The Central Asia - Caucasus Institute at the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) recently hosted a webinar titled "Is Central Asia Stable?" The discussion explored regional stability in Central Asia.

The panel featured Dr. Svante Cornell, Director of AFPC's Central Asia-Caucasus Institute; Dr. Nargis Kassenova, Director of the Program on Central Asia at the Davis Center; and Dr. Jacob Zenn, Adjunct Associate Professor at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University. The panel was moderated by Ms. Laura Linderman, Director of Programs, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, AFPC.

Watch the full discussion below or on YouTube.

2022 Unrest
As Dr. Cornell explained, the episodes of violence in Central Asia during 2022 served as a reminder that the region remained vulnerable to internal and external forces that could have devastating effects. As detailed in his paper, these incidents included the January riots in Kazakhstan that spread from the west to Almaty; Tajikistan's May crackdown in Khorog, the capital of the Gorno-Badakshan autonomous region; July protests in Uzbekistan's Karakalpakstan region; and the September flare-up of border conflict between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Similar levels of violence had not been seen in Central Asia since 2022, raising the question of whether these instances were isolated remnants of COVID-induced unrest or indicators of larger regional instability. Despite these examples, Dr. Cornell noted that other forms of violence had not been apparent in Central Asia, such as large interstate conflicts, foreign-sponsored separatism, military coups, and Islamic militancy.

External Influences
Dr. Cornell discussed the negative effects of Russia's malign influence in fomenting instability in Central Asia. Dr. Kassenova contrasted this with China's role as a stabilizing force in the region, noting that China acted more predictably and with a longer strategic horizon than Russia. Due to its geographic position, China had a self-interest in promoting security cooperation, as Central Asia bordered Xinjiang, and in fostering regional connectivity to facilitate trade. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's endorsement of regional sovereignty became even more important. At the same time, anti-China sentiment among Central Asian populations limited China's reach in regional politics. Dr. Kassenova also noted that Central Asia found itself caught between U.S.-China rivalry, attempting to benefit from partnerships with both states while maintaining non-aligned status. Dr. Zenn asserted that the greatest threats from armed groups stemmed from ISIS Khorasan and Syria, although these threats remained moderate.

Economic and Institutional Vulnerabilities
Dr. Cornell highlighted institutional factors that created regional instability, including how security forces had contributed to episodes of violence. He also discussed the persistent nature of Soviet-era institutions, which created obstacles for reform attempts. These reforms—most notably in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan—sought to make state institutions more effective and accountable to the population, offering genuine hope for improvement. Dr. Kassenova highlighted a gap between reform visions and successful implementation, while noting regional cooperation between Tashkent and Astana and expressing hope for further institutionalization and identity-building to solidify regional stability.

Based on the AFPC webinar featuring Laura Linderman, Director of Programs at Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, AFPC; Nargis Kassenova, Director of the Program on Central Asia at the Davis Center, Harvard University; Jacob Zenn, Adjunct associate professor at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University; and Svante Cornell, Director of Research and Publications at AFPC's Central Asia-Caucasus Institute.

The Central Asia - Caucasus Institute at the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) recently hosted a virtual launch of its official American Strategy for Greater Central Asia. Watch the full discussion on YouTube.

The discussion featured S. Frederick Starr, Chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute; S. Enders Wimbush, Distinguished Fellow, Strategic Studies, AFPC; Svante Cornell, Director of Research, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute; Mamuka Tsereteli, Senior Fellow, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute; and Laura Linderman, Director of Programs, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute.

The panelists unveiled an ambitious new strategy that could reshape America's approach to a critical but overlooked region. Their comprehensive framework expands the definition of Greater Central Asia to include not just the five Central Asian republics, but also Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Mongolia, and Afghanistan—bringing them under a unified policy umbrella. This represents a bold departure from decades of fragmented engagement.

The stakes couldn't be higher. As global powers compete for influence, the panelists argued that the U.S. must pivot from outdated Cold War thinking that still views Greater Central Asia through a Soviet lens. Instead of treating the region as merely a chess piece in great power competition, they called for direct, meaningful partnerships built on four pillars: regional sovereignty, enhanced connectivity, economic opportunity, and robust security cooperation.

The message was clear: This expanded Greater Central Asia's strategic importance in modern geopolitics demands that America engage these nations as partners in their own right, not as afterthoughts to relationships with Russia or China.

Read the complete strategy here.

The American Foreign Policy Council’s Central Asian-Caucasus Institute recently hosted a webinar covering the development of intra-regional cooperation in Central Asia. The event featured two experts: retired Ambassador George Krol, former ambassador to three Central Asian countries and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central Asian Affairs, and Dr. Svante Cornell, the institute's director and a regional integration expert. Their discussion examined how regional cooperation has evolved in Central Asia, the current state of integration efforts, and future obstacles and opportunities for US engagement.

Watch the full discussion on YouTube. 

Historical Overview of Regional Cooperation 

Ambassador Krol opened the discussion by reflecting on U.S.–Central Asian relations since the republics gained independence after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. He noted that Washington's foreign policy circles had an early instinct to encourage regional cooperation, but despite cordial rhetoric from Central Asian partners, real progress failed to materialize. The new governments prioritized building domestic institutions and asserting their newly won sovereignty. Dr. Cornell emphasized that despite this focus on sovereignty and the failure of the short-lived Central Asian Union, there remained recognition of the need for cooperation. This was evident in initiatives such as the Aral Sea Fund and the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. Together, Krol and Cornell's discussion provided a nuanced understanding of the context that led to the creation of the C5+1 format under the Obama administration and the first C5 summit in Astana—notably held without outside powers present.

