Ukraine have cast uncertainty over Rosatom’s future. As a result, Russia’s clients in Central Asia are increasingly turning to China as an alternative partner for nuclear energy cooperation. It was against this backdrop that Tashkent, in September 2025, discussed a contingency agreement with China for the construction of nuclear power plants, supplementing a deal signed with Rosatom in June 2025. While Kazakhstan’s first nuclear power plant is being built by Russia, China is set to lead the construction of the country’s second and third nuclear facilities.

China’s growing involvement in the nuclear energy sector is significantly eroding Russia’s long-standing dominance in the region. CNNC has emerged as a strong competitor to Russia’s Rosatom in nuclear projects in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, as both Central Asian states expand their nuclear energy programs.

CNNC is posing strong competition to Russia’s Rosatom on cost considerations in nuclear energy projects. For Kazakhstan’s first nuclear power plant, CNNC sought to attract Kazakh authorities by proposing the construction of two nuclear units with a combined capacity of 2.4 gigawatts at a cost of US$ 5.47 billion, a significantly lower bid. The comparatively lower cost of Chinese nuclear reactors gives China a competitive advantage over Russia in Central Asia, where affordability is a critical factor in ensuring the financial sustainability of host countries.

China’s policy of sharing nuclear technology and granting host countries full control over the nuclear fuel cycle emphasizes energy independence in states developing nuclear power projects. This approach is particularly attractive to Central Asian countries and gives China a competitive advantage over Russia. In Kazakhstan, for example, this policy aligns with Astana’s long-term objective of reducing dependence on external powers in the nuclear energy sector, and CNNC has offered technology transfer along with full control of the fuel cycle. By contrast, Russia follows a model that retains control over fuel supply and requires the repatriation of spent fuel for the duration of a plant’s operation in non-nuclear states.

Faster delivery timelines are another factor that make China more attractive to Central Asian countries than Russia in nuclear energy projects. Chinese companies typically complete nuclear power projects in seven years or less, whereas Rosatom generally requires between six and nine years to construct nuclear reactors.

Despite China’s competitive advantages in cost and delivery speed, Chinese nuclear projects involve technical and environmental risks. China does not provide Central Asian states with a long-term, reliable solution for radioactive waste management. Consequently, in the absence of advanced and transparent safety protocols, safety concerns remain a major obstacle to China’s nuclear ambitions in the region.

In September 2025, Almassadam Satkaliyev, Chairman of Kazakhstan’s Atomic Energy Agency, emphasized the importance of ensuring safe operations at nuclear facilities. He stated that Kazakhstan would continue to develop the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining and nuclear fuel production to electricity generation at nuclear power plants, while strictly adhering to the country’s international obligations regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite international sanctions imposed in response to the war in Ukraine, Russia is making concerted efforts to maintain its influence over nuclear energy projects in Central Asia. However, sanctions have increasingly eroded Russia’s primary source of leverage, nuclear cooperation, allowing China to challenge Moscow’s long-standing dominance in the region’s nuclear energy sector.

China’s nuclear power initiatives are poised to solidify its long-term strategic influence in Central Asia. These projects necessitate decades of engagement through fuel supply chains, technology transfer, and sustained operational oversight.

China is reshaping Central Asia's nuclear landscape by leveraging cost competitiveness, technology transfer, and expedited project timelines to erode Russia's traditional dominance in energy cooperation. However, despite these advantages, concerns persist regarding China’s comparatively lax safety standards.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Syed Fazl-e-Haider is a Karachi-based analyst at 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, Jamestown Foundation. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

By Svante E. Cornell

In October 2025, the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) convened a pivotal summit in Gabala, Azerbaijan, demonstrating its emergence as a significant geopolitical entity in the Eurasian landscape. During the summit, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev emphasized the OTS's evolution into a key geopolitical center, while Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev referred to it as an authoritative structure uniting Turkic populations. This marked a critical juncture in the organization’s development, solidifying its influence in a region that links the Mediterranean to Central Asia. 



                                                            Credit: Wikimedia Commons

BACKGROUND: The level of interest in Turkic cooperation has diverged over time and among the Turkic states. Some, like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, have consistently been enthusiastic participants. Türkiye, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, on the other hand, have seen fluctuations in their enthusiasm. It is mainly in the last 7 to 8 years that a consensus has developed on the importance of Turkic cooperation.

Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev in the late 2000s proposed the creation of a Council of Turkic-speaking States, which was formed in 2009. Twelve years later, it was turned into a formal inter-state organization, the Organization of Turkic States (OTS).

Up until recently, the intensification of cooperation among Turkic states was focused on non-security areas. Still, the OTS provided a platform where individual member states developed dialogue on security issues in both bilateral and trilateral formats. Thus, in parallel with the intensification of OTS activities, there has been a parallel rise in security, intelligence, and defense agreements among members of the organization.

Two types of formats can be seen in the growing security cooperation within the Turkic world. A first, not surprisingly, involves Türkiye’s bilateral security ties with other Turkic states. Importantly, however, a second format involves cooperation among those other states themselves, without Turkish participation.

The first type of format involves the growing Turkish engagement with Azerbaijan and the Turkic states of Central Asia. A key step was the formation of a defense treaty between Türkiye and Azerbaijan in the shape of the Shusha Declaration of June 2021, the same year OTS was created. The Shusha Declaration followed on the decisive role of Türkiye in supporting Azerbaijan in the 2020 Second Karabakh War. That, in turn, followed upon Türkiye’s active involvement in conflicts in Syria and Libya, where Ankara actively sided against Moscow-supported proxy forces; had a decisive impact on the outcome of the conflict; and managed to do so while maintaining a functional, if transactional, relationship with Moscow. There is no question that this was duly noted in Central Asian capitals and made a security and defense relationship with Türkiye increasingly attractive for the Turkic states of Central Asia.

In fact, Türkiye stands out among external powers in the region as it has shown a willingness and ability to engage across the spheres of security, intelligence, and defense (where Europe and the U.S. have generally been absent, with the notable exception of NATO’s Partnership for Peace program).  As Richard Outzen put it, all Turkic states of Central Asia are at one point or another in the process of developing “military education exchanges, training and exercises, a broader range of equipment and defense technologies, and, perhaps most importantly, development of common doctrine and operational approaches” with Türkiye.

While Azerbaijan has reached the level of near-complete integration with Türkiye, other states are at less advanced stages of the process. They may not desire the same level of military integration with Türkiye as Azerbaijan does, but all are intensifying exchanges with Ankara. Kazakhstan began to expand military ties with Türkiye in 2020 when it signed an agreement for joint defense and industrial projects. That was followed by a protocol for intelligence cooperation in 2022, as well as an enhanced strategic partnership. Kazakhstan purchased Turkish UAVs and now holds a license to produce them in Kazakhstan.

Uzbekistan also started its process of deepening military ties with Türkiye. In 2022, the two countries signed a defense cooperation agreement on intelligence cooperation, as well as training and logistics. In November of that year, a further agreement included military education and defense industrial cooperation. As for Kyrgyzstan, it has purchased several types of Turkish UAVs, including TB-2 Bayraktar drones. Turkmenistan has also purchased Bayraktar drones. In late December 2023, Turkmenistan’s top leadership welcomed leaders of Türkiye’s largest defense industrial companies and publicly spoke of the potential role of these firms – and Türkiye – in helping Turkmenistan strengthen its defense capabilities.

As noted, not all security and defense cooperation involves Türkiye. On a bilateral level, security and defense cooperation has grown rapidly involving Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and most recently Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. These three states have all raised their respective sets of bilateral relations to the level of allied relations, including through the formation of “Supreme Interstate Councils” for inter-state coordination on a government level. In the defense sphere, cooperation has developed through military exchanges, joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and the development of the defense industry.

Until recently, it was obvious that the development of Turkic Cooperation under the Organization of Turkic States served as a catalyst for the myriad of bilateral agreements in the security and military field. Yet formally, while OTS member states have discussed holding security consultations and developing a common stance on security issues ever since the Turkic Council’s Almaty Summit in 2011, defense and security cooperation remained outside the purview of the OTS. This has nevertheless begun to change as the OTS has more recently taken steps to expand into the security field. 

IMPLICATIONS: The OTS’s organizational move into the field of security and defense dates to the summit in Samarkand in 2022. The member states “went beyond consultations by adding a new dimension to their security cooperation ... they called for closer cooperation and military collaboration in the defense industry.”

