Some analysts see no grounds for concern that the absence of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan will lead to their economic dependence on China.
Below are the opinions of experts on this issue. Additional details can be found at 24.kg.
Dosym Satpaev, Director of the "Risk Assessment Group," Political Scientist:
Photo from the internet. Dosym Satpaev
— The visit of high-ranking American officials to the region and the "C5+1" summit in Washington demonstrated that Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are priorities for the U.S. The invitation to these countries to the "Council of Peace" is just one example. Previously, Trump also invited Tokayev and Mirziyoyev to the G20 summit in Miami, highlighting the U.S. interest in these states in the context of political and economic relations.
However, the absence of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan should not be interpreted as neglect. Trump generally has a poor understanding of geography, and his decisions are shaped by his surroundings based on the economic interests of the United States, whose main competitor is China. Central Asia is viewed as a resource and logistics hub.
I do not see threats to the region's subjectivity if the countries act together. Alone, they are vulnerable. Regular meetings of the heads of state of Central Asia and the growth of regional cooperation show that they are beginning to act in concert.
Dosym Satpaev
The "Council of Peace" can be perceived more as a symbolic gesture rather than a real threat; however, it emphasizes the importance of unity in the region.
Arkadiy Dubnov, Central Asia Expert:
— The conditions for membership in the "Council of Peace" remain unclear, so it is premature to draw conclusions.
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were not invited, partly due to weak lobbying in Washington and low investment attractiveness at the moment. The U.S. pays attention to countries ready to invest in projects.
Arkadiy Dubnov
The idea of jointly including "small countries" seems premature, as the status of this initiative under Trump's "eternal" patronage remains uncertain.
It is important to note that for the formation of a Central Asian identity, such projects have limited significance. Internal cooperation and history define the region's subjectivity, while external invitations merely highlight the symbolic status of individual countries.
Rustam Azizi, International Security Expert:
— Central Asia is perceived as an integration region more conceptually than in practice. In practice, there is no agreed position on key issues.
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan were invited not due to regional representation but for political and economic motives. Their participation serves as a symbolic resource to demonstrate their status as "middle powers" in the region and potential partners for major deals.
The absence of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan does not undermine their subjectivity. The practical benefits of participating in the "Council of Peace" for them remain minimal.
From China's perspective, this initiative does not change the existing balance, as Beijing remains a key economic partner, and limited U.S. participation does not push for a change in orientation.
Sherali Rizayon, Political Scientist:
— The invitation to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan rather confirms their subjectivity and positive perception on the international stage.
The strengthening of the positions of neighbors will undoubtedly have a positive impact on all of Central Asia and help minimize potential threats.
As for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, their absence in the "Council of Peace" will not affect relations with China. Participation or non-participation in this format will not change their multilateral cooperation with Beijing.
Anuar Bakhitjanov, Political Scientist:
— The fact of selective invitation does not undermine regional integration but creates a risk of individualizing interaction with the United States. If countries are viewed as separate partners, it will strengthen the logic of "working with leaders," rather than with the region as a whole.
With the right position of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the platform can be used to promote the regional agenda on security, water resources, and other issues.
Anuar Bakhitjanov
The main risk is that if the regional framework is not clearly articulated, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will find themselves in a situation of limited choice and will seek to expand economic ties with China.
Emil Juraev, Expert:
— The "Council of Peace" is a controversial initiative, and few countries have confirmed their participation in it. However, for Central Asia, this is not critical. We are at the initial stage of regional cooperation, and the absence of an invitation should not be seen as a problem.
Relations with China do not depend on participation in the "Council of Peace," as Beijing's influence remains significant.
Farhad Mamedov, Director of the South Caucasus Research Center (Azerbaijan):
— The "Council of Peace" and the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) are different formats.
The OTS is an institutionalized structure with a clear agenda, while the "Council of Peace" is a Trump initiative with uncertain effectiveness and potential international consequences.
The establishment of the "Council of Peace" does not limit the foreign policy freedom of Central Asian countries and can be viewed as an additional platform, but not as an alternative to regional formats.
Temur Umarov, Fellow at the Berlin Carnegie Center:
— I do not see any immediate influence on regional processes. This event reflects Donald Trump's personal and commercial relationships with the leaders of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
It does not threaten the regional identity and subjectivity of Central Asia, nor the foreign policy balance of the states that were not invited.
PS. The selective invitation of Astana and Tashkent to the "Council of Peace" creates a certain political imbalance but does not undermine regional subjectivity.
Experts emphasize that the key to maintaining Central Asia's influence is internal cooperation, a coordinated regional agenda, and the ability to unite around common interests.
Trump's initiative is based on pragmatic economic interests aimed at demonstrating the status of individual countries and Washington's attitude towards them; however, it also highlights the need for joint actions within the region. The risk of fragmentation remains in the absence of a coordinated position, but there are also advantages to the membership of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which can become functional leaders for all of Central Asia.