The Kazakhstan-Uzbekistan Partnership

Cornell and Krol suggested that no relationship within the region is more important for Central Asian integration than the one between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Their relative size and international standing mean these states drive the pace of integration: when aligned, progress advances quickly; when divided, momentum stalls. Yet, shaped by the legacy of forced cooperation under the Soviet Union, both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have generally shown restraint in interfering in their neighbors' domestic affairs. Cornell highlighted two key episodes that illustrate their evolving role in regional conflict management. In 2010, amid unrest in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan evacuated the Kyrgyz president, preventing further destabilization, while Uzbekistan notably refrained from intervening despite ethnic ties to the persecuted Uzbek minority. More recently, during clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in the Ferghana Valley, both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan acted as mediators in trilateral talks, helping to ease tensions. Together, these cases demonstrate how regional leaders are increasingly capable of addressing security crises through their own conflict resolution efforts.

The Changing Geopolitical Landscape 

The discussion shifted to C5 and C5+1 relations amid Russia's war in Ukraine and China's growing influence. Cornell noted that the war in Ukraine has heightened Central Asia's awareness of sovereignty and territorial integrity, reinforcing the value of regional cooperation. He also observed that China's expanding economic presence adds both opportunities and dependencies, complicating integration efforts. Krol emphasized that Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan continue to play pivotal roles, mediating disputes and advancing coordination, while smaller states exercise caution to protect their sovereignty. In this new geopolitical context, even Turkmenistan has moved away from its historic isolationism, redefining its neutrality to participate more actively in regional initiatives.

Impediments and the Future of External Engagement 

Finally, the speakers considered potential limits of integration and opportunities for U.S. engagement. Both Cornell and Krol highlighted that limited people-to-people exchanges, weak educational ties, and varying historical perspectives constrain deeper integration. These factors illustrate both the progress made and the challenges that remain in fostering a shared Central Asian identity. They agreed that practical issues such as location, budget, staffing, and bureaucratic capacity must be considered for regionalism to endure. While presidential-level commitments are important, long-term success depends on cooperation among government ministries and agencies at lower levels. Both speakers stressed that a more integrated region will ultimately be more prosperous and resilient. Even if sometimes more resistant to U.S. influence, it will ultimately be in American interests to promote a more stable Eurasia.

by Svante E. Cornell and Damjan Krnjević Mišković

AFPC Press/Armin Lear, 2025

Link to Amazon and Kindle Edition

Link to Introduction, "The Second Karabakh War and a New Caucasus: The Regional Peace Dividend Playing Out at the Card Table"

Link to the Forward

Link to the Table of Contents

The outcome of the Second Karabakh War is a watershed event in the modern history of Eurasia. It represents the moment of conception of a new South Caucasus, the only part of the world that borders on Russia, Turkey, and Iran. Unsurprisingly, external powers like the U.S., China, the EU, India, and the GCC states are all taking greater interest in its future.

Written for scholars and designed for classroom use, AFTER KARABAKH: War, Peace, and the Forging of a New Caucasus is the go- to book for anyone trying to make sense of the geopolitics of this often misunderstood conflict. As the editors argue in their Introduction, the end of the conflict over Karabakh “will serve as a catalyst for the instauration of a much anticipated peace dividend centered on optimizing the region’s strategic connectivity potential.”

As Michael Doran writes in the Foreword, AFTER KARABAKH “performs a great service to students of international politics. We now have in one volume a set of comprehensive analyses of the main dimensions of the Second Karabakh War. By producing sharp, judicious, and readable accounts, the authors, who are all internationally recognized experts in their fields, have ensured that this volume will become the standard account of the conflict.”

Editors
Svante E. Cornell is Research Director of the American Foreign Policy Council’s Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and a co-founder of the Institute for Security and Development Policy (ISDP)

Damjan Krnjević Mišković is Professor of Practice at ADA University, where he serves concurrently as Director for Policy Research, Analysis, and Publications at the Institute for Development and Diplomacy and Co-Editor of Baku Dialogues.

Table of Contents

Introduction: The Second Karabakh War and a New Caucasus: The Regional Peace Dividend Playing Out at the Card Table;  Damjan Krnjević Mišković and Svante E. Cornell

The Geopolitics of the Caucasus and the Road to War; Svante E. Cornell

Perfect Timing and Statecraft: On the Onset of the Second Karabakh War; Damjan Krnjević Mišković

The Foreign and Security Policies of Armenia and Azerbaijan, 1994-2020; Robert M. Cutler

The Evolving Role of the West in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict; Svante E. Cornell

Sitting on Two Chairs: Russia's Pragmatic, Transactional Approach to the Karabakh Question; Nikolas K. Gvosdev

Gradually, then Suddenly: The Evolution of Tiirkiye's Role in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict; Michael A. Reynolds

Iran's Role in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict; Brenda Shaffer

Armenia's Pashinyan Conundrum: Implications of the Second Karabakh War; Onnik James Krikorian

No More War, Not Yet Peace: On the Second Karabakh War and Its Aftermath; Fariz Ismailzade

Military Lessons from the Second Karabakh War; Niklas Nilsson

The Geopolitical Causes and Consequences of the Second Karabakh War: Armenian Tragedy, Azerbaijani Vindication, and Prospects for Peace; Damjan Krnjević Mišković

The Silk Road Studies Program is pleased to highlight recent media coverage featuring Senior Fellow for Eurasia and Director of Programs at Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Laura Linderman, who was quoted extensively in an interview with Voice of America regarding the concerning political developments in Georgia.