Similarly, at the following summit in Astana in November 2023, the final communiqué called for “closer cooperation in the field of defense industry and military collaboration.” At the summit, a key advocate for the intensification of military cooperation was Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, who stressed during his speech that “the main guarantor of security becomes defense potential” in the developing security situation and that he “believe[s] that cooperation between the member states in areas such as security, defense, and the defense industry should be further increased.”  Following his re-election in 2024, Aliyev subsequently declared that the OTS was the main vector in Azerbaijani foreign policy.

The eleventh summit in Kyrgyzstan in 2024 focused on the adoption of a “Charter for the Turkic World” which did not specifically go into matters relating to security and defense. Still, a seed was planted: the charter includes language that “the Turkic people will strive together to prevent any actions and threats aimed at undermining their unity, solidarity, and dignity.”  While far from a mutual defense clause, it is reminiscent of how the EU adopted a solidarity clause before moving to the mutual defense clause adopted with the EU’s Lisbon treaty. At this summit as well, Aliyev repeated his earlier call, saying, “Given the growing global threats, our cooperation in defense, security, and the defense industry is of tremendous importance.”

In July 2025, the first meeting of the heads of defense industries of the Turkic states was held in Istanbul, under the banner of the OTS. The meeting mainly served to take stock of existing bilateral cooperation programs and to plan for multilateral cooperation in the future. Azerbaijan has offered to host a second meeting in 2026.

The 2025 OTS Summit in Gabala, Azerbaijan, proved a turning point. The theme for the summit was “Regional Peace and Security,” indicating the organization’s more open embrace of security issues. The leading section of the summit’s declaration focused on security issues and particularly put forward the objective of signing a “Treaty on Strategic Partnership, Eternal Friendship, and Brotherhood of Turkic States.” While not included in the formal communiqué of the summit, Azerbaijan offered to host the first military exercises under the banner of the OTS.

CONCLUSION: It is clear that, in the past few years, the OTS has been rapidly expanding its purview into the security area, defense industrial cooperation, and military coordination.  It remains to be seen whether the OTS will transform into a formal alliance, as seems to be the intent of at least several of the member states. What is clear is that the OTS has turned into a vehicle for regional middle powers – specifically Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan – to work to fill the security vacuum that has plagued the heart of Eurasia over the past three decades. That vacuum has been the result of the weakness of internal security arrangements in the region, as well as the prevalence of security arrangements dominated by external actors, such as Russia’s CSTO. While Türkiye is prominent among the OTS member states due to its military capabilities and the size of its economy, it is clear that the Turkic “middle powers” have been at least as forceful as Türkiye in driving the rise of Turkic cooperation. 

Turkic cooperation is expanding and intensifying so rapidly that it can no longer be ignored. In many ways, the expansion of Turkic cooperation is directly in line with American and European policy objectives in Central Asia and the Caucasus. OTS activities are largely complementary to Western policies, while also filling voids that Western powers themselves have proven unwilling or unable to fill. For both the EU and the United States, the role of the OTS in maintaining a balanced international environment in Greater Central Asia has become significant enough that the factors limiting Western engagement with the OTS should not obscure the clear alignment of interests that is at play.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Svante E. Cornell is Research Director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center. 

By Farkhod Tolipov

On November 14-15, 2025, the 7th Consultative Meeting of Heads of States (CMHS) of Central Asia took place in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The meeting constituted a milestone in the 34 years of Central Asia integration since 1991. Long-awaited signs of institutionalization of this process emerged alongside the decision to grant Azerbaijan membership in this regional format. This was the hitherto most consequential CMHS, giving rise to potentially serious implications concerning the further evolution of Central Asian regionalism and its geopolitical implications. 



                                                       Credit: Wikimedia Commons

BACKGROUND: Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoev initiated the format of CMHS of Central Asia in 2017; and six meetings have been held since. This new format was introduced after almost 10 years of “frozen” integration from 2006 to 2016, during which the Central Asian states, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, maintained mostly bilateral relations.

Regional integration, which had seen some progress between 1991 and 2005, was interrupted due to the merger of the regional structure Central Asian Cooperation Organization (CACO) with the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Community (EvrAzES) after Russia joined CACO. Central Asian states could not restore their own regional structure until 2018 when the first Consultative Meeting was held in Astana, Kazakhstan. Five consecutive meetings took place in Tashkent, November 2019; in Avaza, Turkmenistan, August 2021; in Cholpon-Ata, Kyrgyzstan, July 2022; in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, September 2023; and in Astana, August 2024.

