logo
Tehran and Moscow missteps expose Caspian region faultlines

Tehran and Moscow missteps expose Caspian region faultlines

AllAfrica3 days ago
Both Iran and Russia are attempting to assert influence in the Caspian Sea region, but their recent miscalculations are provoking visible resistance.
Most recently, Azerbaijan's sharp responses to Tehran's accusations about hosting Israeli drones and to Moscow's deadly police raid on Azerbaijani nationals in Yekaterinburg (followed by Baku's cancellation of a Russian foreign ministry official's visit) highlight that not only Azerbaijan but the entire Caspian Sea region, including Central Asia, is increasingly unwilling to play the role of passive buffer.
These incidents, while seemingly bilateral, illuminate deeper structural shifts: the waning deterrent power of old hegemons and the emergence of a new regional assertiveness grounded in multi-vectorism and cooperative plurilateralism.
The Central Asian states are quietly observing the evolution of affairs in the South Caucasus, and vice versa. With the Organization of Turkic States gaining coherence, and with multiple trilateral cooperative structures nested within it, the South Caucasus-Central Asia macroregion is increasingly shaped not by vertical power projection but by lateral linkages.
The word 'unprecedented' is overused, but it is entirely accurate to observe that the emergence of the South Caucasus as a region relatively autonomous from larger neighborhood powers is without precedent.
The crucial geopolitical location of the South Caucasus between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, including its already deep and still-deepening links with Central Asia to the east and Europe to the west, makes the present-day evolution of the region one of those butterfly-wing-flapping phenomena that will have implications far beyond the local context, as the structure of the post–Cold War international system continues to evolve over the next two decades and undergoes transformation beyond.
It is instructive to begin with some brief historical background. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia had relative autonomy from both Russian/Soviet and Persian/Iranian spheres of influence only once before in the modern era. This was during the brief interlude from 1918 to 1921, when the three independent republics – the Democratic Republic of Georgia, the First Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic – were established.
Before then, one must go back to the mid-10th through the early 13th centuries to find a time when the region was not wholly subject to Russian, Persian or other imperial spheres.
During that time, different regional state formations flourished with relative independence from both the Abbasid Caliphate (by then in decline) and Persianate hegemonies, while Moscow – then not even yet a principality – remained entirely external to the region. These South Caucasus state formations included the Bagratid Kingdom of Armenia, the Kingdom of Georgia,and various Caucasian Albanian and Artsruni principalities.
The region we now call Azerbaijan was then in a politically and ethnoculturally intricate transitional state, governed by different semi-autonomous dynasties such as the Shirvanshahs, who maneuvered among Arab, Persian and Turkic influences.
The vernaculars spoken across the South Caucasus formed a complex mix consisting primarily of Northwestern Iranian languages, Northeast Caucasian languages, Kartvelian languages (Georgian being the most prominent but not the only one), Armenian, Indo-Iranian languages and Turkic languages (including the early forms of what evolved into Azerbaijani Turkic).
The Byzantine Empire had a presence but did not exercise consistent control over the highland South Caucasus interior. Seljuk Turkic incursions began in the 11th century, but political fragmentation and local resistance excluded their hegemony until the Mongol invasions. These began around 1220 and effectively ended this era of South Caucasus autonomy.
Thus, leaving aside the three years following the end of World War I – too short to qualify as a 'historical era,' properly speaking – the last time the South Caucasus was relatively autonomous from Russian, Persian and other spheres of influence was approximately 800 to 1,100 years ago: before the Mongol conquest and well before the flourishing of the Romanov, Safavid (and their successors) and Ottoman dynasties that define the emergence of the modern era in present-day historical consciousness.
Jumping to the present, the South Caucasus today anchors a westward corridor of strategic depth for Central Asia, offering the only viable east-west transit alternative to routes passing through Russia or Iran.
Azerbaijan arguably serves as the linchpin of this corridor, the critical enabler without which the system would not function. Its territory hosts and integrates essential infrastructure linking Central Asia with Turkey and onward to Europe, not through rhetorical connectivity but via physical corridors that are already operational and expanding.
At the core is the Middle Corridor (Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, TITR), which originates in Kazakhstan, crosses the Caspian Sea and runs through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey before entering European markets.
Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the re-imposition of sanctions, this route has gained heightened significance. The Middle Corridor is not merely a grand infrastructural vision; it rests on concrete, multilateral agreements and functioning multimodal logistics hubs.
A central node of the Middle Corridor is the Port of Alat, south of Baku, which accommodates container transshipment from maritime to rail and road traffic. It serves as the principal logistical hinge point between the trans-Caspian and South Caucasus transit systems.
The Baku–Tbilisi–Kars (BTK) railway provides a direct rail link from the Caspian basin to Anatolia and then to Europe, bypassing both Russian and Iranian territory. Its freight volume has significantly increased in recent years, particularly since early 2022. Its recently achieved capacity expansion and double-tracking of key segments establish it as a permanent artery of Eurasian transit.
Energy export infrastructure further increases Central Asia's focus on the South Caucasus. The Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) – a non-Russian and non-Iranian energy vector – transports Azerbaijani natural gas from the Caspian Sea to European markets. The expansion of SGC throughput, including interconnectors into Balkan networks and now East Central Europe, reflects its geostrategic irreversibility.
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are embedding the South Caucasus further into Central Asian strategy through growing energy and transport cooperation. In 2022 and 2023, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan signed successive agreements to boost oil transshipment via the Caspian, while Uzbekistan has similarly coordinated on containerized freight routes.
Trilateral and quadrilateral formats among Central Asian and South Caucasus states have begun to institutionalize regular coordination on such practical tasks as customs simplification, port throughput and freight schedule alignment.
Uzbekistan and even Turkmenistan – with the assistance of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan – are now becoming integrated more integrally into the Middle Corridor. International financial institutions, which had originally targeted only Kazakhstan in Central Asia, are now extending cooperation to other states in the region.
This development complements the coordination of customs harmonization and digital documentation among Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey to resolve non-physical bottlenecks to the west of the Caspian Sea.
From this perspective, it is clear that the South Caucasus no longer functions as a marginal buffer but is an active integrator of Central Asia into the broader Eurasian system.
Moreover, the region's infrastructural and diplomatic initiatives no longer depend upon great-power patronage. Instead, they reflect an emerging Eurasian pluralism anchored in mutual interests realized through concrete investments. These dynamics point toward nothing less than a re-patterning of Eurasia's modern-era geoeconomic core.
The infrastructural and diplomatic realignments across the South Caucasus and Central Asia are not isolated developments. They mark a reconfiguration of Eurasia's internal architecture, in which the ability to coordinate across domains – transport, energy, customs and digital systems – now carries more strategic weight than traditional bloc alignments or alliance rhetoric.
These regional actors are not immune to external pressure, but their increasingly self-directed orientation reflects the slow erosion of vertical hegemonic structures in favor of horizontal operational linkages.
This re-patterning gains further significance in view of China's growing presence in Central Asia. Rather than competing directly with Beijing, the South Caucasus offers a parallel route (complementary in many cases) for east–west exchange.
Azerbaijan's role is emblematic in this regard: It does not challenge China's infrastructural logic but instead mediates how external flows, including Chinese ones, connect to Western markets. This is a form of infrastructural agency that shapes the modalities and conditions under which regional and transregional integration takes place. Its function is one of filtering rather than resistance.
As the international system continues to shift through the late 2020s and into the 2030s, the Caspian region will increasingly matter, not just as a site of contestation between larger powers but as a space where smaller and middle powers consolidate meaningful influence. The logic of passive buffering is being replaced by active modulation.
The post–Cold War order may be bifurcating; it is not wrong to see, from a top-down structural perspective, a fundamental opposition between a US–led Anglosphere and a Chinese-led Sinosphere.
In the increasing disorder that will overtake the system's macrostructure for a dozen years starting in the early 2040s, what will provide continuity is the differentiated system of coordination among second-tier actors, who will increasingly define regional coherence while constraining great-power projection.
Azerbaijan's role in the emerging Central Asia–South Caucasus macroregion, indexed by its riposte against the recent hegemonic démarches by Russia and Iran, foretokens this broader re-patterning.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rio summit made clear BRICS is sliding towards irrelevance
Rio summit made clear BRICS is sliding towards irrelevance

