Opinions - The Times Of Central Asia

Viewing results 1 - 6 of 339

Opinion: How AI Is Reshaping the Global Image of Nations

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming one of the most powerful geopolitical and economic forces in the world. It is changing how countries compete, build influence, and attract investment. Until recently, discussions about Central Asia’s economic development were dominated by infrastructure, energy, logistics, and natural resources. Today, a new layer of competition is emerging: digital influence shaped by AI systems. According to McKinsey, AI could contribute up to $13 trillion to the global economy by 2030. For Central Asia and Kazakhstan, AI development is no longer just a digital transformation agenda; it is directly tied to technological sovereignty, economic resilience, and long-term competitiveness. Who Shapes a Country’s Image in the Age of AI? Digital influence is increasingly determined by how artificial intelligence systems interpret and represent countries. Consider a Singaporean investor asking Gemini about emerging technology markets in Central Asia. A European procurement manager using ChatGPT to identify logistics partners in the region. A journalist turning to Perplexity for insights on Kazakhstan’s fintech ecosystem before writing a report. In each case, AI generates answers based on the data it has been trained on and can access. This creates a new geopolitical reality: those who shape data and content structure ultimately shape how countries are represented globally. Generative AI is already used at a massive scale, with ChatGPT surpassing 900 million weekly active users as of early 2026. As these systems become default information interfaces, the visibility of countries within AI-generated responses is becoming increasingly important. When high-quality, structured, and authoritative content is missing, AI systems rely on outdated information, fragmented sources, and external narratives. In practice, this means that a lack of structured digital presence can directly influence international perception. How Other Countries Are Responding Several countries have already recognized this shift and are actively responding. According to Axios, Israel paid Brad Parscale’s firm $9 million as part of a campaign aimed at shaping how AI platforms portray the country. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are investing heavily in AI infrastructure and Arabic-language models, including Gulf-backed data centers, sovereign AI initiatives, and Arabic-first large language models. These efforts go beyond technology development. They represent a broader competition for influence in an information environment where AI-generated responses increasingly shape global understanding. AI Momentum in Kazakhstan In 2025, Kazakhstan was listed among the region’s strongest performers in the Government AI Readiness Index published by Oxford Insights. Kazakh officials cited a ranking of 60th out of 195 countries, while Oxford Insights published a regional report that placed Kazakhstan 58th globally. In either case, it was the highest-ranked of the five Central Asian states and represented a sharp improvement from the previous year. Over the past two years, Kazakhstan has demonstrated rapid progress in artificial intelligence. Venture investment in AI has increased more than fivefold, from $14 million to $73 million. IT service exports surpassed $1 billion in 2025, with later ministry figures putting the total at about $1.14 billion. The Kazakh-linked AI startup Higgsfield AI has also been widely described as Kazakhstan’s...

Middle Powers

Opinion: Middle Powers and the “Voice of the Region” – Is Central Asia Becoming a Coordinated Actor?

