Our People > Timur Serikuly

Contributor

Timur Serikuly is Editor-in-Chief at Open World Policy Lab, an independent policy research center based in Astana, Kazakhstan. He has professional experience in diplomatic and peacekeeping activities in the Middle East and previously led analytical units in government service. His areas of expertise include Central Asia, regional security, geopolitics, Afghanistan, and transport connectivity. He contributes analysis and policy-oriented commentary on political, economic, and security developments across Central Asia and the wider region.

Articles

Central Asian politics

The “Central Asia 2030” Roundtable in Astana: From External Interest to Regional Choice

Discussions about Central Asia’s long-term strategic future are increasingly shifting from a focus on external attention to one of growing regional agency. On Monday, Astana International University hosted the first roundtable in the series Central Asia 2030: Strategic Horizons and Regional Choices. Speakers included Andrew D’Anieri, Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center; Yerkin Tukumov, Special Representative of the President of Kazakhstan; Ambassador-at-Large Zulfiya Suleimenova; and Dauren Aben, Deputy Director of the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies under the President of Kazakhstan. Pragmatism, Regional Choice, and the Logic of the “Grand Bargain” In his remarks, Andrew D’Anieri emphasized that Central Asia is increasingly viewed in the U.S. not as a peripheral zone but as an independent strategic partner. He noted that “environmental, water, and climate issues considered within a regional framework are fully supported by the U.S.” However, he added that “long-term commercial and investment projects are impossible without long-term stability, which in turn requires coordination between neighbors, engagement on sensitive issues, and pragmatic regional cooperation.” D’Anieri also pointed to Afghanistan as “an integral part of regional logic,” and described formats such as C5+1 as evidence of Central Asia’s growing subjectivity. He highlighted the first-ever C5+1 summit at the presidential level in Washington as a landmark event, especially under the administration of Donald Trump, known for its preference for bilateral over multilateral formats. Trump and the Possibility of a Visit: Only with a “Big Deal” When asked whether a visit by President Trump to Central Asia is realistic, D’Anieri offered a candid assessment: “Such a visit is only possible if there is a large, symbolically and economically significant deal.” Whether in aviation, technology, or infrastructure, these high-visibility projects are typically what draw Trump’s engagement. He added that “the region has work to do in developing a package of initiatives that could interest the U.S. president and justify a high-level visit.” Potential areas include mining, transport, and logistics. Reframing Afghanistan’s Role in the Region Special Representative Yerkin Tukumov focused on the importance of reframing the region’s relationship with Afghanistan. For too long, he said, Afghanistan has been viewed primarily “through the prism of security threats,” resulting in a narrow and often misleading approach. Tukumov argued for a broader, more pragmatic view that considers economic, humanitarian, and cross-border dimensions. He described the C5+1 format not as a replacement for bilateral diplomacy, but as “an additional level of coordination where Central Asia can speak with a more consolidated voice without losing national autonomy in foreign policy.” He stressed the need to move beyond “ideological and declarative approaches,” toward practical, interest-based mechanisms of cooperation. Ecology, Water, and the Case for a Global Water Agency Ambassador-at-Large Zulfiya Suleimenova addressed the strategic urgency of regional coordination on water and climate. She emphasized that “water issues are transboundary in nature,” and that efforts to resolve them solely within national frameworks are bound to fall short. “Regional coordination in Central Asia is not a political slogan, but a functional necessity,” she said. Suleimenova argued that jointly promoting...