AllAfrica

time16 hours ago

  • AllAfrica

Rio summit made clear BRICS is sliding towards irrelevance

The BRICS group of nations has just concluded its 17th annual summit in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro. But, despite member states adopting a long list of commitments covering global governance, finance, health, AI and climate change, the summit was a lackluster affair. The two most prominent leaders from the group's founding members – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – were conspicuously absent. One was Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, who attended only virtually due to an outstanding arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court over his role in the war in Ukraine. China's Xi Jinping avoided the summit altogether for unknown reasons, sending his prime minister, Li Qiang, instead. This was Xi's first no-show at a BRICS summit, with the snub prompting suggestions that Beijing's enthusiasm for the group as part of an emerging new world order is in decline. Perhaps the most notable takeaway from the summit was a statement that came not from the BRICS nations but the US. As BRICS leaders gathered in Rio, the US president, Donald Trump, warned on social media: 'Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy.' Trump has long been critical of BRICS. This is largely because the group has consistently floated the idea of adopting a common currency to challenge the dominance of the US dollar in international trade. Such a move makes sense if we focus on trade figures. In 2024, the value of trade among the BRICS nations was around US$5 trillion, accounting for approximately 22% of global exports. Member nations have always felt their economic potential could be fully realized if they were not reliant upon the US dollar as their common currency of trade. During their 2024 summit, which was held in the Russian city of Kazan, the BRICS nations entered into serious discussions around creating a gold-backed currency. At a time when the Trump administration is waging a global trade war, the emergence of an alternative to the US dollar would be a very serious pushback against US economic hegemony. But the freshly concluded BRICS summit did not present any concrete move towards achieving that objective. In fact, the 31-page Rio de Janeiro joint declaration even contained some reassurances about the global importance of the US dollar. There are two key obstacles hindering BRICS from translating its vision of a common currency into reality. First is that some founding member nations are uncomfortable with adopting such an economic model, in large part due to internal rivalries within BRICS itself. India, currently the fourth-largest economy in the world, has a history of periodic confrontation and strategic competition with China. It is reticent about adopting an alternative to the US dollar, concerned that this could make China more powerful and undercut India's long-term interests. Second is that the BRICS member nations are dependent on their bilateral trade with the US. Simply put, embracing an alternative currency is counterproductive when it comes to the current economic interests of individual countries. Brazil, China and India, for example, all export more to the US than they import from it. In December 2024, following his election as US president, Trump said: 'We require a commitment from these countries that they will neither create a new BRICS currency nor back any other currency to replace the mighty US dollar or they will face 100% tariffs and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful US economy.' This blunt message all but killed any enthusiasm that was there for this grand economic model. The BRICS group is a behemoth. Its 11 members together account for 40% of the world's population and economy. But the bloc is desperately short of providing any cohesive alternative global leadership. While Brazil used its position as host to highlight BRICS as a truly multilateral forum capable of providing leadership in a new world order, such ambitions are thwarted by the many contradictions plaguing this bloc. Among these are the tensions between founding members China and India, which have been running high for decades. There are other contradictions, too. In their joint Rio declaration, the group's members decried the recent Israeli and US attacks on Iran. Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio 'Lula' da Silva, also used his position as summit host to criticize the Israeli offensive in Gaza. But this moral high ground appears hollow when you consider that the Russian Federation, a key member of BRICS, is on a mission to destroy Ukraine. And rather than condemning Russia, BRICS leaders used the Rio summit to criticize recent Ukrainian attacks on Russia's railway infrastructure. BRICS's declared intention to address the issue of climate change is also problematic. The Rio declaration conveyed the group's support for multilateralism and unity to achieve the goals of the Paris agreement. But, despite China making significant advances in its green energy sector, BRICS includes some of the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases as well as several of the largest oil and gas producers. BRICS can only stay relevant and provide credible leadership in a fast-changing international order when it addresses its many inner contradictions. Amalendu Misra is a professor of international politics at Lancaster University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

If only we could expect surprises in Japan's Defense White Paper
If only we could expect surprises in Japan's Defense White Paper

