The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ
Pipeline routes in Central Asia are a historically embedded and structurally constrained form of geopolitics. In this region, infrastructure serves as a means of transportation and a crucial instrument of power and strategic autonomy.
Since the nineteenth-century rivalry known as the “Great Game” between the British and Russian Empires, Central Asia has been shaped more by competition over access routes, buffer zones, and transit corridors than by direct territorial control.
Amid rising geopolitical tensions across Eurasia, Central Asian states have begun to recalibrate their energy and transit strategies. These shifts reflect not only economic logic, but also concerns over sovereignty, security, and long-term foreign policy autonomy. In this brief, we examine how Central Asia’s pipeline system is evolving under external geopolitical pressure and changing global energy dynamics.
Is geography a destiny?
What distinguishes the post-Soviet period is not the disappearance of geopolitical logic but its material transformation. Pipelines have replaced railways and caravan routes, while energy flows have supplanted traditional trade as the primary currency of influence. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Central Asian states gained political independence but remained structurally dependent on external transit systems, reinforcing their vulnerability within the global economic order.
Central Asian states entered the international system with a paradoxical mix of formal sovereignty and deep infrastructural dependence. Being landlocked was not just a geographical condition; it became a political vulnerability. Export routes inherited from the Soviet era were predominantly oriented northward, embedding Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in transit systems controlled by Russia. Consequently, access to global markets was mediated by a single external actor, turning transit from a neutral logistical function into a tool of political leverage.
As a result, pipeline diplomacy emerged as a survival strategy. Diversifying export routes became synonymous with diversifying foreign policy options, as control over infrastructure directly influenced the political autonomy of newly independent states. Geography did not outright determine destiny but significantly constrained the range of viable strategic choices.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 fundamentally disrupted this fragile equilibrium. What had been a gradual search for alternative routes suddenly gained systemic urgency. For European states, reducing dependence on Russian hydrocarbons became a security concern rather than a pricing issue.
For Central Asian producers, continued reliance on Russian transit shifted from an economic risk to a political liability. This convergence of interests renewed focus on the South Caucasus as a strategic energy bridge and repositioned the Caspian Sea from a peripheral area to a geopolitical hinge.
The vulnerability of existing transit arrangements became particularly evident with the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), through which approximately 80 percent of Kazakhstan’s oil exports are transported. Recent disruptions and technical incidents along the CPC route had a tangible impact on Kazakhstan’s economy, highlighting the risks of excessive dependence on a single export corridor. Until full repairs were completed, export volumes remained constrained, reinforcing the lesson that infrastructural concentration translates directly into economic and political exposure.
Shared Landlocked Geography and the Logic of Regional Interdependence
Historically, Central Asian connectivity has been oriented northward. The roads, railways, and pipelines constructed during the Soviet period linked the region almost exclusively to the north, while southern routes remained underdeveloped and politically marginalized. In the early 2000s, instability in Afghanistan constrained the southern direction, transforming it from a potential alternative into a source of heightened security risk and reinforcing Central Asia’s dependence on northern transit corridors.
Recently, the southern direction has regained strategic relevance due to two factors. First, the partial stabilization of Afghanistan and renewed regional engagement have reopened discussions about southward connectivity, particularly regarding trade, energy transit, and access to warm-water ports. Second, geopolitical transformations, especially the erosion of Russia’s role as a reliable transit hub after 2022, have compelled Central Asian states to reassess long-neglected alternatives. What was once viewed as a peripheral route is now considered a strategic option within a broader diversification strategy.
In this changing environment, pipeline diplomacy has become a central focus of Central Asian foreign policy. The importance of routes such as the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan Pipeline lies not only in their capacity but also in their symbolic and strategic significance. These corridors represent infrastructure beyond Russian control. Even modest transported volumes alter bargaining power. Pipelines function as political options embedded in steel, enabling states to hedge, signal intent, and recalibrate foreign policy without openly confronting dominant powers.
Kazakhstan’s trajectory by 2025 shows this logic well. Rather than abruptly abandoning Russian transit routes, an economically destabilizing approach, Astana has pursued a gradual diversification toward southern and eastern routes. The expanded use of Caspian maritime transport, deeper engagement with the South Caucasus corridor, and continued energy cooperation with China indicate more than a short-term tactical adjustment; they signal a structural reorientation of foreign policy priorities.
This evolution aligns with Kazakhstan’s long-standing multivector strategy. However, the post-2022 context has transformed multivectorism from a diplomatic principle into an infrastructural practice. The reactivation of the southern vector is not merely a response to immediate geopolitical shocks but part of a broader effort to convert geographic constraints into strategic flexibility.
Landlocked Geography as a Driver of Regional Integration
Landlocked geography has functioned as a shared structural constraint for Central Asian states. Isolation from maritime trade routes does not merely limit external market access. Also, it compels regional actors to depend on one another for transit, coordination, and connectivity. In this sense, geography generates a form of enforced interdependence: no single state can overcome isolation independently, making regional cooperation not a political ideal but a functional necessity.
Crucially, the strategic choices surrounding pipeline development cannot be reduced to market rationality alone. While China offers scale, demand stability, and financing capacity, and Europe provides regulatory predictability and political legitimacy, the orientation of pipelines reflects deeper calculations related to autonomy, sanctions exposure, and long-term sovereignty. For export-dependent economies, uninterrupted energy flows underpin fiscal stability and social spending. As a result, controlling or at least diversifying the direction of export routes becomes a matter of state security rather than a purely commercial decision. Pipeline diplomacy, therefore, is inseparable from domestic political stability.
At the same time, renewed Western interest in Central Asian energy has not eliminated enduring structural constraints. The absence of a trans-Caspian gas pipeline continues to limit Turkmenistan’s access to European markets, while Kazakhstan’s oil exports across the Caspian Sea remain subject to logistical, environmental, and capacity-related bottlenecks. Yet these limitations reinforce rather than weaken the central argument. Pipeline diplomacy is not only about existing infrastructure, but also about what is politically imaginable.
The persistent discussion of trans-Caspian projects serves a strategic function even in the absence of immediate construction. Such debates signal intent, shape expectations among external partners, and gradually recalibrate the regional strategic landscape. In this way, shared landlockedness does not merely constrain Central Asian states; it provides a common structural foundation for regional integration, coordinated diplomacy, and collective bargaining within an increasingly fragmented global energy order.
By 2025, Central Asia underwent a notable reconfiguration in its role within Eurasian energy geopolitics. Pipeline diplomacy evolved from a reactive diversification strategy into a more intentional tool of foreign policy, particularly as Kazakhstan shifted toward southern and eastern transit routes. This change reflects an effort to manage vulnerability rather than eliminate dependence entirely.
Looking ahead to 2026, we forecast that the key question will not be the announcement of new corridors, but the durability, governance, and political insulation of existing ones.
The region’s strategic future will depend on whether infrastructural pluralism leads to genuine autonomy or merely reshapes existing patterns of dependence.
Ultimately, the significance of pipeline diplomacy in Central Asia lies in its dual role. It responds to great-power competition and allows small and middle powers to navigate that competition without formal alignment. In the post-2022 international system, where sanctions, supply security, and geopolitical loyalty are increasingly interconnected, pipelines have become tools for foreign policy signaling. For Central Asian states, the direction of energy flows reflects not only economic logic but also a carefully calibrated vision of sovereignty amid renewed geopolitical fragmentation.