The CMHS has had a controversial dual effect. They consistently demonstrated seemingly resolute political will to strengthen and advance regional cooperation, while at the same time the participating presidents persistently refrained from rhetorical commitments to integration – perhaps out of concern that stronger integration could undermine their sovereignty. The regional cooperation/integration dilemma has thus constrained strategic choices and visions for the future.

In particular, this tendency was reflected during the 6th CMHS when the presidents adopted the Conception of Regional Cooperation “Central Asia-2040” which does not envisage integration at all. Yet the 7th Meeting included steps towards the establishment of institutions pertinent to a full-fledged regional organization. Although the presidents still avoid speaking in terms of real integration, they decided on four important issues: the creation of a permanent Secretariat; renaming the CMHS “Central Asian Community”; raising the status of National Coordinators of Consultative Meetings to Special Representatives of Heads of States; and adopting the Conception of Regional Security based on the Catalog of Risks.

However, the most controversial decision was the admission of Azerbaijan to the “C5” structure.

IMPLICATIONS: The first institutional forms of regional integration in Central Asia were set up in the 1990s. At that time, institutions such as the Council of Heads of States, the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and other Councils were created, and attempts were even made to establish a Central Asian parliament. Central Asian leaders now make efforts to revitalize the initial integration process, albeit without articulating the very concept of “integration.”

The preceding six CMHS have yielded important experiences in terms of maintaining the impulse and rhetoric of regionalism as such. Moreover, the CMHS not only reintroduced the regional format of cooperation but also stipulated a geopolitical recalibration in and around Central Asia. One manifestation of this is the proliferation of so-called “C5+1” formats which reflected, among other things, the emerging regional order in Central Asia.

It was expected that Uzbekistan, as the initiator of CMHS and chair of the 7th Meeting in Tashkent, would push the pro-integration agenda forward. This intention appeared successful. Renaming the regional format the Central Asian Community (CAC) associates with the Central Asian Economic Community (CAEC) which functioned between 1994 and 2000. The successful operation of CAEC led the overall process of creating CACO. Hopefully, CAC can also promote stronger political unity among the states concerned. However, the new name must signify not only a positive disposition but also the real new political status of this community of five states. The “old” challenges remain in this “new” stage when it comes to their constantly repeated mantra about conducting common foreign policy concerning key international and regional issues.

A significant decision in this regard was taken regarding the Concept of regional security and stability as well as the Catalogue of security risks in Central Asia and measures to address them for 2026-2028. The idea of establishing a regional security architecture was articulated also in the previous CMHS. This is, indeed, a very crucial strategic task to be addressed urgently, requiring coordination of foreign policies. The content of the Catalogue clarifies what these risks are and how the regional security system will be created. Indeed, since Central Asian states have strategic partnership agreements and alliance relationships with each other, now is the time to test them by agreeing on the Catalogue to address regional security challenges.

Mirziyoev also proposed another, normative, idea: “based on our values and traditions of public diplomacy, we believe it would be appropriate to create a Council of Elders consisting of renowned public figures with extensive life experience. We believe this will contribute to generational continuity in our countries, as well as to strengthening regional solidarity and identity.” This message points to the importance of a common regional identity for the peoples of Central Asia. It was a call to engage citizens in regional integration and bring this process to the broader public. Indeed, broader involvement of civil society in regional integration has hitherto been lacking and this was a signal to the Central Asian public to contribute to making the region a real community.

In Tashkent, the five presidents were accompanied by Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliev. The summit adopted the decision to admit Azerbaijan into the Central Asian structure, which gave rise to a number of questions regarding the transformation of the five-lateral CMHS format into a six-lateral one and producing an equation with one unknown variable. Azerbaijan is a South Caucasian state, not a Central Asian one. How this seemingly bi-regional format will evolve in terms of future integration remains to be seen.

Uzbekistan’s former foreign minister Abdulaziz Komilov noted in an interview that Azerbaijan joining the CMHS as a member created a new geopolitical reality. The admission of Russia into CACO in 2004 was fatal for this organization and destroyed it. Azerbaijan, in contrast, is not an imperial state and does not have hegemonic ambitions. Azerbaijan’s membership in CMHS coincides with the transformation of this format into CAC.

