Are the two shores of the Caspian Sea really becoming a single space? Experts interviewed by the Uzbek publication Gazeta.uz believe that relations between Tashkent and Baku have already gone far beyond symbolic diplomacy. However, the integration of Central Asia and the South Caucasus remains a process that is still taking shape.
The publication spoke with experts about the Treaty of Eternal Friendship recently signed by the presidents of Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. Political analysts shared their views on what the new document changes, whether it is already possible to speak of a common space encompassing Central Asia and Azerbaijan, and which format of relations with the South Caucasus could prove most effective.
Gazeta: Azerbaijan has become the first country in 26 years with which Uzbekistan has signed a treaty of eternal friendship. Previously, such treaties were signed with Türkiye, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, but the “eternal friendship” format has not always protected relations from crises and tensions. How do you assess the signing of such a treaty with Azerbaijan: is it primarily a symbolic gesture, or can the document have practical political significance?
Abror Fatkhullaev, political analyst
Treaties of eternal friendship signed in previous years were often emotional advances toward the future, an attempt to formalize brotherhood on the ruins of the Soviet Union without a real economic foundation. The treaty with Azerbaijan, however, is not an advance but a formal recognition of an already established reality.
The two sides first built functioning institutions, launched interconnected transport chains, linked their economies through joint projects worth billions of dollars, provided each other with genuine geopolitical support at critical moments, and only then moved toward such a treaty. In other words, this is not a spontaneous decision, but the logical culmination of the systematic rapprochement between two key states of Central Asia and the Caucasus.
The document has not only strengthened the high level of mutual trust, but also imposed firm international legal obligations concerning non-aggression, neutrality and non-participation in coalitions that could harm the security interests of Baku or Tashkent. It is aimed at reducing the risk that major external powers could sow discord between the two republics or turn them against each other. In other words, amid global crises, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan have begun coordinating their positions much more closely on stability and security issues in Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
Eldaniz Huseynov, co-founder of the Nightingale Int political foresight agency
Each state itself determines the framework within which it wants to develop relations. Quite often, different statuses assigned to relations are an attempt to elevate them to a declared level. In this particular case, to the level of eternal friendship.
This can be compared with Chinese initiatives. Beijing likes to give its initiatives catchy names. For example, the Belt and Road, the Community of Shared Future, or the Global Security Initiative. Such formulas attract attention and create a brand under which relations subsequently develop. I think that when future meetings between Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan take place under the banner of “eternal friendship,” this will also create a different atmosphere.
Azamat Sulimanov, head of the Department at the Institute for Strategic and Interregional Studies
In my view, the significance of the Treaty of Eternal Friendship cannot be reduced to political symbolism. It records a qualitatively new level of interstate trust that has developed consistently: strategic partnership, allied relations, the Supreme Interstate Council, and now eternal friendship.
The document institutionalizes an unprecedentedly high level of allied relations, establishing strong legal and political guarantees of mutual support. It contains fundamental commitments by the parties to refrain from participating in alliances or initiatives directed against each other's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.
Historical experience in international diplomacy demonstrates the vulnerability of purely declarative formulations. But the current stage of the Uzbek-Azerbaijani partnership rests on a solid foundation. At the latest summit, together with the treaty, the parties approved a program to increase bilateral trade to $1 billion by 2030, adopted investment plans, and launched new projects in banking, industry, raw-material processing, education, tourism and agriculture. Some 280 enterprises with Azerbaijani capital have already been established in Uzbekistan, and a joint investment company is operating.
Therefore, I would view the treaty primarily as a long-term political framework for an already established practical partnership. The strength of such documents is determined not by their name, but by the sustainability of political will, institutions and mutual interests. Today, all three components are present in Uzbek-Azerbaijani relations.
Gazeta: Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, commenting on the results of the talks, described Central Asia and Azerbaijan as a single geopolitical and geo-economic region. In your view, does this assessment reflect reality, or is it more of a political aspiration?
