Contours of American Pressure – Greater Central Asia in the New Superpower Game

The American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) and the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute prepared a special report, published in April 2025, under the title "An American Strategy for Greater Central Asia."
Organizations that prepared this report : AFPC, which describes itself as a non-profit organization, has played a major role in the U.S. foreign policy debate for over four decades. Founded in 1982, AFPC is dedicated to providing information to those who shape or influence U.S. foreign policy and to helping world leaders "build democracy and market economies." The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute (CACI) has contributed significantly to the debate on U.S. policy toward "Greater Central Asia" for nearly three decades. Founded in 1997, CACI provides information, research, and analysis on a vast area stretching from Turkey to western China, covering eight former Soviet republics, as well as Mongolia, Afghanistan, and the North Caucasus. The findings and recommendations presented in the report aim to promote an informed policy debate on issues affecting Central Eurasia.
The report notes that the United States needs to develop and implement an effective strategy for Greater Central Asia to “strengthen the U.S.’s competitive position in a region that will impact Russia–China relations, geopolitical competition in Asia, and key resource markets, particularly uranium, oil, and natural gas.” According to the authors, the proposed strategy ensures open access to Greater Central Asia (GCA) to “mitigate potential security breaches among powerful nuclear-armed states and provide opportunities for lucrative U.S. investments through technology partnerships, resource extraction, development, and logistical facilitation.” The strategy also aims to enhance “the U.S.’s ability to address four major concerns: a possible Iranian nuclear breakthrough; opportunities for U.S. investment and private sector profit from engagement with Central Asia; ‘Islamic terrorism’ as a primary concern; and the shifting focus of U.S. global security strategy toward China, viewed as a new peer competitor.”
The report’s authors outline several key steps:
1. Adopt a comprehensive definition of the region to include Azerbaijan, renaming it “Greater Central Asia”; rename the U.S. engagement platform C6+1, emphasizing common actions and regional initiatives over those solely targeting individual states. The C6+1 is a diplomatic and strategic dialogue created to discuss key security, economic, environmental, and sustainable development issues between the U.S. and the six Central Asian countries: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan (initially), now often referred to as C5+1, with Afghanistan sometimes excluded. It appears the format is returning to its previous form.
2. Appoint a special presidential envoy for Greater Central Asia on the National Security Council, responsible for developing and monitoring U.S. activities in the region and coordinating regional embassies.
3. Eliminate bureaucratic obstacles to a unified regional approach within the State Department and other agencies. In addition to appointing a special envoy, this involves exploring institutional restructuring to better reflect the trans-regional nature of U.S. interests. Currently, different countries are often handled by separate departments working in isolation. The goal is to prevent fragmentation and to more effectively coordinate policy across Central Asia, the Caucasus, Mongolia, and Afghanistan, considering their interconnections.
4. Create a non-governmental U.S.-Greater Central Asia Business Council, with branches in each major country to facilitate protocols for common visas, rapid border crossings, pan-regional communication, and trade standardization.
5. Establish a “Greater Central Asia” regional security framework, focusing on intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, and joint security initiatives, supported by institutions such as the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.
This proposal essentially aims to create a multilateral security mechanism, with all key states—including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and possibly Afghanistan and the South Caucasus—participating in regular intergovernmental meetings, information sharing, and joint decision-making.
According to the authors, participants would systematically share information on threats such as terrorist groups, extremist networks, and cross-border crime, possibly via a single online portal or through embassy attachments. The involvement of the George C. Marshall Center is also recommended.
The overarching goal is to create a targeted “safe club” for Greater Central Asia, supported by Western expert institutions, to better integrate the region into Western standards for security and cooperation.
The report emphasizes that the U.S. should develop a strategy to strengthen its position while reducing China’s advantages in the area of economic and strategic influence. The main concerns include:
1. A possible nuclear breakthrough by Iran is of particular concern to U.S. interests. According to the authors, the Central Asian countries are surrounded by major powers, four of which - China, India, Russia and Pakistan - are currently nuclear powers, and a possible conflict in this region carries enormous global risks.