9 months ago

Transport and Logistics

Speed vs. Stability: How Kazakhstan Is Leading Eurasia’s Transit Race

China’s successful test of a maglev platform weighing about one ton, accelerating to 700 kilometers per hour in just two seconds, once again underscored Beijing’s technological ambitions in the transport sector. With more than 50,000 kilometers of high-speed rail connecting cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Chengdu, China is paving the way for the next generation of mobility. Yet beyond China's borders, speed alone is no longer the decisive factor. In Eurasia and particularly in Central Asia, stability, predictability, and reliability have become the primary metrics for transit success. Within this context, Kazakhstan is positioning itself as a central hub in Eurasia’s evolving logistics landscape. China’s High-Speed Model vs. Eurasia’s Freight Realities Inside China, Fuxing high-speed trains and maglev routes have transformed domestic connectivity, forming the backbone of national economic integration. However, exporting this model faces inherent limitations. High-speed passenger lines require dedicated tracks, strict safety protocols, and massive investment factors incompatible with most of Eurasia’s existing freight-centric rail infrastructure. As a result, the China-Central Asia-Europe corridor is focused on accelerated freight movement. The goal is not maximum speed, but consistent delivery times, reliable scheduling, and minimal disruption, elements vital to modern supply chains. Kazakhstan’s Strategic Role in Eurasian Land Transit Kazakhstan serves as a critical artery for China's westward land transit. Key corridors to the Eurasian Economic Union, Europe, and Central Asia, including the Middle Corridor, traverse Kazakh territory. In the first ten months of 2025, Kazakhstan's State Revenue Committee reported that more than 11 million tons of goods were transited from China through Kazakhstan, marking double-digit growth year-on-year. This success stems not only from increased volume but from qualitative improvements in transit management. Digitalization has been pivotal. An automated system for filing and issuing transit declarations has slashed processing times from several hours to just 30 minutes per container train, facilitating the clearance of millions of tons of cargo. For businesses, this translates into lower costs and more reliable delivery schedules -- an essential factor amid ongoing global economic uncertainty. These institutional upgrades are reinforced by infrastructure investment. According to Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Transport, cargo transportation volumes have reached record levels, with steady growth in transit flows. Projects like the Dostyk-Moyinty line and the Almaty bypass are specifically designed to expand transit capacity. Why High-Speed Passenger Rail Isn’t on the Agenda Given China’s high-speed rail successes, some may question why similar routes are not planned between China and Kazakhstan. However, in the near term, such initiatives remain economically and logistically unfeasible. Existing rail lines in the region prioritize freight and mixed-use traffic, falling short of the standards required for high-speed passenger transport. Building separate lines would demand significant capital and a stable passenger base, conditions that currently do not exist. Freight transit, aligned with the Belt and Road Initiative, remains the primary focus. Unlocking the Caspian Bottleneck Despite the growth in rail transit, the Caspian Sea route remains a capacity bottleneck. Plans to build a new seaport in the Karakiyansky district of Mangistau region, through a...

10 months ago

Railways

Opinion: Prospects for Central Asia’s Access to Persian Gulf Infrastructure

The agreement signed on December 8, 2025, between Saudi Arabia and Qatar to construct a high-speed railway linking Riyadh and Doha marks a pivotal development in transport connectivity across the Persian Gulf. Beyond its bilateral implications, the project could have broader consequences for transregional logistics, particularly for Central Asia and Kazakhstan. The 785-km railway will pass through key cities in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, including Dammam and Al-Hufuf, and will connect King Salman and Hamad International Airports. Trains are expected to reach speeds exceeding 300 km/h, reducing travel time between the two capitals to approximately two hours. The six-year project is projected by officials to boost the combined GDP of both countries by around $30 billion and create up to 30,000 jobs. The Gulf Railway and New Regional Connectivity The Riyadh-Doha line is a central element of the Gulf Railway initiative, which is seeking to establish a unified railway network among Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman, with a target date of around 2030. Originally envisioned primarily as a freight system, the Gulf Railway is increasingly incorporating high-speed passenger services alongside freight, reflecting the region’s push for greater internal integration and reduced dependence on air travel. The Riyadh-Doha segment forms a vital axis between the Gulf’s political and financial hubs and is expected to link with Saudi, Emirati, and Omani infrastructure, laying the groundwork for a more integrated regional transport system. Beyond the Peninsula While the Gulf Railway’s scope is geographically confined to the Arabian Peninsula, meaningful integration with Eurasia would require additional connectivity, particularly via land and multimodal routes through Iran, Turkey, and the Caspian region. Among these, the overland corridor through Iran is especially significant, though constrained by sanctions, financing risks, and political uncertainty. Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Iran Corridor Unlike many conceptual infrastructure proposals, the Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Iran railway, operational since 2014, is already a functioning freight corridor. It provides Central Asian nations with direct access to Persian Gulf ports and Middle Eastern markets. For Kazakhstan, the route offers strategic diversification away from traditional corridors. While no formal plans exist to link GCC rail infrastructure directly with Central Asia, the emergence of high-capacity Gulf rail corridors reshapes the long-term connectivity landscape. A future interface could allow Astana overland access to Gulf markets, while enabling reciprocal flows from the Gulf into Central Asia, China, and Europe. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has previously described Iran as a “gateway” to Southeast Asia and Africa. Kazakhstan has also outlined plans to establish its own logistics terminal in the Iranian port of Shahid Rajai in Bandar Abbas, further enhancing its position in Gulf-Eurasia trade flows. Iran’s Evolving Role Historically, Iran’s role as a transit state has been hampered by international sanctions and regional tensions. However, the 2023 normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, brokered by China, has altered the regional calculus. Although still fragile, this diplomatic thaw improves prospects for long-term infrastructure projects involving Iran as a critical transit link between the Persian Gulf and Eurasia. Alternatives and Their...

