The Middle Corridor as a Geoeconomic Chance for the Caucasus and Central Asia

The Friedrich Ebert Foundation (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung), Germany’s oldest political foundation, has published a highly insightful economic and geopolitical analysis of the Middle Corridor on its platform. The authors, Tornike Sharashenidze (an expert on Eurasian affairs, transport corridors, and Georgian foreign policy) and George Cherkezishvili (former Deputy Foreign Minister of Georgia and expert on Euro-Atlantic integration and international security), assess the prospects and challenges of developing the Middle Corridor—an alternative route for transporting goods from Asia to Europe via Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Turkey.
The study attempts to answer why, despite geopolitical shifts (primarily the war in Ukraine), the corridor has yet to become a full-fledged replacement for the Northern Corridor (via Russia), and what conditions are necessary for its successful development. The analysis examines the corridor through the lens of the Russia-West conflict, China’s influence, the roles of the EU and Turkey, and the restructuring of global supply chains.
A special focus is placed on Georgia and the Anaklia Port project, envisioned as a potential deep-water container hub. However, its construction remains stalled due to financial disputes and political disagreements. The authors highlight how unresolved internal and external tensions—including regional power dynamics and infrastructure limitations—continue to hinder the corridor’s transformative potential.
The key development problems of the corridor are divided into internal (regional) and external (geopolitical). The first are obstacles such as different customs regimes, low synchronization of railways, lack of uniform transit rules, infrastructural restrictions, etc. The second is the great powers' struggle for influence in the region. China needs a smooth and unobstructed route as part of the initiative «One belt, one way» (BRI), Russia seeks to maintain transit through its territory, the EU and the US seek to benefit, isolate Russia and put pressure on China, Turkey sees in the corridor a chance to strengthen its role as a bridge between Europe and Asia. Countries along the route (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia) want economic benefits, development and stability, as well as access to world markets.
Regarding the economic and technical/infrastructural aspects of the project, the main conclusion is that although the war in Ukraine highlighted the need for alternatives, it did not automatically become a catalyst for change. The authors explain this by structural shortcomings of the corridor, which implies insufficient capacity due to outdated infrastructure (ports, railways, ferries), high transaction costs due to lack of digital integration (there is no single digital platform for logistics), low transparency etc. It is recognized that without digital unification the Middle Corridor will not develop properly, even with different physical infrastructure. The authors also talk about the need for institutional changes, that is to synchronize the interests of private capital, states and international organizations in conditions of asymmetric economic power of participants. A separate issue is compliance with environmental standards and the ability to respond to environmental challenges. Of particular concern is the intensive shallowing of the Caspian Sea, which already limits access for ships and increases the cost of ferry transportation. At the same time, it is recognized that all these are quite surmountable problems, provided there is sufficient investment. That is, the "Middle Corridor" from this point of view is not just a logistics project, but a geo-economic opportunity for the countries of the region to become independent transit hubs. But this requires a strategy. Only then can the corridor become not only a reliable and profitable transport route, but also a social elevator for the region, an ecosystem of knowledge, an accumulative point of intellectual capital and innovation.
At the same time, as the authors note, geopolitical competition is the main obstacle to the development of the "Middle Corridor". The Anaklia port project is actually a vivid example of where geopolitical competition can lead. Whoever controls the port in the future would gain significant leverage for economic and geopolitical gain. However, the interests of the US, China, the EU, Russia, Turkey and regional countries intersect at this point to such an extent that the project has not yet moved forward.
The authors of the study write that among all the international stakeholders involved in the development of the "Middle Corridor", China stands out. Beijing, as part of its "One Belt, One Road" strategy, has already invested heavily in the transport and logistics infrastructure of key transit countries along the corridor. After all, the war in Ukraine has made it even more clear to China that it needs to diversify its routes, and it is obvious that support for the Middle Corridor will continue against this background. However, Beijing is unlikely to do this in an aggressive manner, since for it this is only one of the goals pursued in the medium term, only one of many international projects.
Theoretically, the EU is also another major beneficiary of the Middle Corridor, as China remains a very important trading partner for the EU. However, as recent years have shown, it is Europe that has turned out to be the most dependent on the development of relations between Russia, China, and the United States. The Europeans also have their own vision of this route (as part of the Global Gateway initiative). Recent political tensions between Georgia and the EU should also be taken into account. Finally, it is generally unclear to what extent Brussels can assume financial obligations, taking into account the stagnation of its largest economies and support for Ukraine (whether military or already in recovery after the war). The EU also talks about plans to increase military spending in general in order to counter the potential threat from Russia.
Russia is the least interested in developing the Middle Corridor, but it is unlikely that it will be able to create any serious obstacles to the route. It is noted that Moscow does not have the necessary leverage, or it simply does not want to go against China's interests. On the other hand, it is necessary to take into account the fact that Anaklia is located next to Abkhazia, which is under the control of Russia and where it has military forces. "Even in the case of Georgia, Russia refrained from openly attempting to undermine the development of the Middle Corridor. Again, this can be explained by China's involvement", the authors of the analysis write.
As for the United States, on the one hand, it benefits them to develop a route bypassing Russia; on the other, they certainly do not want to help China expand its global trade network. After all, Washington recognizes China as the main threat to the United States.
Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are the direct beneficiaries of the Middle Corridor initiative. Since 2022, the corridor has already significantly increased cargo transportation volumes and customs receipts in Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan. If the project attracts even greater foreign and domestic investments, it will serve as a catalyst for deeper regional cooperation. The corridor offers extensive economic development opportunities, including job creation, industrial diversification, and improved access to global markets. So, regarding Georgia, the authors write that it could turn into a neutral, stable and secure center of regional cooperation – in fact, a regional analogue of Switzerland. That is, to become a reliable transit state, unaffected by broader geopolitical rivalry and able to consolidate the "Middle Corridor" in the context of economic pragmatism.
It is noteworthy that this analysis came to light before the "Agreement on the Establishment of Peace and Interstate Relations between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia" was initialed in Washington and the creation of the TRIPP ("Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity") transport, energy and digital corridor was announced. The Joint Declaration of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia regarding the meeting in Washington confirms the importance of opening communications between the two countries for domestic, bilateral, and international transportation. Experts note that the TRIPP initiative has the potential to combine transport, energy and digital infrastructures into a single integrated network throughout the South Caucasus and that Armenia and Azerbaijan can become indispensable transit hubs.
And at this point, it is advisable to return to what was said in the study about the United States. The Americans, about whom many observers constantly said that they did not care about the South Caucasus, at this point in the corridor took the path of supporting its formation precisely within the framework of their strategic goals aimed at strengthening the influence, geopolitical ties and capabilities of the West and strengthening stability and economic integration of countries along the corridor. The US president made an interesting move with far-reaching consequences. The authors of the study did not consider such a turn in their study. But if they are right that for China, the "Middle Corridor" is just one of the goals pursued in the medium term, just one of many international projects, and it is not going to promote it in an aggressive form, then we may well witness mutual cooperation for economic gain despite all the geopolitical differences and ambitions. After all, the United States and China, despite their differences, are economically truly interdependent countries.
GSR

SR-CENTER.INFO