2. The authors of the report note that the opportunities for US investment and private sector profit from engagement with Central Asia are among the most attractive in the world: "Critical transportation corridors traversing Greater Central Asia, including the Middle Corridor, require US support" "because they promise to reduce the region's isolation from global markets, thereby normalizing trade patterns that contribute to US competitive advantage." In fact, the authors propose to "saddle" - to seize the Middle Corridor already at this stage of formation, to prevent China from accessing "sources of great energy, rare minerals and other resources" that should "fuel the US economy and technological revolutions." The US is concerned that, for example, "Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are rich in uranium, rare earth metals, lithium and other critical materials that the US is seeking" and has expressed US interest in gaining priority access to these resources for itself or its allies, which is of paramount importance.
3. Once again, the authors use "Islamic terrorism" as a cover, which supposedly "is the prevailing problem of both the Central Asian states and the US authorities, who are tracking the movement of this pathology to the West and the big world." The authors' renewed announcement of the desire to fight terrorism is connected with attempts to establish another wave of US military bases around China.
4. The authors note that “the focus of US global security strategy is now shifting to China, which is seen as a new peer competitor” and “Greater Central Asia is central to this focus.” “In addition to sharing critical borders with the region, China’s route to Europe and the Middle East passes through ‘Greater Central Asia,’ which geopolitically links China’s strategies with both Russia and Iran. ‘Greater Central Asia’ is thus a linchpin in these shifting geopolitical and economic dynamics that are influenced by the US and shaped through effective engagement.”
This strategy supports efforts to reduce China’s geographic and economic advantage by promoting alternative trade corridors and diversified mineral supply chains that benefit the US and its allies.” The US officially views China as its number one systemic competitor, not only in trade but also in technology, military power, infrastructure, and global politics. This means that the entire US foreign strategy will be tailored to the task of containing China, including in Central Asia. Based on this, the speakers believe that GCA is not a periphery, but a central hub in this rivalry. Central Asia is a geostrategic "bridge" between China and Europe, China and the Middle East. Transport routes (roads, railways, oil and gas pipelines), digital corridors, and future routes for the export of Chinese goods and technologies pass through this region.
Naturally, China's strategies in the region are intertwined with the interests of Russia and Iran, which means that China acts in conjunction (or at the intersection of interests) with other US opponents. Despite the stated "US will shape the region through effective interaction", this hides the involvement of the countries of the region in American initiatives, investment projects, military programs, security programs and alternative corridors, the main goal of which is to reduce the geographic and economic advantage of China. The US intends to weaken the importance of Chinese routes (for example, the Chinese part of the "One Belt - One Road"), possibly by creating parallel corridors controlled or supported by the West. They definitely intend to establish new supplies of minerals bypassing China (especially rare earths, uranium, lithium, etc.). The proposals put forward by the authors of the report, when implemented in the US geopolitical roadmap, will have long-term consequences for both China and the Central Asian countries. First of all, this is a threat to logistics routes. China has invested and continues to invest billions in the infrastructure of the Central Asian countries. If the US creates parallel routes, Chinese investments may depreciate, and the corridors will lose political significance. The US will compete for access to lithium, uranium, gas and metals. This could lead to China losing its priority access to resources, especially from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and which is interested in the "eternal stability" of the Central Asian countries, unlike the United States, which views the region through the prism of temporary geopolitical interests and competition with China. China, in turn, seeks long-term economic partnership, investment in infrastructure and energy, as well as strengthening security through the SCO, which ensures the sustainable development of Central Asia in line with Chinese strategic initiatives, such as "One Belt - One Road". The United States intends to form an anti-Chinese coalition in the region, giving it the form of "partnerships for sustainability", as is done in the Indo-Pacific region. Involvement in superpower competition threatens the militarization of the region, increased tension, blackmail and instability. The loss of multi-vectorism of the Central Asian countries, as well as the possible reliance of the Central Asian countries on the United States and Western projects, will contribute to the loss of balance in relations with China, which is fraught with economic losses, trade restrictions, or even internal destabilization. The United States will try to impose the rules of the game without taking into account regional specifics, especially in matters of politics, human rights, economic reforms, and security. All this is ultimately fraught with the risk of proxy conflicts in the region. In the context of strategic rivalry, there is a high chance that Central Asia will become an arena for a “battle of foreign interests,” as has already happened in other regions. The authors of the report believe that “After the collapse of the USSR, the United States developed a number of strategic documents on Central Asia, but they were more of a set of disparate projects than a well-thought-out strategy, and were weakly linked to the global interests of the United States. Until now, Washington has adhered to the Soviet definition of the region (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan), but now it is outdated. Today, Azerbaijan should also be considered a key country of 'Greater Central Asia,' since Azerbaijan and the Central Asian countries perceive themselves as a single political and economic region. For this strategy to be successful, it is important to include the border states of Georgia, Armenia and Mongolia, which provide the region with infrastructure, economic ties and geopolitical stability."