Abror Fatkhullaev
This is a political statement based on tectonic shifts in the real economy. It is not simply a declaration of intent, but an acknowledgment of the emergence of a new structure that experts increasingly refer to as the “Central Asia + Azerbaijan” macro-region, following Azerbaijan's official accession to the format of the Consultative Meetings of the Heads of State of Central Asia in 2025. As a result, cooperation with Azerbaijan has begun to acquire features of a single trans-Caspian space with shared interests in security and development.
The economic and logistical foundation of this macro-region rests on several factors.
First, the Middle Corridor has evolved from a theoretical project into one of the key transport arteries for the region's economies. Azerbaijan's ports in Baku and Alat provide Central Asia with an additional outlet toward western markets, while without cargo from Central Asia and China, Azerbaijan's transit infrastructure would lose scale.
Second, projects to connect power grids, transmit green energy and jointly develop hydrocarbons in the Caspian Sea are turning the region into a unified energy bloc.
Third, the creation of joint investment funds, major investments in the automotive and textile industries, and even the entry of a leading Azerbaijani bank into the Uzbek market demonstrate that a common business space is emerging.
At the same time, for the macro-region to function as a single economic organism, transparent and stable through-tariffs for transportation across the Caspian Sea are needed. This process is still at the development stage. Growing cargo flows from China and Central Asia require common service standards, synchronized expansion of Caspian terminals, and joint management of the shortage of ferry capacity.
Eldaniz Huseynov
You know, what exactly do we call geopolitical and geo-economic? Are the security challenges facing Azerbaijan and the Central Asian countries the same? If we are talking about geopolitics, I would not say that they are the same for all six countries.
If we are talking about the transport sector, then yes, perhaps we can develop a common approach. But, in my opinion, the recent power outages in Kyrgyzstan, which affected four neighboring countries, demonstrated where the space is genuinely interconnected. The same applies to water issues. A water shortage in one country can affect water supplies to others and, consequently, the prices of basic food products. These are all indicators of a common and interdependent space.
With Azerbaijan, Central Asia is only beginning to form a common space, primarily starting with the transport sector.
Azamat Sulimanov
There is certainly a political vision of the future in this assessment, but it is already based on quite objective processes. President Aliyev has made 14 visits to Central Asian states over the past three years, while the leaders of the region's countries have visited Azerbaijan 23 times. This is an unprecedented intensity of interstate dialogue.
The key point is that Eurasia's economic geography itself is changing. Central Asia and the South Caucasus are becoming complementary links in East-West transport, energy and trade chains. For Central Asian states, the Azerbaijani direction provides an additional route across the Caspian to the Caucasus, Türkiye and European markets. For Azerbaijan, Central Asia represents a growing market and a natural extension of the transit space toward the East.
In this regard, Uzbekistan advocates expanding transport connectivity, developing cross-border production chains, digitizing transportation and creating long-term joint programs. This approach is consistent with a fundamental principle of our foreign policy: not geopolitical competition, but a pragmatic pooling of states' capabilities for common development. At the recent informal meeting of the leaders of Central Asia and Azerbaijan in Bishkek, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev explicitly proposed creating a sustainable architecture of interregional cooperation.
Therefore, I would speak of an emerging transregional space of connectivity. Its importance will be determined by the ability of our states to turn geography into an economic advantage.
Gazeta: In your view, what is the most effective way for Central Asian countries to develop relations with Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus? Through a coordinated regional approach or through bilateral ties, as is currently the case?
Abror Fatkhullaev
In my view, Central Asian countries would be more effective using a combined approach that strengthens bilateral ties while gradually moving toward a coordinated regional format.
The bilateral format is indispensable for promptly resolving specific economic issues where speed and flexibility are crucial. It allows two capitals to directly launch joint investment funds, establish production facilities and develop industrial cooperation. In this case, countries can move forward rapidly at a pace convenient for them, setting a high standard and creating working models of cooperation for other partners.
