Geopolitics - The Times Of Central Asia

Viewing results 1 - 6 of 117

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

Belousov’s Bishkek Warning: Russia Uses SCO Meeting to Target Outside Influence in Central Asia

The April 28 meeting of defense ministers from the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), held in Kyrgyzstan’s capital, Bishkek, received relatively modest coverage in Central Asia and China. Russia’s Ministry of Defense, however, used the routine gathering to send a sharper message: Moscow remains opposed to any non-regional military presence in Central Asia. According to the SCO Secretariat, the meeting was attended by defense ministers from member states, the organization’s Secretary-General, and the director of the Executive Committee of the SCO’s Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure. “During the meeting, the parties held a substantive exchange of views on pressing regional and international security issues, noting persistent challenges and threats, including international terrorism, extremism, transnational crime, as well as emerging risks in information and cybersecurity,” the SCO said in a general statement. The statement also emphasized the need to strengthen trust between the armed forces of member states, expand practical cooperation, conduct joint exercises, exchange experience, and develop mechanisms for military cooperation within the SCO. China’s Defense Minister Dong Jun used similar institutional language. According to Xinhua, Dong said the SCO should uphold the international order, improve security governance, and “eliminate the sources of turmoil and conflict through shared development.” He also called for deeper defense and security cooperation among member states. Kazakhstan’s Defense Minister Dauren Kosanov presented a report on the country’s approach to strengthening regional security, developing cooperation within the SCO, and improving joint responses to contemporary challenges, according to Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Defense. The ministry said participants also discussed the expansion of practical cooperation between defense agencies and approved a cooperation plan for SCO defense ministries for 2027. Defense ministers from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan also held bilateral talks on the sidelines of the meeting, discussing military-technical cooperation, joint training, experience-sharing among officers, and initiatives aimed at strengthening regional security. Uzbek media described the talks as being held in a constructive and friendly atmosphere. Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov adopted a markedly different tone. His remarks were not limited to general SCO language about counterterrorism or cyber threats. They directly targeted the possible presence of outside powers in Central Asia. “We are closely monitoring attempts by non-regional states to establish a military presence and address logistical tasks in Central Asia. We consider this unacceptable,” Belousov said, according to RIA Novosti. Belousov also expressed concern about Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, warning that militants from crisis zones could infiltrate neighboring countries, including the SCO space. Belousov further argued that U.S. activity in the Asia-Pacific region was having a destabilizing effect. “Their efforts to reshape the regional security system into a U.S.-centric model by strengthening military-political structures under Washington’s control provoke tensions, undermine regional stability, and increase the risks of armed conflict,” he said. The contrast was striking. The SCO Secretariat spoke in broad terms about common threats and institutional cooperation. China emphasized development, governance, and multilateral stability. Russia used the same setting to issue a direct warning over Central Asia. Iran added another layer to...