10 months ago

Caspian Pipeline Consortium

Protecting Critical Infrastructure: Lessons from the CPC Drone Attack

The attack by naval drones on the infrastructure of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) on 29 November was an alarming signal, not only for Kazakhstan but for the global energy sector. The temporary suspension of shipments and the shift to operating through a single remote mooring facility struck at the heart of Kazakhstan’s economy. Around 80% of Kazakhstan’s oil exports – generating roughly 40% of its export revenues – pass through the CPC, which has handled over 60 million tons of crude annually in recent years. The vulnerability of CPC infrastructure serves as a reminder of how tightly global energy security is intertwined with regional conflicts. The consortium not only carries Kazakh crude; it also plays a stabilizing role for several international stakeholders, including European refiners and multinational shareholders, such as Chevron and ExxonMobil. Any prolonged disruption would reverberate across global markets, raising transport premiums, tightening supplies in Southern Europe, and undermining confidence in the safety of trans-Eurasian energy routes. For a world already grappling with supply shocks, the Novorossiysk incident underscored how the effects from a single strike can ripple far beyond the immediate impact zone. At the same time, the incident revealed a broader and more urgent issue. Military operations are not supposed to target civilian infrastructure, particularly when it belongs to neutral third parties uninvolved in the conflict. While international humanitarian law (IHL) explicitly prohibits attacks on such facilities unless they are being used for military purposes, the reality on the ground is far less clear-cut. In contemporary conflicts, the line between civilian and military use can blur quickly, creating space for competing interpretations and contested justifications. The Legal Grey Zone of Modern Warfare Although the legal framework is clear on paper, its practical application has become increasingly strained in recent conflicts. The increasing use of drones, long-range precision munitions, and cyber tools has blurred the distinction between civilian and military infrastructure and has outpaced the mechanisms designed to protect them. Energy pipelines, ports, and terminal facilities - which once lay far from the frontlines - can now be struck at minimal cost and with limited attribution. This technological shift has opened a grey zone that existing IHL was never designed to manage, heightening the urgency for clearer norms and enforcement tools. The real challenge lies not in the absence of legal norms but in the lack of mechanisms to enforce them, particularly in cases where neutral countries’ assets become collateral damage. There is, therefore, an argument for the introduction of a new international legal framework – or supplementing existing provisions via a UN protocol – to safeguard critical infrastructure. This is especially relevant in an era of precision weapons and drone warfare, where pipelines, energy terminals, and logistics hubs increasingly fall within potential strike zones. Yet the implementation of such a framework faces complications. Under existing IHL, dual-use infrastructure, such as pipelines that may carry resources for both civilian and military use, can be deemed legitimate military targets. Ukrainian officials have justified strikes on Russian energy...

