Battle for Central Asia: the stakes are rising Experts weigh geopolitical shifts

After the conclusion of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, a shift in focus and an intensification of the struggle for Central Asia can be expected, Ainur Kurmanov, co-chair of Kazakhstan’s Socialist Movement, told EADaily in an interview.

According to him, the struggle for the region will continue with even greater intensity, as “the seizure of deposits of rare earth metals, tungsten, non-ferrous and precious metals, and other critical minerals by the Anglo-Saxons and Europeans leads to a colonial exploitation of territories, with all the resulting consequences.”

Kurmanov believes that there is a rapid geopolitical reorientation of the ruling elites in the former Soviet Central Asian republics toward the West, sharply shifting the balance of power in Kazakhstan and Central Asia in favour of the United States, the United Kingdom, the EU, as well as Japan and South Korea. According to him, these countries intend to extract the region’s resources to supply their defence industries and high-tech sectors.

It is worth examining the accuracy of his assumptions that, following a potential end to the active phase of the conflict in Ukraine, a new great-power struggle could emerge in Central Asia. Why is it so important for various political centres to exert decisive influence over this part of the post-Soviet space? What consequences might arise from competition between the West and the Russia–China axis in the region? And how does this align with the shared interests of both China and Europe in advancing the Middle Corridor project to facilitate an even greater flow of goods between them?

Renowned experts from Central Asia shared their thoughts on these questions with Caliber.Az.

Political analyst and scholar from Kazakhstan, Zhaxylyk Sabitov, noted that, in his view, Aynur Kurmanov is largely a political marginal figure.

“He doesn’t carry a significant agenda and isn’t really an expert in this field.

Secondly, when we talk about, broadly speaking, the ‘great game’ in Central Asia, what has been outlined is largely a Russian perspective. In reality, Kazakhstan pursues a multi-vector policy. It has no intention of simply following the interests of various external powers. In other words, it is not a chessboard—it has its own agency, just like the other Central Asian countries,” the expert said.

Sabitov also pointed out that Turkic integration and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) do not significantly influence these geopolitical processes, because one cannot escape one’s borders or geography.

“In other words, the fact that Kazakhstan borders Russia and China has a strong geopolitical impact. At the same time, however, it must be understood that Kazakhstan always views any external player that is not Russia or China as a potential benefit. Multi-vector diplomacy is therefore encouraged,” Sabitov emphasised.

Political commentator, Doctor of History, and Professor Askar Dzhakishev (Bishkek) stated that with the end of the “hot” phase of the confrontation between the West and Russia in Ukraine, the “cold” war will continue, but in the economic sphere.

“The sanctions regime against Russia will remain, and the increased activity of Western countries in Central Asia, it seems to me, is part of a plan to pull the region’s countries away from Russia, compensating for the Russian natural resources lost due to sanctions mainly with resources from Kazakhstan. The other Central Asian countries are considered secondary by the West—so to speak, ‘along for the ride.’ There is a significant imbalance in relations between the Central Asian states and the West.

If the Central Asian countries expect high-tech cooperation, the West is focused only on gaining access to natural resources, competing with Russian businesses, and orienting the region’s ruling circles in its direction. At the same time, it is implementing the old American ‘Anaconda’ doctrine—strangling Russia by forming a chain of unfriendly countries around its borders,” the historian said.

However, despite Russia’s current weakening, he adds, the geography of the Eurasian space and the multi-channel infrastructure established over the years of the Soviet Union between the former republics remain a crucial foundation for their economic interaction.

“In other words, the economies of the Central Asian countries and Russia are so deeply interconnected that severing these ties would pose a serious imbalance—primarily for the Central Asian states, of which the region’s leaders are well aware.

As for China, its presence in Central Asia is not accompanied by any political obligations, and therefore does not cause concern on Russia’s part,” Dzhakishev concluded.