China

Opinion: Expect China to take its 2+2 diplomacy to Central Asia

China does not do military alliances. Its declared posture is one of non-interference in other nations’ internal affairs. Yet Beijing has long understood that commercial ties alone cannot anchor strategic relationships; only security partnerships can. China’s recent experiments with 2+2 security dialogues – bringing together foreign and defense ministers – signal that it is seeking to move beyond an economics-first approach. The most likely next candidates for this format are Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, all of which share borders with China. For Central Asian governments, a 2+2 with China may hold appeal, particularly as they seek to manage instability spilling over from Afghanistan at a time when Russia’s security role is being strained by its war in Ukraine. After years of hoping that engagement could stabilize Afghanistan, Central Asian states have largely shifted to a policy of containment – seeking to insulate themselves from cross-border militant threats, narcotics flows and refugee movements rather than attempting to reshape Afghanistan’s internal trajectory. For Beijing, the objective would be to consolidate partnerships across the Eurasian heartland – an outcome Washington would prefer to counter. China shares Central Asia’s risk-management approach toward Afghanistan. Like its neighbors, Beijing has little appetite for deep involvement inside the country itself, focusing instead on preventing instability from spilling northward toward Xinjiang or disrupting Belt and Road corridors that run through the region. A 2+2 format offers China a way to institutionalize security coordination without violating its long-standing aversion to formal alliances. Last week, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Defense Minister Dong Jun traveled to Phnom Penh to hold China’s first-ever 2+2 dialogue with Cambodia. Wang told reporters that China is willing to develop the mechanism into a “strategic platform” for enhancing political and defense security cooperation. He described it as a key instrument for cementing mutual assistance and solidarity, and for advancing the construction of a China-Cambodia “community with a shared future.” Wang also said China was prepared to work with Cambodia to build an “Asian security model” based on shared security and on seeking common ground while reserving differences. China’s deepening security engagement with Cambodia comes as the Southeast Asian nation remains locked in a border dispute with Thailand. Although Wang’s itinerary took him next to Bangkok, Beijing chose to hold a 2+2 only with Cambodia – notably the non-U.S. ally in this pairing. China is new to the 2+2 format. Last April, Beijing hosted its first ever 2+2 with a foreign country – with Indonesia. The trajectory suggests further 2+2 engagements ahead, including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – the three Central Asian states that border China. In several aspects, Central Asia may be a more conducive environment for this diplomacy than Southeast Asia: there are no maritime disputes, and the countries are not embedded in U.S. alliance structures. Instead, there is a convergence around defensive security priorities – particularly border control and crisis management linked to Afghanistan – making the 2+2 format a natural fit. China under President Xi Jinping has always had an eye...

EU Sanctions

EU Sanctions Put Kyrgyzstan’s Transit Trade Under Scrutiny

The European Union has stepped up sanctions pressure on Kyrgyzstan by restricting supplies of sensitive technologies and imposing measures on the country’s financial institutions. The decision, adopted as part of the EU’s 20th sanctions package against Russia, reflects growing concerns in Brussels that the Central Asian republic may be used as a transit hub to circumvent restrictions. The move marks a shift in the EU’s approach, from diplomatic warnings to tighter controls on trade and financial channels in third countries. A key argument for Brussels has been trade data. According to European Commission materials, imports of sensitive goods from the EU to Kyrgyzstan surged by nearly 800% in 2025 compared to pre-war levels. Meanwhile, exports of similar goods from Kyrgyzstan to Russia rose by approximately 1,200%. European officials say this dynamic indicates a systemic pattern of re-exports. As a result, the EU has added Kyrgyzstan to its list of countries posing a “systematic and persistent” risk of sanctions circumvention, a designation previously applied only selectively. The restrictions primarily target dual-use goods. These include metalworking machinery and numerically controlled equipment, as well as a wide range of telecommunications devices, from routers and modems to data, voice, and image transmission equipment. According to the EU, these categories present the highest risk of being used by Russia’s defense-industrial complex. European exporters will face tougher checks to show that sensitive goods are not likely to be re-exported to Russia. This creates an additional administrative barrier and raises risks for businesses. For many companies, the effect is a ‘presumption of guilt’ regime around trade with Kyrgyzstan. The sanctions package also affects the country’s financial system. Keremet Bank and Capital Bank have been included in the restrictions, which are set to take effect in May 2026. Particular attention has been paid to the cryptocurrency sector. The EU has sanctioned TengriCoin, a Bishkek-registered entity linked to the Meer platform, which European regulators say facilitated trading in a stablecoin affiliated with Russia’s Promsvyazbank. This move signals the EU’s expanding sanctions policy into digital financial instruments increasingly used to bypass traditional restrictions. Additional measures affect the transport sector. Several Kyrgyz logistics companies have been restricted from accessing European infrastructure, including ports and transport networks. This is likely to increase shipping costs and complicate foreign trade operations, putting additional pressure on export-oriented businesses. Analysts also warn of a potential shortage of European industrial equipment on the Kyrgyz market. The risk of secondary sanctions may lead EU suppliers to withdraw even from legitimate transactions. The tightening of sanctions comes amid intensified foreign policy engagement by Kyrgyzstan. On the day the package was approved, President Sadyr Japarov reaffirmed a strategic partnership with Vladimir Putin during a visit to Moscow. At the same time, Bishkek is strengthening cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), preparing to host a summit and receive high-level delegations, including Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun. Kyrgyz authorities have previously criticized EU sanctions policy. Japarov has described it as unjustified and as pressure that hampers economic development. Despite a series...