Against the backdrop of growing global fragmentation and the weakening of universal international institutions, the role of so-called middle powers is increasing. These are states able to influence regional agendas without possessing great-power status. In this changing system, Central Asia is gradually moving beyond its long-standing image as a geopolitical periphery and is beginning to act more like a region with shared interests. For decades, the region was viewed mainly as a space where the interests of external powers, including Russia, China, the U.S., and others, intersected. Today, that paradigm is beginning to shift. Central Asia is showing greater signs of agency through what may be described as a cluster effect: individually, the countries have limited influence, but collectively they form an important transit hub between Europe and Asia, a growing market, a significant resource base, and a strategic security zone. This creates the conditions for a more coordinated regional position, even if a single regional voice is still emerging rather than fully formed. C5+Azerbaijan as a Foundation for Regional Architecture The institutional foundation of this process is the Central Asian leaders' consultative format, which is now expanding through Azerbaijan's participation. That is turning what was once a C5 dialogue into a looser C5+Azerbaijan, or C6, framework focused on transport, energy, and practical cooperation. Within this framework, the countries of the region are learning to act in a more coordinated manner without supranational pressure. In practice, this process is developing through three main areas. The first is transport and logistics. Azerbaijan's participation has strengthened efforts to make the Middle Corridor more coherent, though the route still faces bottlenecks in capacity, customs coordination, and Caspian crossings. Through tariff coordination, simplified border procedures, and investment in port and rail infrastructure, Central Asia and the Caucasus are increasingly functioning as parts of a single transport artery. That gives the region a faster option for cargo between China and Europe, even if it remains far smaller than traditional maritime routes. Shipping goods via the Suez Canal or the northern route can take between 35 and 45 days, whereas the Middle Corridor can reduce transit times to around 13-21 days under favorable conditions. According to forecasts cited by BCG, shipping volumes along the route could increase three- to fourfold during the current decade. Beyond logistics, the project is creating a new economic framework for the region. Its status as a crossroads is attracting investment in transport hubs and manufacturing facilities along the route, with the potential to turn transit corridors into zones of economic growth. This gives participating countries not only transit revenue but a stronger basis for long-term strategic resilience. The second major area is energy integration, where historical disputes over water and fuel resources are increasingly being supplemented by models of joint development. The Kambarata HPP-1 hydropower project in Kyrgyzstan, being developed with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, has created an important precedent for shared management of water and energy interests. The project is expected to support cleaner electricity generation while helping stabilize irrigation flows...

Organization of Turkic States

Opinion: Turkey’s Third Vector: How the Turkic States Are Expanding Central Asia’s Room for Maneuver

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s May 13-14 state visit to Kazakhstan and the May 15 informal summit of the Organization of Turkic States in Turkistan should not be read as isolated diplomatic events. Together, they point to a larger shift in Central Asia’s geopolitical architecture. During Erdoğan’s visit to Astana, Kazakhstan and Turkey signed the Declaration on Eternal Friendship and Expanded Strategic Partnership, along with agreements covering trade, transport, energy, education, investment, defense cooperation, oil and gas, and financial-sector collaboration. The two sides also reaffirmed their goal of raising bilateral trade to $15 billion. Erdoğan was awarded the newly established Khoja Ahmed Yassawi Order, a symbolic gesture tied to the summit being hosted in Turkistan, the city most closely associated with Yassawi’s legacy. A day later, Turkistan hosted the informal summit of the Organization of Turkic States under the theme “Artificial Intelligence and Digital Development.” The timing matters. Central Asia is no longer operating inside a simple Russia-China framework. Russia remains deeply embedded in the region through security history, infrastructure, language, labor migration, and energy networks. China remains the region’s main infrastructure and trade heavyweight. The West is increasingly focused on sanctions, critical minerals, connectivity, and the Middle Corridor. But Turkey is becoming something different: not a replacement for Russia or China, but a useful third vector. Its influence is built on identity, logistics, defense technology, education, digital cooperation, and institutional networking through the Turkic States framework, rather than overwhelming capital or military dominance. Turkey as a Corridor Power Turkey cannot match China’s investment scale in Central Asia. It also cannot match Russia’s historical security depth. Ankara does not need to replace either power to matter. Its comparative advantage is different. Turkey connects Central Asia westward, to the South Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and Europe. It also offers a language of partnership that is culturally familiar and politically less threatening than great-power patronage. Tokayev captured this dimension during the joint statements in Astana, describing Turkey as a “golden bridge” connecting Europe and Asia. The framing is telling: not a partner of equal weight, but a connector, exactly the function of a corridor power. A corridor power does not dominate a region directly. It expands the routes, partnerships, platforms, and strategic options available to states that do not want to be trapped between larger powers. That is why the Erdoğan-Tokayev meeting and the Turkistan summit matter. The issue goes beyond bilateral trade. It is the gradual construction of a Turkic corridor linking identity, transport, defense, digital governance, and markets. The OTS as Identity Infrastructure The Organization of Turkic States is often dismissed as symbolic: summits, speeches, flags, cultural rhetoric, and references to shared history. That reading is incomplete. Identity is not just emotion. In international politics, identity can become infrastructure. Shared language, educational networks, media links, cultural affinity, and repeated institutional contact reduce the cost of trust-building. They make it easier to sign agreements, build transport projects, expand student exchanges, coordinate business forums, and create political habits of consultation. The...

