On April 27, 2026, the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosted the International Scientific and Practical Conference “Contours of a New Collective Security Architecture: Current Issues of Information and Analytical Partnership within the CSTO.” During the first session of the conference, a report by R.S. Kurmanguzhin, Associate Professor at Narxoz University (Almaty, Kazakhstan), was presented. Since the text of this report attracted the attention of analysts across the Eurasian region, including representatives of the Central Asian expert community, it may also be of interest to Western researchers.
Eurasian integration projects – namely the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) – have existed for more than thirty years. Comparable Western European structures such as NATO and the European Union are twice as old. NATO and the EU were created in a different century and for different purposes. Perhaps this is why some experts increasingly question their ability to adapt to contemporary realities. However, similar questions are beginning to arise regarding Eurasian integration institutions as well.
It is well known that certain members of the CSTO and the EAEU face unresolved issues requiring practical solutions. Not all initiatives within the EAEU, for example, are being fully implemented today. A number of projects, including the creation of a unified energy market, remain largely theoretical.
Many experts believe that under the current transformation of international relations and global economic ties, Eurasian organizations need a more pragmatic assessment of reality. Independent experts should play an important role in this process. Unfortunately, many still fail to recognize that the previous global economic order has effectively collapsed. Institutions created in the aftermath of World War II as part of the Bretton Woods system are also weakening. The principles of the World Trade Organization can largely be set aside, while the recommendations of international financial institutions now attract the attention of only a narrow circle of specialists.
Humanity has little understanding of what the world will look like in twenty or thirty years. Under such circumstances, the relatively calm attitude of Eurasian experts toward the future of the international order and global economic system is surprising. Perhaps they simply do not know what should be done. More concerning, however, would be the possibility that Eurasian experts are once again waiting for recommendations from their Western counterparts — despite the fact that many Western experts themselves no longer fully understand the realities of Eurasian countries.
The position of financial regulators across Eurasia is equally striking. They continue repeating familiar economic narratives, possibly while still expecting guidance from the West.
If the structures of the EAEU lack specialists capable of analyzing modern global economic processes, perhaps it would be worthwhile to involve another Eurasian institution – the CSTO. Questions of economic security should also fall within the organization’s sphere of competence.
A year ago, at a similar conference in Minsk, we proposed that the CSTO conduct an objective analysis of what cooperation with institutions of global governance such as the WTO and IMF has actually brought to Eurasian countries.
Turning to Central Asia, it has become increasingly clear – following the outbreak of war in the Persian Gulf and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe – that the economic position of all Central Asian states will inevitably change.
Transport and Logistics. It is evident that the North–South transport corridor is gradually losing relevance for Central Asia. Investors are unlikely to commit significant resources to a region located in close proximity to instability in the Persian Gulf. At present, routes within the Russia–Kazakhstan–China triangle remain the most promising.
The idea of involving southern neighbors in cooperation with the EAEU is also becoming less relevant. The Gulf states are currently preoccupied with their own strategic challenges. Southeast Asian countries, however, may still retain an interest in cooperation with Eurasian states.
When discussing the transport and logistics potential of Central Asia, one must once again ask whether the region truly requires a new transit aviation hub within the concept of “Greater Central Asia.”
Investments. Central Asia is unlikely to experience the same scale of capital outflow seen in parts of the Persian Gulf. However, neither should the region expect any major inflow of investment in the near future.
Tariff Wars. Trade and tariff conflicts have been fueled not only by developments in the Persian Gulf, but also by earlier policies of the Trump administration. Similar tensions within the Eurasian space could potentially be contained. However, the economic difficulties expected across virtually all EAEU member states may encourage some countries to reconsider tariff policies.
Food Security. Wars are often followed by food shortages. While Kazakhstan itself is unlikely to face such risks, neighboring Eurasian states must already begin recognizing the seriousness of this issue.
Energy Security. Rising oil and gas prices may benefit the budgets of certain Eurasian countries, particularly energy exporters. However, not all regional states produce hydrocarbons. Moreover, increases in energy prices are usually followed by rising costs for goods and services more broadly.
Water Security. The issue of water security in Central Asia is considerably more complex. A comprehensive solution has remained elusive for decades. Countries in the region require a complete reassessment of their approach and significantly closer coordination.
This is an extremely sensitive issue. History offers examples of how escalating water disputes nearly led Iraqi aviation – using Soviet-made fighter aircraft – to consider striking the Euphrates hydroelectric station in Syria, where Soviet specialists were working at the time.
Military and Political Dimension. Another important issue is the ability of EAEU countries to withstand potential external pressure. This is not about countering a direct invasion, but about ensuring the security of airspace – something that Central Asian states are currently unable to guarantee independently.
A comprehensive solution is required, and military experts within the CSTO should seriously address this issue. Applying outdated approaches is no longer acceptable. Innovative and effective strategies are needed.
Finally, it is worth recalling the recent remarks of Academician Dynkin, President of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, who stated that Donald Trump’s current actions in the Persian Gulf represent an attempt to restore a unipolar world through force. Such developments create an entirely new strategic environment for Eurasian countries.
History has seen similar moments before. When the Republican administration launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it faced opposition from the founding members of the European Union – Germany, France, and the Benelux countries. At the time, German Federal President Johannes Rau openly questioned the “divine mission” claimed by U.S. President George W. Bush Jr.
Rustem Kurmanguzhin
Photo: https://www.culture.ru
