Uzbekistan embarks on new path of strategic pragmatism with BRICS+ partnership

In today’s multipolar world, most developing countries no longer view global engagement through a zero-sum lens of choosing between the West or emerging powers like the BRICS+ bloc. Instead, they are adopting pragmatic, multi-aligned strategies aimed at maximizing national benefit while avoiding deep entanglements.

Uzbekistan exemplifies this shift, emerging as a model for strategic non-alignment that could shape how small and mid-sized states navigate the evolving global order.

At the 2025 BRICS+ Summit in Brazil, Uzbekistan was granted official partner country status, joining countries like Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia. This followed its accession to the BRICS+ New Development Bank (NDB).

According to an article reflecting on the significance of this development published by the National Interest, this unlocks a $5 billion investment package targeting key sectors like irrigation, mining, education, and infrastructure. It is currently the only Central Asian state to hold both NDB membership and BRICS+ partner status.

However, the article's author points out that Uzbekistan’s engagement with BRICS+ is not ideological. Partner status allows for participation in high-level meetings and technical collaboration without the geopolitical commitments of full membership, something that Azerbaijan applied for in August 2024.

Rather than representing a pivot away from Western ties, it argues that this move aligns with Uzbekistan’s broader foreign policy goal: diversifying its development sources, strengthening diplomatic outreach, and expanding economic opportunities while maintaining autonomy.

The article recalls that Tashkent’s broader diplomatic strategy is intentionally diversified which can be witnessed by its active participation in the US-led C5+1 regional framework, is in WTO accession talks, maintains investment agreements with the EU, and enjoys growing partnerships with China, Gulf States, South Korea, and now BRICS+. This reflects a deliberate non-alignment approach: Uzbekistan does not seek to join blocs—it seeks to engage across them.

This multipolar strategy echoes the non-alignment movements of the Cold War but stands apart due to its depth, timing, and execution. With global governance increasingly gridlocked and great power competition escalating, the publication highlights that Uzbekistan is positioning itself not as a geopolitical “swing state,” but as a “bridge state,” facilitating dialogue and commerce across regions—akin to the roles played by larger middle powers like Indonesia or Turkey.

Yet, this careful balancing act is not without risks. As BRICS+ gains geopolitical weight—especially with the inclusion of countries like Iran and growing talk of de-dollarization—it is increasingly viewed in Washington as a challenge to US dominance.

President Trump’s proposal for a 10% tariff on countries perceived as supporting anti-American BRICS policies reflects this adversarial framing. Even development-focused engagement with BRICS+ could carry reputational risks for Uzbekistan if misinterpreted.

Given this, the paper notes that both Tashkent and Washington share a vested interest in continued cooperation. Uzbekistan is a key player in US Central Asia policy, a potential WTO member, and a recipient of US development support through agencies like the DFC. Rather than penalizing nations for diversified partnerships, the US would benefit from embracing flexible, inclusive diplomacy that accommodates multi-vector strategies in a multipolar world.

"For Tashkent, the key will be to sustain its non-aligned posture without appearing evasive. That requires proactive communication: making clear that cooperation with BRICS+ and other emerging institutions is driven by national development imperatives, not bloc politics.

Maintaining transparency, adhering to global standards (like ESG, the rule of law, and investor protections), and continuing reforms will also help buffer against reputational fallout and safeguard its strategic autonomy. By presenting its partnerships as complementary rather than confrontational, Uzbekistan can mitigate geopolitical misreadings and preserve the manoeuvrability it has so carefully cultivated," it reads.

Ultimately, the article's author believes Uzbekistan is carving a path that many small and mid-sized states are eager to follow: building a foreign policy that is flexible, interest-driven, and development-focused. In regions like Southeast Asia, the Caucasus, and Africa, where similar pressures exist, Tashkent’s model may prove not just viable but essential. As rigid alliances give way to dynamic interdependence, Uzbekistan offers a blueprint for navigating global complexity with independence, purpose, and agility.

By Nazrin Sadigova