11 months ago

Finance

Central Asia’s Digital Currency Ambitions: New Opportunities and Old Constraints

Central Asia is entering a period of accelerated financial transformation. Kyrgyzstan has launched one of the world’s first state-backed gold-backed stablecoin, USDKG, a digital asset fully backed by physical gold and issued under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Finance. Simultaneously, Kazakhstan is advancing one of the most mature central bank digital currency (CBDC) initiatives in the post-Soviet space: the digital tenge (national currency). Uzbekistan is developing its own digital economy framework, while Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are slowly initiating financial modernization. Amid these developments, Central Asia is emerging as a surprisingly bold laboratory for digital finance. This raises a pressing question: can the region develop a unified digital currency ecosystem that reduces dollar dependency, facilitates cross-border transactions, and enhances economic sovereignty? Strategic Logic of Digital Integration The idea of a regional digital currency is no longer utopian. Central Asia is one of the world's most significant hubs for cross-border remittances. In 2024 alone, migrants sent back a record $5.8 billion to Tajikistan (45% of GDP), approximately $15 billion to Uzbekistan, $2.9 billion to Kyrgyzstan, and $258 million to Kazakhstan. The current system is costly, slow, and heavily reliant on the dollar. Digital currencies could drastically reduce transaction costs for both migrant workers and businesses. In remote areas, where banking infrastructure is underdeveloped, cash still dominates. CBDCs could allow citizens to access state payment services directly, bypassing commercial banks. Digital finance also offers protection against external economic shocks, sanctions, and volatility. Coupled with the digitalization drives in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, and regional integration ambitions, such as Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s proposal to create a Central Asian Community, conditions are forming for financial cooperation. Diverse National Models Approaches to digital currency vary significantly. Kazakhstan’s digital tenge, led by the National Bank, emphasizes institutional stability, security, and integration with existing banking systems. A full launch is expected by the end of 2025. Kyrgyzstan has taken a more unconventional route. Its USDKG stablecoin, built on the Tron blockchain and backed by gold, aims to assert financial autonomy. However, it raises concerns about transparency, sustainability, and the reaction of traditional banks. A gold-backed stablecoin also directly challenges dollar dominance. Crypto analysts such as Ryan Adams speculate that Washington may be monitoring Kyrgyzstan’s experiment closely, fearing it could inspire similar moves in India, China, and Brazil. Uzbekistan is advancing its digital economy cautiously. While its government maintains strict cryptocurrency controls, this regulatory clarity may lay groundwork for a CBDC, though it limits space for innovation. Tajikistan and Turkmenistan remain on the sidelines, but rising demographic pressures, migration, and logistics projects are nudging both toward digital finance. The lack of coordination among these models represents both an opportunity for experimentation and a barrier to integration. Key Challenges Despite growing momentum, the road to a unified digital architecture in Central Asia remains fraught. The first major obstacle is regulatory fragmentation. Digital currencies require legal reforms across currency legislation, taxation, customs, and anti-money laundering/counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) protocols. At present, each state operates independently, making regional harmonization...

11 months ago

Peace Talks

Opinion: After the UN Gaza Resolution – Kazakhstan’s Potential Role

The implementation of any new approaches aimed at a rapid, peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict, including the latest UN Security Council resolution, which authorizes the deployment of International Stabilization Forces (ISF), shows that the international community is once again reaching the limits of tools that rely solely on security measures, temporary control, and external administration. Even the most carefully calibrated political or administrative frameworks cannot produce sustainable results unless the ideological nature of the conflict, including its spiritual, historical, and value-based foundations, is changed. It is increasingly clear today that peace in the Holy Land requires not only diplomatic and humanitarian efforts, but also a deep dialogue between the religious and civilizational traditions of the region. In this context, the experience of Kazakhstan, which initiated the creation of a unique collective mechanism for religious reconciliation, deserves particular attention. After lengthy discussions, the UN Security Council approved the U.S.-proposed resolution to form an international stabilization force in Gaza. That means authorizing external actors - for the first time through a UN-mandated transitional authority - to participate in Gaza’s administrative and security arrangements. Thirteen countries supported the resolution, with only Russia and China abstaining. This step creates a new legal reality: the international community now holds a formal mandate to support Gaza’s security, humanitarian access, and reconstruction. Yet the resolution raises another question: will this become the foundation for lasting peace, or merely another temporary structure that keeps the situation under control without changing its essence? The U.S.-Israeli planning model - widely discussed in reporting - proposing dividing Gaza into "green" and "red" zones, reflects an approach in which security replaces reconciliation. Historical cases, such as Bosnia and Lebanon, suggest to many analysts that such strategies rarely lead to sustainable stability. Territorial divisions, from Bosnia to Lebanon, tend to freeze conflicts rather than resolve them. The Palestinian enclave risks becoming an example of a “permanent transitional zone,” where military stability exists without political resolution or trust. In the future, a divided Gaza could face humanitarian collapse, intensified radicalization, and deep fractures in how the Islamic world perceives the West, especially if European troops are deployed. All this underscores a key point: without addressing the ideological and religious dimensions of the conflict - as many experts argue - territorial schemes remain temporary. The conflict in the Holy Land cannot be resolved solely with demarcation maps and international mandates. Breaking the deadlock requires more than another control mechanism; it requires a new architecture of reconciliation. And it must engage the roots of the conflict, including religious thinking, historical grievances, and cultural trauma, rather than its surface-level manifestations. Kazakhstan can play a unique role here. It is not just a new participant in the Abraham Accords, but a country with remarkable political, diplomatic, and spiritual legitimacy. It enjoys the trust of the Islamic world, maintains stable relations with Israel, is perceived by the West as a neutral partner, and has a successful record of coordinating great-power and regional actor efforts, such as the Astana process on...