At the same time, large-scale geopolitical and cross-border projects, such as the Middle Corridor or unified energy and digital networks, simply cannot be implemented without a coordinated regional approach. Even the most effective bilateral agreements cease to work if infrastructure bottlenecks, tariff increases or customs barriers arise along transit routes through neighboring countries.
To develop regional consensus on these issues, it would be appropriate to establish a permanent secretariat for the “Central Asia–Azerbaijan” format. This would institutionalize multilateral dialogue and help establish common regional standards in strategic areas ranging from energy and digitalization to cross-border infrastructure.
Eldaniz Huseynov
At present, each country in the region will develop its own approach to Azerbaijan because, after all, we are five different states. I believe that in the short term the bilateral format works effectively. For example, there is the joint fund established by Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. The fund is already allocating resources to real projects. There are also projects in construction and the oil and gas sector.
The multilateral format is better developed with the future in mind. Our countries first need to learn how to live and work together. Cooperation with Azerbaijan illustrates this well. Countries are trying to find some common format, taking different steps and making mistakes, but gradually learning.
I think that in the long term such a regional approach will be important. At the same time, we should not yet view interaction with Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus exclusively through the regional prism. The countries of the region also regard other states as part of the broader regional process. Afghanistan and, according to my information, even Mongolia, are examples. Therefore, I think the format will expand.
Azamat Sulimanov
There is no need to choose one over the other. Strong regional cooperation is built on strong bilateral relations, while the largest projects, in turn, require coordinated decisions by several states.
The bilateral level makes it possible to move faster—to establish enterprises and investment mechanisms and develop interregional ties. However, a transport corridor cannot be built solely through the logic of two states. It requires coordinated tariffs, customs procedures, digital solutions, port and railway infrastructure. The same applies to energy, ecology and industrial cooperation.
Therefore, the most promising model is “bilateral dynamics plus regional coordination.” Central Asia is already much more consolidated as it approaches this stage. The Consultative Meetings have created a culture of permanent dialogue, compromise-building and shared responsibility. Azerbaijan's accession to this format in November 2025 was a logical continuation of this process.
It is fundamentally important to preserve the open, pragmatic and non-confrontational nature of this interaction. The rapprochement between Central Asia and the South Caucasus should be aimed not against anyone, but at expanding opportunities for all states in the region.
Gazeta: Do you think the time has come to launch a Central Asia–South Caucasus dialogue platform? Or does Azerbaijan's accession to the Consultative Meetings of the Central Asian states effectively eliminate the need for a new mechanism?
Eldaniz Huseynov
Let's first see what results Azerbaijan's accession to the Consultative Meetings format will produce. Azerbaijan's participation in this format has not yet become fully established. The Consultative Meetings are still referred to as “Central Asia–Azerbaijan”; Azerbaijan has not yet been included in the meetings' logo and does not participate in the C5+1 format. The only example of Azerbaijan's inclusion in such a format was a meeting of think tanks in Afghanistan.
Abror Fatkhullaev
The South Caucasus is broader than Azerbaijan alone. The presence of Georgia and Armenia, with their different geopolitical orientations, objectively complicates the formation of a single region-wide platform.
In my view, the current “Central Asia–Azerbaijan” format effectively addresses the tactical challenges of today. Baku is the undisputed economic and logistical leader of the South Caucasus. Azerbaijan's participation in the Central Asian format creates a sustainable institutional link between the two regions, because it is through Azerbaijani infrastructure that all major transregional energy, transport and digital routes to the Caucasus pass.
However, in the long term, the launch of a full-fledged “Central Asia–South Caucasus” platform will become a historical necessity.
Today, the South Caucasus is a complex region comprising three states with different foreign-policy orientations, while Georgia is already deeply integrated into transit processes through the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway.
A more integrated geo-economic space could emerge once Armenia is incorporated into the broader Eurasian network following the unblocking and launch of transport corridors. Recent statements from Yerevan in favor of European integration are encouraging, making Armenia a more predictable and promising partner for Central Asian capitals.
Source: https://www.gazeta.uz/ru/2026/08/26/south-caucasus/
CentralasianLIGHT.org
August 26, 2026