Why is the US now including Azerbaijan in the "Greater Central Asia" (GCA) concept, and how does this relate to its growing cooperation with China?
In the last decade, the South Caucasus, and Azerbaijan in particular, has become increasingly important in global geopolitics. One of the signs of this shift has been the proposal by US think tanks to include Azerbaijan in the "Greater Central Asia" (GCA) concept - an updated version of the US regional strategy aimed at containing China, neutralizing the influence of Russia and Iran, and ensuring the West's dominant position in Eurasian transit and resource policy. This move appears to be not only a political expansion of the conceptual map, but also a geostrategic attempt to draw Azerbaijan into a configuration of interests that are potentially conflicting with the country's already established priorities. The US is changing the previous "Soviet" framework, in which Central Asia is only five CA countries (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan). Now they are expanding the definition of the region in accordance with the geo-economic and logistical reality and call Azerbaijan part of the core, and Georgia, Armenia and Mongolia - geopolitical flanks. This is not just semantics, but an attempt to include Azerbaijan in the zone of American responsibility and strategy, to equate it with the CA countries in terms of perception, financing, pressure and expectations. Azerbaijan is a key land bridge between the Caspian and Black Seas. It connects Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan with Europe via the South Caucasus. It is through Azerbaijan that the Middle Corridor passes, an alternative to the Chinese route through Russia. We must not forget that Azerbaijan has ports, oil, gas and access to Europe. The Alat port, the BTC oil pipelines, the TANAP gas pipeline - all this is critically important for the energy diversification of the West. China is actively strengthening economic ties with Azerbaijan. This does not suit the US, since China gains access to the Caucasus and the European Union through friendly Azerbaijan.
After the start of the war in Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, the importance of the Middle Corridor has increased dramatically. China is expanding investments in the South Caucasus, including through Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has become a geoeconomic hub, not just an "energy country", and the US is trying to seize the initiative from China and prevent Azerbaijan from fully integrating into Chinese logistics and financial networks. This could harm Azerbaijan in the long term, since there is a prospect of losing strategic autonomy, since the US will try to involve Azerbaijan in an anti-Chinese coalition. And this contradicts the principle of multi-vector, which Azerbaijan has successfully applied for decades.
The US and Western countries are very determined that Azerbaijan will have a period of "aggravation" of relations with China, which is so necessary for the development of their strategy in Central Asia and the Caucasus. It is important for the US that Baku more actively joins American strategies, which could cool China, which in turn will lead to a curtailment of investments, especially in infrastructure. And given the growing cargo flow through the Middle Corridor, this will lead to the loss of large-scale development opportunities.

Ultimately, the American strategy is intended to increase Azerbaijan's vulnerability in the "game of superpowers", since if Azerbaijan falls into the zone of active American influence, it will become an object of pressure. This will definitely lead to imbalances in the balance, and Baku may find itself in the position of a "geopolitical proxy", which threatens the sovereignty of decisions.
It is important to take into account that the US is not betting on the internal development of the region, but on its usefulness for external supply chains. This is fraught with the fact that Azerbaijan will be used as a tool, and not as a partner, with a limited contribution to the economic modernization of the country. Including Azerbaijan in "Greater Central Asia" is a failure to recognize its importance, but a way to "integrate" it into the anti-Chinese strategy of the United States. This creates the risk of weakening ties with China, especially in the transport, infrastructure and logistics sectors, as well as shifting the focus from national development to geopolitical servicing of foreign interests.