Geopolitics

Political Analyst Karazhanov: Stability Is Central Asia’s Greatest Advantage

International events where Kazakhstan and Central Asia present their agenda and demonstrate the benefits of predictability bring significant advantages to the region. In an interview with The Times of Central Asia, Kazakh political analyst Zamir Karazhanov explains how the region is gradually changing its approach to addressing key challenges. According to Karazhanov, Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries, particularly Uzbekistan, have recently begun positioning themselves on the international stage in a far more pragmatic and modern way. A prime example is the speech delivered on April 17 by Kazakhstan’s President, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum in Turkey. Observers noted that Tokayev outlined the role Kazakhstan is seeking to play in the evolving geopolitical landscape. The key message was that global governance is becoming less effective through traditional institutions, while the role of so-called “middle powers” is increasing. These countries may not define the global order on their own, but they are capable of promoting peaceful solutions, engaging in dialogue, and offering predictability. In addition, on April 22, Astana hosted the first Regional Environmental Summit (RES), which brought together around 1,500 participants from Central Asia, the European Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Middle East. The forum aimed to develop practical solutions to environmental and climate challenges facing both the Eurasia region and the wider world. During the discussions, representatives of Central Asian countries presented a realistic assessment of environmental issues and proposed a number of solutions. Environmental Threats Karazhanov noted that Kazakhstan has long faced difficult environmental conditions. “In addition to urban pollution, we have zones of ecological disaster, such as the Aral Sea. The country [Kazakhstan] hosts numerous extractive industries, and it is landlocked, located deep within the continent. Any environmental catastrophe here would have far more severe consequences than in countries without such constraints. Climate change is intensifying, temperatures are rising, and Central Asia is already experiencing acute water shortages. Without timely measures, the situation could become critical,” he said. According to him, Kazakhstan has long been dealing with environmental migration and has proactively begun building the necessary legal and social frameworks. Conflicts over water resources have already occurred in Central Asia. Karazhanov emphasized the importance of including representatives of countries that regulate the region’s water systems in the Astana forum. “This creates an opportunity for dialogue. Take the example of the two rivers that feed the Aral Sea, the Amu Darya and Syr Darya. At one point, Kyrgyzstan suspended its participation in the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea because it felt its interests were constrained. It is essential to create a platform where all five countries in the region are satisfied with water distribution,” he said. He also highlighted Afghanistan as an increasingly important factor that has not been fully accounted for. As the country rebuilds after decades of conflict, its agriculture and other sectors will expand, increasing demand for water from transboundary rivers. “That is why the summit should be viewed in the broader context of regional development and good neighborly...

