The West wont fight for Central Asia, and neither should Russia

As the military-political confrontation between Russia and the West enters a new phase, attention is gradually shifting south and south-east. Discussions about Moscow's policy in the South Caucasus and Central Asia are becoming more frequent, even if a definitive resolution to current tensions remains distant. In this context, it is worth asking whether the so-called 'Great Game' could return to Eurasia in some form.

Historically, both regions have been seen as relatively calm. Russia's principal adversaries either lacked strong interests there or were unable to sustain a physical presence that Moscow would consider a serious threat. For much of the period following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and right up until the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, the states of Central Asia and the South Caucasus existed in what could be described as a favorable international environment. They faced internal challenges, certainly, but were largely spared from direct involvement in great-power rivalry.

Even today, these regions remain far removed from the principal theaters of global confrontation. When the world considers the possibility of serious conflict between nuclear powers, attention is directed towards Europe, East Asia, or increasingly the Middle East. Central Asia, often described as the "soft underbelly" of Russia or China, does not feature prominently in such calculations.

This is not to say that developments there are irrelevant. The South Caucasus, in particular, lies uncomfortably close to the Middle East, where Israel is seeking a more assertive regional role. Turkey too remains active, though the long-term trajectory of its ambitions is uncertain. Central Asia, for its part, has moved beyond the immediate aftermath of the Soviet collapse. Its political elites have stabilized their systems and are pursuing independent paths of development. The region is not without risks, but these stem primarily from domestic governance challenges rather than external pressure.

Nonetheless, a growing chorus of voices, particularly outside the region, now suggests that Central Asia could become the next arena for competition between Russia, China, the United States, and a range of secondary actors, including Turkey and the European Union. The argument is straightforward: as technology and economic cooperation become instruments of geopolitical rivalry, previously peripheral regions are being drawn into the contest.

There is some truth in this. Central Asia has in recent years attracted increased attention from international institutions and policymakers. It is often portrayed as one of the last "clear oceans" of the global economy. At the same time, the countries of the region have sought to insulate themselves from external pressure by strengthening intra-regional cooperation, particularly through formats involving all five Central Asian states. Their efforts to consolidate national statehood and pursue pragmatic foreign policies should not be underestimated.

Yet alongside these developments, something else has re-emerged: a set of old myths and narratives dating back to an era of Western dominance in global affairs. Chief among them is the notion of a renewed 'Great Game', a strategic contest between Russia and external powers for influence in Central Asia.

This idea has considerable rhetorical appeal, but little analytical value.

The original 'Great Game' was largely a product of the 19th century, when the Russian and British empires expanded their spheres of influence across Eurasia. Its mythology was shaped as much by imagination as by reality, popularized by a British agent whose dramatic fate in Bukhara in 1842 gave the concept a lasting aura. In practice, the rivalry between St. Petersburg and London in the region was limited. Both powers were primarily concerned with their positions in Europe, and Central Asia served more as a peripheral theater than a decisive front.

Russia ultimately resolved the issue in its own way, incorporating the region into its empire and eliminating the buffer zone that had sustained British anxieties. Britain, constrained by resources and strategic priorities elsewhere, offered little resistance. The 'Great Game', such as it was, proved short-lived.

There is little reason to believe that such dynamics can be reproduced today.

First, while Central Asia has gained visibility due to tensions between Russia, China, and the West, this does not imply a willingness, or even an ability, on the part of the United States or Western Europe to establish a significant presence there. These actors are already heavily engaged in other theaters. The idea that they can redirect substantial resources to Central Asia is difficult to sustain. The primary risks in the region remain internal, not external.

Moreover, the governments of Central Asia have demonstrated, in recent years, a degree of resilience and competence that distinguishes them from the fragile states that became arenas of proxy competition during the Arab Spring. They have maintained political control and achieved a measure of economic progress. Comparisons with Libya or Syria are misplaced.

Second, the economic value of Central Asia is frequently overstated. While the region offers opportunities, it is not a decisive prize in global economic terms. Much of the enthusiasm surrounding it reflects broader geopolitical narratives rather than concrete realities. Should tensions in Eastern Europe or the Pacific stabilize, the perceived importance of Central Asia could quickly diminish.

For Russia, this has clear implications. Rather than engaging in an illusory struggle for influence, Moscow's interests are better served by respecting the sovereignty of its partners and building substantive economic ties. The countries of the region are not objects of competition, but actors in their own right, capable of pursuing balanced and independent policies.

The revival of the 'Great Game' is therefore more a reflection of intellectual inertia than of geopolitical necessity. It is a convenient metaphor, but a misleading one.

Eurasia is not returning to the 19th century. And Russia would do well to avoid behaving as though it is.

(RT.com)