The report notes that "The mission of the United States and friendly powers should be to help strengthen the collective potential of these states as an emerging regional entity on the global stage, capable of playing a stabilizing role in its environment." This sounds like support for regional integration and strengthening the independence of Central Asian countries on the international stage. However, this hides the geopolitical and economic goals of the United States, which often contradict the interests of the countries of the region themselves. "he true goals of the United States, hidden behind this rhetoric, are to weaken Chinese influence and prevent the formation of a fully functioning single Central Asian bloc closely cooperating with China through the BRI (One Belt, One Road). To this end, the United States deliberately encourages the creation of an "alternative regional identity", supposedly independent, but in fact institutionally and economically dependent on the West. This is fraught with the weakening of China's transport, financial and diplomatic ties with the region.
Under the guise of supporting collective potential, the United States interferes in the formation of a "new regionality" - with the involvement of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Mongolia. This blurs the identity of Central Asia as an independent Eurasian space and connects it with pro-Western centers of influence. The actual result is growing fragmentation, weakening the economic integrity of the region.
The report actually proposes the creation of a controlled buffer between China, Russia and Iran. In the understanding of Western strategy, the actual function of the Central Asian region is to become a buffer zone through which the strategic depth and interaction between the Eurasian powers are limited. Despite the declared support for "centripetal forces", in reality, US strategists are talking about the need to build political institutions and infrastructure dependent on the West, rather than organic regional rapprochement. As a result, the countries of the region will be drawn into bloc thinking, losing flexibility in politics.
The US wants to seize the initiative from platforms such as the SCO, BRICS, Central Asia + China. The formation of new formats such as C5 + 1, GCA (Greater Central Asia) allegedly promotes integration, but in reality intensifies competition between the states of the region, weakening their independent cooperation. Competing platforms with different external curators do not allow the creation of a single political and economic entity.
The US is not interested in a sovereign resource management policy in Central Asia, especially if it involves an orientation to the East. Their goal is to control key supply chains, mineral resources, uranium, oil, gas and their export routes bypassing China. Supporting "centripetal" processes is a way to organize collective dependence on Western markets and standards.
The paradoxical effect of the US strategy for Central Asia is that the promise of stability is a source of instability.
The US claims that they are strengthening collective potential, stabilizing the region and creating a development platform. But in reality, supporting one external pole (the West) against China turns the region into an arena of competition. External interference can provoke internal disagreements (for example, Kazakhstan vs. Uzbekistan vs. Kyrgyzstan on issues of water, borders, logistics). Real development is possible only with a neutral and balanced policy, which the US is replacing with a policy of managed dependence. In reality, the US is creating a managed space of influence, weakening Chinese and regional interaction, intercepting economic routes and supply chains, thereby undermining real sovereign regional integration.
For the countries of Central Asia and Azerbaijan, this means the need to maintain strategic autonomy, not fall into the trap of unilateral dependence, and use external platforms only as tools, and not as the meaning of their own strategy.
Western strategists try to disguise the strategic goals of the United States under friendly and constructive rhetoric, but a closer analysis shows that it carries the same risks for the countries of Central Asia and China as the Middle East countries previously engulfed in a series of flames of civil wars and separatism and occupation. "The stability of Greater Central Asia… must be based on the recognition that it is the states of the region that are the best instruments for implementing an effective strategy." What sounds like US recognition of sovereignty and the initiative of the countries of the region themselves, but in fact the Central Asian countries are not considered equal partners, but rather instruments for implementing US strategy. This is a recognition of their role as conductors of US interests, and not as subjects with their own regional projects (SCO, BRICS+, Turkic Union, etc.).
Despite the statement in the report about the need - "The United States should work in partnership with the governments of these countries, not above them", which sounds like the US will not interfere, everything will be fair and respectful. But in fact, this is just an attempt to remove suspicions of neocolonialism and preliminarily calm the local elites before promoting deep US interests (energy, transport, control over resources and data flows). In practice, "partnership" means creating dependence on the US through financing, technical assistance, NGOs and soft power.