11 months ago

Geopolitics

Opinion: Multi-Vectorism 2.0 – Kazakhstan Seeks Balance in a Shifting Geopolitical Landscape

The world is reverting to the logic of bloc confrontation. Sanctions regimes, technological barriers, and deepening mistrust between major powers are compelling medium-sized states to chart independent courses. Kazakhstan stands at the center of this evolving geopolitical matrix. While Moscow remains a vital partner in defense and energy, Astana is simultaneously cultivating strong ties with other global power centers, including China, the U.S., Turkey, the European Union, and the Gulf states. Yet Kazakhstan refuses to align with any single bloc, adhering instead to a strategy of "flexible autonomy", cooperating broadly while preserving its sovereignty. Russia: Alliance with Strategic Boundaries On November 11-12, 2025, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. The two leaders signed a declaration on a comprehensive strategic partnership and alliance, reaffirming cooperation on security, energy, and logistics projects. Key discussions included the gasification of border regions, the modernization of energy infrastructure, and the transit of Russian energy via Kazakhstan. Tokayev emphasized Kazakhstan’s interest in a stable and prosperous Russia, calling Putin a “statesman of global stature.” Still, this alignment does not supplant Kazakhstan’s multi-vector policy. The Moscow visit directly followed Tokayev’s talks in Washington, underscoring that Astana views relations with Russia as one of several strategic pillars. The U.S.: Investment and Critical Minerals Diplomacy During Tokayev’s visit to the U.S. in early November 2025, he and President Donald Trump oversaw the signing of 29 agreements totaling approximately $17 billion. The deals spanned industry, energy, digitalization, education, and innovation. Highlights in recent collaboration between Kazakhstan and the U.S. include a $2.5 billion John Deere production facility in Kostanay and Turkestan, a $1.1 billion development of tungsten deposits, and over $1 billion in digital infrastructure cooperation with companies such as Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Oracle, and Starlink. Leading global funds also pledged roughly $1 billion in new investments. These agreements reflect growing trust and a shared commitment to investment-driven, high-tech cooperation. China: Strategic Synergy and Technological Convergence China remains Kazakhstan’s largest trading partner and a cornerstone of its eastern vector. During Tokayev’s October 17, 2023 visit to Beijing, he and President Xi Jinping reaffirmed a “comprehensive strategic partnership” built on political trust and economic cooperation. In June 2025, Xi Jinping visited Astana for the second China-Central Asia Summit, where he and Kassym‑Jomart Tokayev reinforced their countries’ “comprehensive strategic partnership”, oversaw deals spanning energy, infrastructure, agriculture, and digital technology. Later that year, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Tianjin, the two leaders used the platform to deepen cooperation within a multilateral framework, promoting connectivity and regional trade under the Belt and Road Initiative. Turkey: Civilizational Ties and Strategic Growth Ties between Kazakhstan and Turkey are underpinned by shared cultural and historical foundations. At the fifth High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council meeting in Ankara on July 29, 2025, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan welcomed Tokayev, reaffirming Turkey’s role as a major investor and educational partner. More than 12,000 Kazakh students are enrolled in Turkish universities. Defense cooperation is expanding under the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), and tourism and...