CA5+UK

Opinion: UK’s C6 Engagement and the Opportunity for British Geostrategic Renewal

Along with Nicholas Spykman, Sir Halford Mackinder is one of the most pre-eminent thinkers in the field of geopolitics. Whilst today geopolitics is a term used interchangeably with “world affairs,” “international relations,” and “foreign policy,” Spykman and Mackinder used the phrase to describe the narrow academic study of how geography influences international relations and the conduct of states. In the 1904 paper, The Geographical Pivot of History, Mackinder theorized that the key to controlling the balance of power in the world rested in a “heartland” of Eurasia, comprising Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Mackinder described the heartland region as the “pivot region” for regional and global hegemony. The word “pivot” has recently been popularized in international relations, with examples including President Obama’s pivot to the Pacific and Britain’s Indo-Pacific pivot in the 2021 Integrated Review. In 1997, former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski built on Mackinder’s ideas in his work, The Grand Chessboard. Brzezinski defined a geopolitical pivot as being “determined by their geography, which in some cases gives them a special role either in defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player. In some cases, a geopolitical pivot may act as a defensive shield for a vital state or even a region.” To Mackinder and Brzezinski, Central Asia was a crucial geostrategic pivot. Central Asia - comprising the five states of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan, collectively termed the C5 - is located between China, Russia, Iran, and Afghanistan. Thus, the near abroad of the region is defined by conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Iran and Israel/U.S., and between Taliban-run Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pragmatic engagement is a necessity for the C5 but has not stopped them from pursuing greater diversification in security and economic arrangements, and they remain committed to U.S.-led diplomatic initiatives. Faced with a regionally assertive superpower in China, risks created by Russia’s war in Ukraine, theocratic Iran, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, Central Asia has continued to show its desire to build and deepen its economic and security partnerships from beyond traditional powers – such as China and Russia – to states in the Gulf, the Caucasus, Western Europe, and elsewhere. The United Kingdom has emerged as a new and important partner. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has raised concerns in the Central Asian states about its regional revisionism, territorial ambitions, and Putin’s reconstruction of the Soviet Union. In 2014, Putin credited Nursultan Nazarbayev with having “created a state in a territory that had never had a state before,” adding that “the Kazakhs never had any statehood.” The remarks sparked anger in Kazakhstan and fed concern about Moscow’s view of post-Soviet sovereignty. Finally, Putin said that it would be best for Kazakhstan to “remain in the greater Russian world.” In The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski predicted that “Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians.” Central Asia has been a...

Afghanistan

Opinion: The Southern Dimension of the Middle Corridor – Afghanistan’s Role in Eurasia’s New Logistics Landscape

Afghanistan’s integration into the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR) is extending beyond local logistics and evolving into one of Eurasia’s key geo-economic projects. Amid the global transformation of supply chains, Central Asia has an opportunity to move beyond its role as a transit periphery and become an active participant in shaping new economic corridors, creating a full-fledged “southern dimension” of Eurasian connectivity. Two Routes: Strategic and Operational Two main directions for Afghanistan’s integration into the Eurasian transport system are currently under discussion, each reflecting a distinct development logic: strategic and pragmatic. The “Eastern Branch” (Termez-Mazar-i-Sharif-Kabul-Peshawar) is traditionally viewed as the primary trans-Afghan route. Its key advantage is direct access to the ports of Karachi and Gwadar, providing the shortest connection between Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. At the same time, geography makes the project highly complex. The route passes through the central and eastern regions of Afghanistan, including the Hindu Kush mountain range, where long tunnels and bridges would be required. This would sharply increase construction and maintenance costs, extend implementation timelines, and heighten security and infrastructure risks. According to available estimates, the project could cost around $5 billion and handle 15-20 million tons of cargo annually. However, the lengthy investment cycle and dependence on political stability mean implementation remains a long-term prospect. The “Western Branch” (Turgundi-Herat-Kandahar-Spin Boldak) represents an alternative logistics corridor based on more favorable geography. Western Afghanistan is characterized by predominantly flat, semi-arid terrain, reducing the need for complex engineering structures and allowing the project to be implemented in phases. This significantly lowers capital costs, shortens construction timelines, and reduces infrastructure risks. The western route’s initial capacity is estimated at 7-10 million tons of cargo annually, making it the more realistic option for medium-term planning. An additional advantage is its geo-economic flexibility. Via Herat, the route could be integrated not only southward through Pakistan, but also westward through Iran, providing access to Persian Gulf ports. This would transform it into a multi-directional corridor capable of serving several logistics flows simultaneously. The Eastern Branch, therefore, remains the strategic option offering the shortest route to the ocean but requiring substantial investment and time. The Western Branch, meanwhile, presents a more pragmatic solution: faster to implement and more flexible from a geo-economic standpoint. The Role of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan in the “Western Maneuver” The implementation of the western trans-Afghan corridor depends on close coordination between two key regional players, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, which form the northern foundation of the future route by providing access to the Caspian Sea and, beyond it, global markets. Astana and Ashgabat are effectively creating a new geo-economic framework that could transform Central Asia from an isolated region into a strategic crossroads linking the Caspian Sea with the Indian Ocean. In 2026, Kazakhstan moved toward deeper institutionalization of the initiative, making the route through Herat and Kandahar a government priority. Astana’s strategy is multifaceted. In addition to establishing a permanent interdepartmental commission, Kazakhstan is actively seeking to attract international operators such as the Emirati AD...

