By Svante E. Cornell

Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program
Silk Road Paper
December 2025

Click Here to Download

Executive Summary:

In October 2025, the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) convened a pivotal  summit in Gabala, Azerbaijan, demonstrating its emergence as a significant  geopolitical entity on 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  gathering marks a critical juncture in the organization’s development,  solidifying its influence in a region that links the Mediterranean to Central Asia.

The Gabala summit showcased the OTS's commitment to enhancing  collaboration on various fronts, including security, defense, economic  development, transportation, digitalization, and sustainable energy. A  notable development was the introduction of the "OTS plus" framework,  which aims to strengthen partnerships with non-Turkic states in the vicinity.  This evolution reflects a remarkable transformation for Turkic cooperation,  escalating from modest aspirations to a robust international organization in  a remarkably short period.

The emergence and rapid development of the OTS challenge conventional  frameworks employed by Western bureaucracies to assess the geopolitics of  the region. Typically categorized into rigid geographic divisions,  bureaucracies covering the Middle East, Europe, and Central Asia often  overlook the intricate relationships across these boundaries. Turkic  cooperation ignores these geographic categorizations, as it not only resides within the context of former Soviet republics but also includes Turkey—a  pivotal player straddling both Europe and the Middle East. 

A key element of Turkic Cooperation is the relatively equal standing of its  members. While Türkiye is obviously considerably larger than the other  members, it is telling that the main drivers of Turkic cooperation for many  years were Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan; and that Turkic cooperation really  took off following Uzbekistan’s renewed enthusiasm for the initiative. In  other words, the perception of the OTS as somehow beholden to Turkish  President Erdogan is a red herring.

The ethnolinguistic character of Turkic cooperation has led many observers  to remain skeptical, as it has led to the exclusion of non-Turkic states. Yet on  a practical level, the OTS has displayed an openness to cooperate with  countries like Georgia; more recently, the inclusion of an “OTS plus” format  could create conditions for a more inclusive approach to regional states that  are not majority Turkic.

Given the current geopolitical climate, the rise of the OTS is poised to  reshape power dynamics across a broad expanse of territory, prompting a  reevaluation of strategic frameworks by Western governments and  multilateral organizations. Understanding the implications of the OTS's  evolution will be crucial for policymakers and stakeholders engaged in the  region and beyond.

By Laura Linderman, Alexander John Paul Lutz, and Eleanor Pugh

Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program
Silk Road Paper
October 2025

Click Here to Download Armenia's Strategic Dilemma

Executive Summary:

Armenia faces significant challenges to its political stability and geopolitical security as it attempts a high-stakes strategic pivot away from its traditional Russian security patron and toward the West—a reorientation driven not by choice but by necessity, as the country finds itself militarily inferior, diplomatically isolated, and abandoned by unreliable security guarantors.

This reorientation, catalyzed by Russia’s failure to uphold its commitment to defending its Armenian ally from repeated Azerbaijani incursions into its territory, has given way to internal political turmoil and external security vulnerabilities. Most worryingly, this has created a dangerous feedback loop where the very concessions required for strategic survival generate domestic opposition that threatens to undermine the partnerships Armenia desperately needs. This piece argues that Armenia’s polarized domestic political environment—with opposition to the government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan driven, primarily, by the trauma and insecurity of abandoning historical narratives, territorial claims, and institutional protections—both results from and impedes its geopolitical realignment, creating a vicious cycle where external security pressures exacerbate internal divisions, which, in turn, trouble the country’s moves toward a closer partnership with the West. Recently, the government’s pivot has mobilized a diverse opposition coalition, counting among its ranks clergy of the Armenian Apostolic Church, disillusioned oligarchs, the exiled leadership of the Republic of Artsakh, and ordinary citizens unwilling to accept that former enemies can become partners.

Despite such opposition, Armenia has achieved tangible results from Western engagement—including defense cooperation with France, weapons partnerships with India, and security exercises and strategic partnership agreements with the United States. And, most significantly, the recently proposed “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) would give the United States exclusive development rights to a transit route straddling Armenia’s southern border—a transit route which would transform regional connectivity by linking former adversaries (that is, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey) to one another in a mutually beneficial economic arrangement. Yet, each concession required to pull off the pivot (especially those surrounding normalization with Azerbaijan and Turkey) provides ammunition for opposition mobilization and risks electoral backlash.

The 2026 elections will provide the definitive test as to whether or not Pashinyan’s government can break the feedback loop. For a small state facing existential pressures, failure to do so could result in democratic backsliding (risking alienating Western partners), subordination to hostile neighbors, or even further territorial losses. Indeed, as Armenia contends with an assertive Azerbaijan, hostility from erstwhile ally Russia, pushback from Iran over the prospect of increased American influence in the region, and its own tumultuous domestic politics, it must tread carefully if it wishes to avoid such a fate.

Of course, this moment is not just one characterized by existential danger. For Armenia, it presents an unprecedented opportunity to emerge on the world stage—to resolve its longstanding grievances with neighboring Turkey and Azerbaijan, to establish fruitful economic partnerships with countries around the world, and to finally break free of its stifling dependence on Russia and Iran. For the United States and its Euro-Atlantic allies, meanwhile, Armenia holds considerable value as a stable partner in the strategically vital South Caucasus region. Success could see a sovereign, stable, and democratic Armenia contribute significantly to broader regional stability and prosperity, perhaps even serving as a bastion against adverse influence from nearby Russia and Iran.

By John DiPirro and Laura Linderman

Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program
Silk Road Paper
July 2025

Click Here To Download The West's Inflection Point in the Caucasus: Untying the Georgian Knot.

Executive Summary:

Since the summer of 2019, Georgia has cycled through periods of crisis and partial recovery, with the increasingly kleptocratic and authoritarian Georgian Dream (GD) government developing sophisticated methods to control public discourse and opinion. The fundamental question that Western policymakers can no longer avoid is: What is more important—a democratic Georgia or a cooperative, friendly Georgia? For years, these aspirations were aligned, but today they have diverged into mutually exclusive policy pathways, each carrying profound implications for regional stability and the credibility of Western engagement. 

While many Western analysts point to Georgian Dream and its founder, billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, as the primary drivers of democratic decline, this view oversimplifies the situation. A fuller understanding must also consider the opposition's failure to offer credible alternatives, the legacy of Mikheil Saakashvili’s United National Movement (UNM) party, and inconsistent Western engagement, all contributing to instability and strategic ambiguity. 

In recent discussions with regional experts, civil society leaders and opposition figures, a common critique emerged: the absence of a coherent, responsive, and consistently updated Western policy toward Georgia. Shifting Western priorities have undermined long-term strategic alignment, especially given evolving global dynamics and the growing influence of powers like Russia and China. Given global shifts—including a more transactional U.S. foreign policy under the Trump Administration and Europe's growing focus on defense infrastructure—will the West remain committed to Georgia, or has "Georgia fatigue" taken hold? 

This analysis examines the history and impact of Western support for Georgia, particularly in economic development, energy cooperation, and democratic reform. While Georgians are ultimately responsible for their national trajectory, the West must reckon with its strategic missteps that have shaped Georgia's current geopolitical position. Western policymakers must recalibrate their approach for an evolving international order and clearly articulate their desired relationship with Georgia. This recalibration requires acknowledging past errors and choosing whether to remedy them or pursue a pragmatic reset in relations.