Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1 to 10 of about 16
This time Uzbekistan brought together special representatives and policy experts researching Afghanistan from around the world.
Despite close economic ties with Russia, not a single Central Asian country has endorsed President Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine.
After taking power in 2016, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev quickly recognized that growing socioeconomic discontent could destabilize his regime, so he launched a preventative program of political and economic reforms.
Brighter prospects for Central Asian integration come amid political and economic liberalization in Uzbekistan, hardening authoritarianism elsewhere in the region, widespread economic distress, and China’s growing influence—the five major trends that marked Central Asia in 2018.
The five states of Central Asia — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan — mark 27 years of independence in 2018.
Syrian jihad will not be replicated by Central Asian combatants returning home, but fundamentalist ideals are long-established in this region and will not go away.
Central Asia is in a period of transition. Many tenets of Soviet infrastructure and culture have expired and rather than renew these precedents, the countries are emphasizing individual development.
Twenty years after the Soviet collapse, leaders of the five Central Asian republics have built functioning states but they have yet to fully implement democratic reforms, decentralize and share power, and develop strong intraregional relations.
While the U.S.-led NATO operations in Afghanistan have resulted in somewhat enhanced security capacity for Central Asian countries, their long-term security challenges seem to be increasing, given the current situation in Afghanistan and the growing instability of Pakistan.
A successful Russian modernization is the most reliable basis for the foreign attractiveness of the country. Volumes of energy resources as such will not make Russia a great power, energy is not the same as leadership, nor is harshness the same as effectiveness. This is precisely how a post-imperial project differs from a neo-imperial one.