12 months ago

Geopolitics

Cyprus as a Mirror of Turkish Geopolitics: How Ankara Uses Northern Cyprus to Project Influence in Central Asia

Northern Cyprus has become a microcosm of Turkish foreign policy, a space where Ankara combines military presence, the ideology of “Turkic brotherhood,” and economic leverage. For Turkey, this territory is not merely a long-standing geopolitical dispute but a laboratory for a new diplomatic model centered on the vision of a “great Turkic world.” As noted by Stratfor, despite the decisive victory of Republican Turkish Party leader Tufan Erhürman in the October 19, 2025, presidential elections in the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), a candidate who supports renewed negotiations with the Republic of Cyprus and advocates for a federal model, Ankara has shown no intention of revising its entrenched two-state doctrine. Analysts suggest Turkey may apply economic pressure and diplomatic isolation, including suspension of subsidies and credit lines, should Erhürman attempt to implement a federal solution. Concurrently, Turkey is lobbying for the TRNC’s recognition within the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), aiming to set a symbolic precedent: if Turkic-speaking nations will not support each other, who will? For Central Asia, this initiative reflects Ankara’s commitment to unifying the Turkic world under its political leadership, extending far beyond cultural solidarity. Political Implications for Central Asia Turkey’s push to incorporate the TRNC into the OTS shifts the organization from a cultural bloc to a geopolitical instrument. Should Northern Cyprus gain observer status, Ankara will likely expect symbolic support from its Turkic partners. This poses a significant dilemma for Central Asian states. Aligning with Turkey could be perceived by Western actors as a breach of international law, while maintaining neutrality might be viewed as a rejection of Turkic unity. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan have so far emphasized adherence to international law and sovereignty. At the April 2025 EU-Central Asia summit in Samarkand, these states jointly reaffirmed UN Security Council resolutions from the early 1980s, which declared the TRNC’s independence and all related separatist actions legally invalid. Kyrgyzstan may face a more delicate challenge due to its deep humanitarian and educational ties with Turkey. Northern Cyprus thus serves as a litmus test for Turkic integration: how closely can nations align without compromising their political autonomy? Economic and Energy Dimensions Cyprus plays a strategic role in Turkey’s energy policy, linking the Caspian region, the Caucasus, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkish control over Northern Cyprus bolsters its influence over maritime logistics, offshore gas development, and export corridors. This holds direct relevance for Central Asia. A stronger Turkish position in the Mediterranean enhances its leverage over energy transit routes from the Caspian to Europe, particularly in relation to the Trans-Caspian pipeline and the Middle Corridor. Over time, Ankara is expected to use energy infrastructure as a tool for political engagement, promoting an “economy of Turkic solidarity”, offering mutual benefits, but often tied to strategic conditions. Security and Military Presence The TRNC functions as a prototype for Turkey’s military protectorate model, a way to retain control while presenting itself as a guarantor of stability. This model is echoed across the Turkic region through Turkey’s expanding military partnerships...

