In their compelling policy brief, Darius Riazi and Alexander Schrier dissect the growing strategic divergence between the European Union and the United States in their engagement with Central Asia. Once unified under a broadly complementary transatlantic strategy that aimed to promote regional stability, connectivity, and liberal-democratic norms while hedging against Russian and Chinese influence, the two powers have since charted markedly different courses. The shift, catalyzed by Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025, signals the erosion of a once-coordinated Western approach. The authors argue convincingly that this rift is not merely symbolic but has tangible consequences for the foreign policy calculus of the Central Asian Five (C5), whose long-standing commitment to a multi-vector foreign policy is now tested by increasingly divergent external pressures.
The European Union, as Riazi and Schrier note, has embraced a strategy of continuity and institutional maturity. Through high-profile initiatives such as the 2025 Samarkand Summit and major investments under the Global Gateway framework, the EU has positioned itself as a long-term partner committed to inclusive development, multilateralism, and green transition cooperation. With projects in critical mineral development, renewable energy, and digital connectivity, the EU is not only filling strategic voids left by retreating American programs but offering a normative alternative rooted in sustainable governance and regional integration. The EU’s explicit rejection of “spheres of influence” in favor of a “third way” of cooperation stands in stark contrast to Washington’s more transactional diplomacy under Trump.
Indeed, the return of Trump has introduced a hard pivot in U.S. engagement with the region. As the authors demonstrate, Trump’s emphasis on bilateral deals, high tariffs, and a retreat from liberal-democratic aid mechanisms such as USAID has fragmented the once-unified C5+1 framework. American diplomacy is now characterized by an assertive form of bilateral transnationalism: ad hoc deals tailored to national elites, often with a security or migration lens. While this may yield short-term concessions from individual Central Asian governments — such as Uzbekistan’s deportation initiative or Kazakhstan’s mineral negotiations — it risks undercutting the multilateral platforms and long-term development goals that previously underpinned U.S.–C5 relations. Moreover, the vacuum created by the withdrawal of U.S. support for civil society and governance projects is already being filled by China, reinforcing Beijing’s growing normative influence in the region.
The policy brief ends on a note of strategic caution and pragmatic foresight. Riazi and Schrier recommend that C5 states resist the temptation to view the EU and U.S. as a cohesive bloc and instead pursue differentiated diplomatic strategies tailored to the shifting priorities of each actor. This approach, they argue, will allow Central Asia to preserve its multi-vector foreign policy and avoid entanglement in zero-sum geopolitical rivalries. Their conclusion also gestures toward a broader global trend: the unravelling of the transatlantic consensus not only in Central Asia but across the Global South. In a world increasingly marked by multipolarity and great power competition, the authors call for a recalibration of regional strategies — not only by external actors but also by smaller states intent on preserving agency amid fragmentation.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