The report cites as an argument that, allegedly, US activities in Central Asia will lead to economic prosperity, and "Economic prosperity over time will lead to greater political freedom...", that the US will not impose "democracy" immediately. The authors of the report propose that the US deliberately postpone pressure on the "values ​​agenda" in order to first integrate the countries of the region into their economic and logistical projects. This is a tactical move so as not to scare off the leadership of the Central Asian states, and to first create an economic infrastructure under US control, and only then (if necessary) use 'democratization' as a lever of pressure. In the same context, a proposal was put forward: "Promotion of democratic norms and human rights may follow later...". The report treats the countries of the region as instruments for implementing US foreign policy and, under the guise of "stability" and "partnership", promotes geo-economic interests directed against China and regional autonomy, while the "undemocratic issue" is simply postponed until a convenient moment. The packaging changes, but the goals remain the same: divide, integrate, manage. The US will temporarily not interfere in internal affairs, but in fact this approach gives the US flexibility. First create "economic involvement", and then, when the political situation changes or there is a conflict of interests, use "democratic" rhetoric as an instrument of pressure, sanctions, isolation of elites and change of governments. This means a loss of autonomy of strategic thinking for Central Asia. Instead of developing their own development scenarios, countries will start playing by the rules proposed from the outside. Pseudo-support - investments and aid will be only tools of influence, not development. Future instability - after economic dependence, political pressure may begin under the slogans of "reforms", "fight against corruption" and "openness". And for China, this means a loss of logistical control, since the United States will create an alternative to Chinese routes through Central Asia or simply seize a ready-made route. The United States aims to ensure that the Central Asian countries refuse to participate in the BRI or limit cooperation with China under the influence of the United States, and this is fraught with a narrowing of China's political channels. An attempt to form an anti-Chinese cordon sanitaire through US-funded projects and allied structures cannot be ruled out. The speakers note that "the Region lacks coordinating institutions at the regional level and, accordingly, a single voice on key issues", thereby stating a problem that is obvious to the West: the absence of strong regional pro-Western platforms in Central Asia. In fact, experts point out that the US needs to eliminate this gap and offer its own recipes and formats of interaction, which will ultimately be built around the American agenda (as was already the case with the C5+1, GCA, GSPC and other formats).
Despite the statement that "the United States should welcome and support the creation of exclusive structures ... but leave the formation and functioning to the discretion of the states themselves", that the US allegedly does not interfere, but only helps. However, this is a classic tactic of "soft protectorate", in which the initiative allegedly comes from the countries of the region, but in fact all consultations, grants, technical assistance programs, even the wording of the charters of such structures are formed under the influence of the United States. As a result, institutionally weak "regional bodies" dependent on external donations, unable to build policies outside the interests of Washington.
The speakers persistently lobby in the US - Do not allow the countries of the region to independently build strong integration mechanisms (for example, within the SCO, the Turkic Council, BRICS+). Instead, create a “controlled regional architecture” where the US is de facto a moderator, investor, and architect. As a result, dependence on external consulting increases, the declared “exclusivity” is fictitious, and real integration with China is slowed down under the guise of “independence”. A shell of false regional independence is being formed for Central Asia, in which external actors control the content. Ineffective but manageable structures are being created, although they are not capable of really competing with the SCO and BRICS+. This is fraught with a loss of time and resources on pseudo-integration projects serving US interests. The purpose of the report is to introduce geopolitics that will limit China’s access to a single regional partner, as well as hinder the implementation of the “One Belt – One Road” initiatives by forming structures that block Chinese influence at the level of documents, regulations, standards, and logistical rules. The US, through rhetoric and new strategic initiatives to “support regional integration,” seeks to integrate into the process of creating new institutions, but in reality, it is creating an institutional shell through which it can influence the domestic and foreign policies of Central Asian countries, which is part of the global confrontation between the US and China, in which Central Asia is turning into a geopolitical battlefield. And this is a direct threat to independent regional consolidation and a mechanism for structural pressure on China.

Elbrus Mamedov

SR-CENTER.INFO