Oil Prices

Opinion: Kazakhstan, Oil, the Iran War and Dutch Disease

In 1977, The Economist coined a new term for the (potential) negative consequences of a short-term boom in natural resources: “Dutch disease.” The phenomenon got its name from an analysis of the decline of the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands following the 1960s natural gas discoveries at Groningen, in the northeastern Netherlands. The theory was that a surge in the price of a natural resource like oil or gas would likely cause currency appreciation, making imports cheaper and other sectors, like manufacturing, less competitive. Whether the recent spike in oil prices will contribute to Dutch disease in oil-rich Kazakhstan will likely depend on the length of the Iran war’s effect on oil prices (which could last well beyond the end of the conflict itself) and the government’s stewardship of Kazakhstan’s economy. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev deserves credit for the government’s efforts to diversify the national economy. Investing in the nation’s manufacturing base, especially SMEs, educating the Kazakh workforce, and improving healthcare are all helping broaden the Kazakh economy and reduce the country’s dependence on oil. But oil is the main driver of Kazakhstan’s wealth, and while other sectors are increasing their share of Kazakhstan’s economy, oil and the wider extractive sector remain central to public finances, accounting for over 40% of government revenues. So, let’s do a deep dive on Kazakhstan’s oil. Most of Kazakhstan’s oil comes from the west of the country, including the Tengiz field near the Caspian Sea and the offshore Kashagan field in the northern Caspian. The Tengiz oil field is one of the deepest and largest oil fields in the world, while Kashagan, an offshore deposit, ranks as one of the largest global oil discoveries since the 1960s. Kazakhstan’s main export blend, CPC Blend, is a light, sweet crude, a desirable oil type that’s easy to refine into gasoline and diesel. Because the Iran war and restrictions around the Strait of Hormuz have disrupted tanker traffic and raised fears of supply shortages, global oil prices have climbed. And while high oil prices are generally a net positive for Kazakhstan, the current price - Brent crude was trading above $100 per barrel in mid-May 2026 - could present problems. In the short term, high oil prices tend to boost government revenues and budget surpluses. They can increase inflows to Kazakhstan’s National Fund, depending on production, tax receipts, transfers, and government withdrawal policy, and provide resources for government spending on infrastructure and social programs. They can also stimulate demand in related sectors, boosting Kazakhstan’s oil-related industries. And since oil exports typically make up more than half of the nation’s export revenues, high oil prices generally lead to a rise in Kazakhstan’s GDP. So far, so good. But high oil prices also carry risks. For one thing, they can strengthen the tenge and add to domestic demand, especially if higher revenues feed into faster government spending. Which is where Dutch disease comes in. As the stronger currency makes non-oil exports less competitive, capital and labor shift toward the energy...