1 year ago

Caspian Sea

Kazakhstan Leads Regional Efforts to Save the Caspian Sea

Today, Central Asia and the Caspian littoral states face growing challenges that extend well beyond national borders. Climate change, water scarcity, land degradation, and the shrinking of the Caspian Sea are no longer only environmental concerns but matters of regional security and sustainable development. The Caspian Sea, the world’s largest inland body of water, has become a symbol of crisis. Its rapid decline threatens ecosystems, navigation, fisheries, and food security from the Caucasus to Central Asia. Dushanbe: ecology as a new agenda for regional security A week ago, Dushanbe hosted two major international events: the “Central Asia–Russia” Summit and the meeting of the CIS Heads of State Council. At both forums, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev called for moving from declarations to concrete action, proposing to Establish a Council of Ministers for Ecology among the Central Asian countries and Russia Develop an Interstate Program for the preservation of the Caspian Sea’s water resources Expand the use of space technologies to monitor transboundary water bodies These initiatives are part of a broader effort to build a new environmental framework for Eurasia, positioning Central Asia as a laboratory for sustainable solutions rather than a zone of ecological risk. The environmental disaster of the Caspian Sea The Caspian Sea is shrinking rapidly. According to data from Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Ecology, since 2006 its surface area has decreased by more than 31,000 square kilometers, and water levels have fallen by about 1.5 to 2 meters. Projections indicate severe consequences for spawning grounds, the Caspian seal population, port infrastructure, and the regional economy. The crisis mirrors the Aral Sea disaster, where environmental degradation caused widespread illness and social disruption. Experts warn that toxic dust from the exposed seabed could lead to respiratory diseases among millions of people. According to estimates by Save the Caspian Sea, the shoreline could retreat by as much as 89 kilometers, pushing fishing communities to the edge of survival. Falling sea levels already threaten unique wildlife, navigation, water supply, and agriculture, creating risks of migration and conflict. Because the Caspian is landlocked and not connected to the world’s oceans, its water losses cannot be naturally replenished. A coordinated response is needed, including sustainable water management, pollution control, and climate adaptation. The Caspian Sea as a crossroads of interests and contradictions The Caspian region today is more than an ecosystem; it is a geopolitical nexus where the interests of coastal states and global powers converge. Key transport routes such as the North–South Corridor and the Middle Corridor meet here, linking the economic, energy, and political interests of Russia, Iran, Turkey, China, and the European Union. The United States has also shown growing interest, particularly through its support for infrastructure projects in the South Caucasus and initiatives related to the Zangezur Corridor. Yet logistics, energy, and trade risk losing their purpose if the region’s natural foundation disappears. An ecological collapse could undermine multibillion-dollar investments, threaten food security, and turn the Caspian from a zone of cooperation into a battleground over resources. That is why saving...

1 year ago

Organization of Turkic States

Gabala 2025: What the Turkic World Will Discuss Amid Global Turbulence

On October 7, leaders of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) will gather in Gabala, Azerbaijan, for the 12th summit under the theme “Regional Peace and Security.” At first glance, it may look like another routine engagement. Yet against the backdrop of overlapping global crises, the forum is increasingly a test of the OTS’s maturity and relevance. The summit unfolds amid a turbulent international landscape. Afghanistan continues to cast a shadow over Central Asia: economic volatility, migration risks, and the activity of extremist groups remain sources of concern for OTS members. The ongoing war in Ukraine, meanwhile, is reshaping Eurasian transit routes, placing the bloc’s states in delicate positions between East and West. At the same time, violence in the Middle East is adding to the pressures on Turkey’s already complex foreign policy environment. The Middle Corridor at the Center A key theme in Gabala will be the advancement of the Middle Corridor, formally known as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route. This east–west route connects China with Europe via Kazakhstan, the Caspian ports of Aktau and Kuryk, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. Investments are moving forward across the chain: Kazakhstan is expanding port and rail capacity, Azerbaijan is modernizing the Port of Baku in Alat, Georgia is upgrading its railway hubs, and Turkey is reinforcing the Baku–Kars line. Once a logistical project, the corridor is evolving into a strategic framework that ties together economic, environmental, and security considerations. Customs harmonization, digital tracking systems, and sustainability standards are now discussed as much as cargo volumes. Security, Coordination, and Soft Power Security will also be on the table, though framed in practical rather than military terms. Issues such as counter-terrorism cooperation, cyber resilience, disaster response, and the safety of emerging transit corridors are likely to feature. In this sense, security is increasingly seen as the foundation for trade and investment rather than a standalone agenda. Beyond infrastructure, OTS continues to develop soft power tools. Educational exchanges, cultural cooperation, green energy initiatives, and water management projects are part of efforts to build intra-regional trust. The recently inaugurated UN Regional Center for the SDGs in Almaty provides another anchor, aligning the Turkic bloc with global sustainability frameworks. A Turning Point for the Turkic Council? Founded in 2009 primarily as a cultural and humanitarian forum, the OTS is now edging toward a broader role. By coordinating infrastructure projects, harmonizing regulations, and cautiously addressing security concerns, it is positioning itself as a relevant player in Eurasian affairs. Much will depend on whether Gabala produces more than communiqués. Concrete steps on the Middle Corridor, digital customs corridors, joint water initiatives, or disaster coordination could demonstrate that the OTS is maturing into a platform for practical solutions. While major breakthroughs are unlikely, even incremental progress would signal that the Turkic Council is becoming a pillar of regional stability and integration.

1 year ago

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next