Iran

Central Asia Recalculates as the Iran War Enters a New Phase

Central Asia’s first response to the Iran war was public and urgent. Governments organized evacuations, welcomed a ceasefire, and watched the Strait of Hormuz because the region’s trade routes, fuel costs, and food prices were already under pressure. The next phase looks different. Following the April 12 collapse of U.S.-Iran talks in Islamabad, Washington moved to block maritime traffic entering and leaving Iranian ports. That step does not formally close Hormuz to all shipping, but it pushes the crisis into a more serious phase for any country or company still treating Iran as a viable corridor. That distinction is important in Central Asia because the region does not need a formal legal closure of Hormuz to feel the shock. It only needs insurers, banks, freight forwarders, airlines, and traders to decide that the southern option has become too risky for routine planning. That process was already underway. The route through Iran had come under strain in southern corridor traffic, food systems, and in the wider pricing of regional connectivity. A U.S. move against Iranian ports is likely to reinforce that view. Official statements across Central Asia still reflect the ceasefire moment more than the latest escalation. On April 8, Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev welcomed the truce and said he hoped it would support global trade and prosperity. Kyrgyzstan’s Foreign Ministry also welcomed the ceasefire and praised efforts to reduce tensions. Uzbekistan’s Foreign Ministry did the same, calling the truce an “important step toward de-escalating tensions,” and stressing that it should serve as a pathway to a broader political settlement. Tajikistan’s Foreign Ministry also welcomed the ceasefire agreement between Iran and the United States. Turkmenistan, meanwhile, had already taken a practical line, saying on March 4 that it was keeping all international checkpoints open and providing passage for foreign citizens, vehicles, and rail stock across the Turkmen-Iranian border. Since then, public messaging has lagged behind the latest escalation. By April 13, Qazinform’s foreign news flow had shifted to the failed Islamabad talks and Trump’s blockade order, while the latest publicly visible official positions elsewhere in the region still reflected the April 8 ceasefire. That does not mean backchannel diplomacy has stopped, but it does suggest that Central Asian governments prefer caution in public as the conflict shifts from direct strikes to pressure on shipping and trade. For the region, the economic logic is now clearer than the politics. Approximately 20% of global oil supplies and one-third of global fertilizer trade move through the Strait of Hormuz, while urea prices surged by almost 46% between February and March 2026. The World Bank’s April Europe and Central Asia Economic Update said growth in the developing economies of Europe and Central Asia is expected to slow to 2.1% in 2026, down from 2.6% in 2025, as the Middle East conflict, wider geopolitical tension, and trade fragmentation weigh on the region. Those pressures were already significant. The collapse of the main post-ceasefire diplomatic effort, followed by oil rising back above $100 a barrel, has made them harder...

CIS

Moldova Moves to Leave CIS as Post-Soviet Bloc Loses Another Member

Moldova’s parliament approved, in final reading on April 2, the country’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), with 60 deputies voting in favor. President Maia Sandu then promulgated the denunciation decrees, which were published in the Official Journal on April 8 and entered into force, with the Foreign Ministry set to notify the CIS. If Moldova’s withdrawal takes full legal effect after notification and the relevant notice period, eight CIS member states would remain: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The CIS was created immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a framework to manage the breakup and maintain post-Soviet cooperation among former republics. Moldova’s denunciation concerns a structure originally formed by 11 former Soviet states, not all 15 Soviet republics. Moldova’s exit further weakens the CIS politically, though the bloc will continue to exist if the remaining member states stay in place. Moldova has already approved the denunciation of the 1991 Agreement on the Establishment of the CIS, the related Protocol, and the 1993 CIS Statute. The Moldovan authorities say the CIS’s core values and principles are no longer being respected, especially the recognition of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. They cite Russia’s war against Ukraine, acts of aggression against Georgia, and the illegal military presence of Russian troops on Moldovan territory. Chisinau says the move is consistent with Moldova’s European path, while the European Union remains its main economic partner. Economic ties with the Commonwealth have significantly declined: in 2025, CIS countries accounted for 5.9% of Moldova’s exports, while the European Union accounted for 67.5%. Moldova’s final withdrawal from the CIS may not, therefore, come as a surprise to its other members. On January 19, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mihai Popșoi announced the start of the process to denounce the three core CIS agreements underpinning Moldova’s membership. “We are already in the process of getting approvals for the denunciation of three agreements with the CIS. They are the agreements that form the basis of our affiliation to the CIS, namely: the CIS Statute, the CIS Founding Agreement, and the Annex to this agreement,” Popșoi said. He added that this would mean Moldova was no longer a CIS member legally, while participation had already been suspended de facto. Moldova set a course toward breaking its remaining ties with its Soviet past after the 2020 presidential elections, when new president, Maia Sandu, announced a path toward EU integration and refused to participate in CIS summits. Moldova has spent the past several years unwinding CIS-linked agreements. As of January 2026, Moldovan officials said the country had signed 283 CIS agreements, of which 71 had already been rescinded, and about 60 more were in process. On December 12, 2025, Moldova’s parliament approved the denunciation of the 1992 Bishkek agreement on visa-free travel for CIS citizens. For Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and several other states, visa-free travel with Moldova remains in place under bilateral agreements. Moldovan authorities said the denunciation of the Bishkek agreement would affect...