By Laura Linderman, Alexander John Paul Lutz, and Eleanor Pugh

Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program
Silk Road Paper
October 2025

Click Here to Download Armenia's Strategic Dilemma

Executive Summary:

Armenia faces significant challenges to its political stability and geopolitical security as it attempts a high-stakes strategic pivot away from its traditional Russian security patron and toward the West—a reorientation driven not by choice but by necessity, as the country finds itself militarily inferior, diplomatically isolated, and abandoned by unreliable security guarantors.

This reorientation, catalyzed by Russia’s failure to uphold its commitment to defending its Armenian ally from repeated Azerbaijani incursions into its territory, has given way to internal political turmoil and external security vulnerabilities. Most worryingly, this has created a dangerous feedback loop where the very concessions required for strategic survival generate domestic opposition that threatens to undermine the partnerships Armenia desperately needs. This piece argues that Armenia’s polarized domestic political environment—with opposition to the government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan driven, primarily, by the trauma and insecurity of abandoning historical narratives, territorial claims, and institutional protections—both results from and impedes its geopolitical realignment, creating a vicious cycle where external security pressures exacerbate internal divisions, which, in turn, trouble the country’s moves toward a closer partnership with the West. Recently, the government’s pivot has mobilized a diverse opposition coalition, counting among its ranks clergy of the Armenian Apostolic Church, disillusioned oligarchs, the exiled leadership of the Republic of Artsakh, and ordinary citizens unwilling to accept that former enemies can become partners.

Despite such opposition, Armenia has achieved tangible results from Western engagement—including defense cooperation with France, weapons partnerships with India, and security exercises and strategic partnership agreements with the United States. And, most significantly, the recently proposed “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) would give the United States exclusive development rights to a transit route straddling Armenia’s southern border—a transit route which would transform regional connectivity by linking former adversaries (that is, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey) to one another in a mutually beneficial economic arrangement. Yet, each concession required to pull off the pivot (especially those surrounding normalization with Azerbaijan and Turkey) provides ammunition for opposition mobilization and risks electoral backlash.

The 2026 elections will provide the definitive test as to whether or not Pashinyan’s government can break the feedback loop. For a small state facing existential pressures, failure to do so could result in democratic backsliding (risking alienating Western partners), subordination to hostile neighbors, or even further territorial losses. Indeed, as Armenia contends with an assertive Azerbaijan, hostility from erstwhile ally Russia, pushback from Iran over the prospect of increased American influence in the region, and its own tumultuous domestic politics, it must tread carefully if it wishes to avoid such a fate.

Of course, this moment is not just one characterized by existential danger. For Armenia, it presents an unprecedented opportunity to emerge on the world stage—to resolve its longstanding grievances with neighboring Turkey and Azerbaijan, to establish fruitful economic partnerships with countries around the world, and to finally break free of its stifling dependence on Russia and Iran. For the United States and its Euro-Atlantic allies, meanwhile, Armenia holds considerable value as a stable partner in the strategically vital South Caucasus region. Success could see a sovereign, stable, and democratic Armenia contribute significantly to broader regional stability and prosperity, perhaps even serving as a bastion against adverse influence from nearby Russia and Iran.

By John DiPirro and Laura Linderman

Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program
Silk Road Paper
July 2025

Click Here To Download The West's Inflection Point in the Caucasus: Untying the Georgian Knot.

Executive Summary:

Since the summer of 2019, Georgia has cycled through periods of crisis and partial recovery, with the increasingly kleptocratic and authoritarian Georgian Dream (GD) government developing sophisticated methods to control public discourse and opinion. The fundamental question that Western policymakers can no longer avoid is: What is more important—a democratic Georgia or a cooperative, friendly Georgia? For years, these aspirations were aligned, but today they have diverged into mutually exclusive policy pathways, each carrying profound implications for regional stability and the credibility of Western engagement. 

While many Western analysts point to Georgian Dream and its founder, billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, as the primary drivers of democratic decline, this view oversimplifies the situation. A fuller understanding must also consider the opposition's failure to offer credible alternatives, the legacy of Mikheil Saakashvili’s United National Movement (UNM) party, and inconsistent Western engagement, all contributing to instability and strategic ambiguity. 

In recent discussions with regional experts, civil society leaders and opposition figures, a common critique emerged: the absence of a coherent, responsive, and consistently updated Western policy toward Georgia. Shifting Western priorities have undermined long-term strategic alignment, especially given evolving global dynamics and the growing influence of powers like Russia and China. Given global shifts—including a more transactional U.S. foreign policy under the Trump Administration and Europe's growing focus on defense infrastructure—will the West remain committed to Georgia, or has "Georgia fatigue" taken hold? 

This analysis examines the history and impact of Western support for Georgia, particularly in economic development, energy cooperation, and democratic reform. While Georgians are ultimately responsible for their national trajectory, the West must reckon with its strategic missteps that have shaped Georgia's current geopolitical position. Western policymakers must recalibrate their approach for an evolving international order and clearly articulate their desired relationship with Georgia. This recalibration requires acknowledging past errors and choosing whether to remedy them or pursue a pragmatic reset in relations. 

By Sanat Kushkumbayev

Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program
Silk Road Paper
June 2025

Click Here to Download

Executive Summary

The post-Soviet landscape of Central Asia, characterized by an intricate web of cultural ties, shared histories, and political ambitions, presents a unique case of regional integration that has both fascinated and perplexed international observers. From 1991 to 2005, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan worked assiduously to develop regional cooperation, an effort that had to contend with conflicting national interests and external geopolitical pressures.

The early years following the Soviet dissolution ushered in a moment of hope for a “Golden Age” of integration. Between 1992 and 1998, regional leaders embarked on ambitious initiatives aimed at constructing a new order that would facilitate collaboration and mutual development. However, as idealism gave way to pragmatism, the stark realities of internal and external challenges emerged.

From 1998 to 2002, the dynamics within Central Asia became increasingly contentious, with external powers asserting their influence and regional leaders jockeying for position. Despite the opportunities for collaboration, the interplay between national ambitions and external interests led to a dilution of collective efforts and a hesitation to fully commit to regional integration paths.

Still, the accomplishments of Central Asian regionalism were significant, especially coming at a time when the states of the region were focused primarily on the building of national sovereignty. In other words, they always saw the strengthening of sovereignty as entirely compatible with the development of regional cooperation.

The later phase, from 2002 to 2005, witnessed a significant decline in the momentum for regional initiatives against the backdrop of geopolitical shifts and mounting internal crises. The influence of larger powers, particularly Russia, shifted the focus of regional cooperation away from original Central Asian projects, culminating in key initiatives like the Central Asian Cooperation Organization (CACO) being subsumed into broader Eurasian frameworks.

This comprehensive analysis underscores the complexity of Central Asia's road to regional integration, highlighting the intricate balance between national aspirations and the overarching influence of external geopolitical factors. It serves as a crucial reflection for policymakers, analysts, and scholars interested in the intersection of regional dynamics and global geopolitics. In particular, as Central Asian states are once again embarked on a quest to deepen and institutionalize their regional cooperation, the lessons of the past attempts to build regional institutions will be valuable to the region’s leaders as well as external supporters of this process.

.