Azerbaijan already has close relations to Central Asian states; together with Azerbaijan, four Central Asian states (excluding Tajikistan) are members of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS). Azerbaijan is also a geopolitically experienced state and can in many respects pose a good example for Central Asians. At the same time, its membership in CMHS can profoundly impact the regional integration process. Whether Baku can play a special geopolitical role in Central Asia depends on its ability to contribute to what Central Asians have so far lacked in their regional and international actions – a single agency in the international system. The extent to which they will be able to achieve this together with Azerbaijan remains an open question.

The Tashkent summit also gave rise to another surge of criticism in Russian media and analytical circles. Especially Azerbaijan’s intensified participation in Central Asian regional affairs was described as a cause for concern and as concealing a pro-Western geopolitical design.

CONCLUSIONS: Previous CMHS have produced several positive statements and documents. The time has now come to address crucial practical questions regarding the new institutional structures agreed upon. Determining the actual content of the Catalog of Risks is an important issue. So is the status of the newly instituted high-ranking Special Representatives, and whether they will become more visible and engage with the broader public. Stronger visibility will undoubtedly motivate broader public engagement and thereby add more dynamism to the integration process. Another important issue is whether the Secretariat will be a transparent structure. It should avoid the risks of becoming overly bureaucratic and becoming preoccupied with the narrow interest in maintaining national sovereignty at all costs.

It also remains to be seen whether Azerbaijan’s membership is only eclectic – a mechanical expansion for the sake of showcasing regionalism; or a strategic enlargement based on a long-term and well calculated decision for the sake of confronting a new round of geopolitical challenges.

The Central Asian five-lateral format will experience a new round of geopolitical challenges related to great power rivalry in and around this region, especially in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine; the diversification of international transport and other connectivity in Central Asian states; and the rising profile of Central Asia in terms of its strategic autonomy in the international system.

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 Rafis Abazov

As the global race for digital supremacy accelerates, Kazakhstan is positioning itself not merely as a participant, but as a regional architect of artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure and foresight. Over the past decade, the Republic of Kazakhstan has methodically repositioned itself not just as a raw-material exporter in Central Asia but as a proactive knowledge and innovation actor. The recent launch of the AI Silknet initiative by the National Academy of Sciences marks a pivotal step in the country’s broader digital transformation strategy—one that seeks to fuse scientific modernization, regional leadership, and strategic foresight into a cohesive national vision. It may well mark its transition into a digital actor on a regional scale.

                                                                                Credit: Pexels

BACKGROUND: Kazakhstan’s digital transformation journey has been steadily gaining momentum over the past decade. From the “Digital Kazakhstan” program to the more recent “Digital Bridge” forums, the country has signaled its intent to become a regional hub for innovation and technology. The Government of Kazakhstan has invested over US$ 100 million into flagship AI-Sana (meaning “consciousness” or “intelligence” in Kazakh), a state-funded program launched to develop the country’s National AI Platform and position Kazakhstan as a regional leader in artificial intelligence.

In this context, the AI Silknet project, developed in partnership with the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI), represents a new step in this trajectory. AI Silknet is not merely a technological platform; it is a national knowledge infrastructure designed to consolidate scientific, technological, and socio-economic data into a unified digital ecosystem. Its core function is to provide predictive analytics and strategic foresight for decision-makers, researchers, and policymakers. By integrating machine learning algorithms with vast datasets, the system aims to anticipate trends, model development scenarios, and support evidence-based governance.

This initiative reflects a growing recognition within Kazakhstan’s leadership that digital transformation must be underpinned by robust institutional frameworks. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), long a bastion of academic excellence, is now being retooled as a digital think tank, one capable of generating real-time insights and long-term strategies through AI-powered analysis.

The collaboration with South Korea’s KISTI illustrates Kazakhstan’s attempt to improve the management of the national economy and planning process. South Korea’s own transformation into a digital powerhouse offers a compelling model for Kazakhstan, particularly in the realm of AI-driven science and innovation policy. The AI Silknet project draws directly from KISTI’s experience with the NTIS (National Science & Technology Information Service), adapting its architecture to Kazakhstan’s unique developmental context.