AllAfrica

time19 hours ago

  • AllAfrica

If only we could expect surprises in Japan's Defense White Paper

Japan's 2025 Defense White Paper soon will be approved formally by the Cabinet. It's not quite fair to say that if you've seen one White Paper you've seen them all, but one can pretty much anticipate what's coming – while hoping for something noteworthy. The White Papers accurately describe the military/political threats to Japan – and for some years now the White Papers have explicitly declared the People's Republic of China as the main problem. Also, in the last few years the White Papers have expressed concern over Chinese and Russian military cooperation and activities in the region and around Japan. Taiwan will get a mention as a potential flash point threatening Japan's and regional security. But there will be no specific mention of Japanese support to improve Taiwan's defenses. That's left up to the United States – although Japan's aid to the Philippines (that will be mentioned in the White Paper) is intended to contribute to Taiwan's defense. When it comes to Taiwan, Tokyo is leaving the hard work up to the Americans. It would be nice if the White Paper said otherwise. Although the White Papers competently lay out the threats facing Japan, they come up short on the 'what to do about it' front. It's not that they don't try. But typically, White Papers call for buying some of this and some of that – as if buying more and specific hardware would solve Japan's defense problems and frighten off enemies. There will be some more ships and more aircraft on order. And, in recent years, it's long-range missiles that are the big thing. This is the so-called 'counterstrike capability' that is the panacea for Japan's defense. The White Paper needs to – but probably won't – describe a comprehensive, coherent plan for Japan's defense that includes: proper and adequate hardware; more personnel; better force organization, command and control, funding, war stocks, reserve force, logistics, casualty handling and ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance), etc. that makes the Japan Self Defense Force (JSDF) more, rather than less, of the sum of its parts. And watch to see if the White Paper talks about how the Japan Self-Defense Forces and US forces will operate together more effectively – to include combat operations. It probably won't, other than offering platitudes about Japan's new Joint Operations Command representing a sea-change of some sort. There will also be discussion of improving terms of service and living conditions of JSDF personnel. There always is. It's well-intentioned but won't be drastic enough to solve JSDF's severe manpower problems. What would? A huge pay increase, much better housing, decent pensions and something akin to the United States' GI Bill that offers lifetime benefits for veterans. And a little respect for JSDF personnel from Japan's ruling class would be nice. The White Paper will also describe Japan's efforts to strengthen relationships with other friendly nations through formal agreements, exercises, and exchanges. These are positive developments – especially given Japan's longtime refusal to do much on this score until recent years. But it's not enough to bolster Japan's defense in a major way. The US military tie-up is still indispensable. Japan's missile defense and space operations will get a mention – and this is a true bright spot. Japan has, quietly, developed a real capability here. All in all, the White Papers are clearly written, and they accurately describe threats facing Japan. But the prescriptions are, overall, piecemeal and don't usefully address Japan's fundamental defense shortcomings. Do everything in the White Paper and Japan and the JSDF still wouldn't be able to fight a war – or at least not very well. Since the Ministry of Defense has no real experience at this, it would do well do consult with people who do. Asking USINDOPACOM to send over a few good war planners would be a start. And then White Papers might be more interesting. Grant Newsham is a retired US Marine officer and former US diplomat. He was the first Marine liaison officer to the Japan Self Defense Force, and is a fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute. He is the author of the book When China Attacks: A Warning to America.

Trump to sit down with Netanyahu again for Gaza talks
Trump to sit down with Netanyahu again for Gaza talks

RTHK

timea day ago

  • RTHK

Trump to sit down with Netanyahu again for Gaza talks

Trump to sit down with Netanyahu again for Gaza talks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently in Washington, with the Gaza conflict on top of his agenda. Photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet again on Tuesday evening to discuss Gaza, a day after they met for hours while officials conducted indirect negotiations on a US-brokered ceasefire. Trump and Netanyahu dined together on Monday at the White House during the Israeli leader's third US visit since the president began his second term. Netanyahu spent much of Tuesday at the US Capitol, telling reporters after a meeting with House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson that while he did not think Israel's campaign in the Palestinian enclave was done, negotiators are "certainly working" on a ceasefire. He was due to meet in the afternoon with US Senate leaders before returning to the White House for another session with the Republican president. The Gaza war erupted when Hamas attacked southern Israel in October 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with 20 believed to be alive. (Reuters)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store