This partnership is not merely technical, it is strategic. It signals Kazakhstan’s intent to align with leading digital economies while maintaining agency over its own data and development priorities. In doing so, Kazakhstan is crafting a hybrid model of digital modernization: one that leverages global expertise while reinforcing national sovereignty and regional relevance, improving efficiency of budget management and making its national economy more competitive.

IMPLICATIONS: The name of the initiative: AI Silknet, is no accident. It evokes the historical Silk Road, positioning Kazakhstan as a digital bridge between East and West. But unlike its ancient predecessor, this new Silk Road is not about the movement of goods; it is about the flow of data, knowledge, and innovation.

Kazakhstan’s leadership in AI infrastructure has significant implications for Central Asia. As the region grapples with uneven digital development, Kazakhstan’s model offers a scalable blueprint for integrating AI into national planning, education, and economic diversification. By opening AI Silknet to regional collaboration, Kazakhstan could catalyze a new era of scientific diplomacy and data-driven cooperation across borders.

Moreover, the initiative aligns with broader geopolitical trends. As global powers compete for influence in Eurasia’s digital space, Kazakhstan’s proactive stance allows it to shape—not merely respond to—the emerging rules of engagement. In this sense, AI Silknet is not just a tool of governance; it is a statement of intent.

At its core, AI Silknet is a foresight engine. It is designed to help Kazakhstan anticipate technological disruptions, model policy outcomes, and align national priorities with global trends. This is particularly critical in a world where the pace of change often outstrips the capacity of traditional institutions to respond.

Embedding AI into the heart of its scientific and policy apparatus carries many risks and uncertainty yet Kazakhstan is embracing a new paradigm of governance—one that is anticipatory, adaptive, and analytically grounded. This shift has the potential to transform how decisions are made, how resources are allocated, and how national goals are pursued.

The system’s ability to integrate diverse datasets, from academic publications to patent filings, from demographic trends to economic indicators, makes it a powerful tool for cross-sectoral analysis. Organizers claim that it can, for example, identify emerging research clusters, forecast labor market shifts, or simulate the impact of policy interventions. In doing so, it empowers decision-makers with the kind of strategic intelligence that is increasingly indispensable in the 21st century.

No digital transformation is complete without a corresponding investment in human capital. Kazakhstan’s AI Silknet initiative is closely tied to efforts to modernize the country’s education system and cultivate a new generation of data scientists, AI engineers, and digital policymakers.

The NAS, in collaboration with universities and research institutes, is developing training programs that align with the competencies required to operate and expand the AI Silknet system. These include courses in machine learning, data governance, computational modeling, and science policy.

CONCLUSION: Kazakhstan’s AI Silknet is more than a technological upgrade — it is a strategic platform for national renewal and regional leadership. By investing in predictive analytics, institutional capacity, and international collaboration, Kazakhstan is laying the groundwork for a digital future that is inclusive, intelligent, and interconnected.

By embedding the technologies into its national economy and new skills into academic curricula and professional development pathways, Kazakhstan is not only building technical capacity—it also aims at improving governance, budget spending and creating thousands of new jobs in the IT and AI sectors. This is essential to ensure that AI Silknet remains a living system—continuously evolving in response to new challenges and opportunities. According to estimates by Tengrinews Agency, Kazakhstan could undergo a workforce shift or restructuring affecting up to one million positions over the next 5 to 10 years due to automation and the implementation of AI.

As Central Asia navigates the complexities of digital transformation, Kazakhstan’s experience offers valuable lessons. It demonstrates that with vision, partnerships, and a commitment to data-driven governance, even mid-sized states can shape the contours of regional development.

In the years ahead, the success of AI Silknet will depend not only on its technical sophistication but on its ability to foster trust, transparency, and shared purpose—both within Kazakhstan and across its borders. If it succeeds, it may well become the backbone of a new digital Silk Road, linking the region’s past to its most promising futures.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Rafis Abazov, PhD, is a director of the Institute for Green and Sustainable Development at Kazakh National Agrarian Research University. He is author of The Culture and Customs of the Central Asian Republics (2007), An Effective Project Manager (2025) and some others. He has been an executive manager for the Global Hub of the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI) on Sustainability in Kazakhstan since 2014 and facilitated the International Model UN New Silk Way conference in Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries.