Countries with a diversified energy mix – comprising oil, gas, renewable energy sources (RES) and nuclear power – face unique challenges in managing the transition to sustainable energy. Nations such as the US, China, France, UK, India and Spain are striving to balance energy security, decarbonization and economic efficiency.   The key challenges for countries with an integrated energy mix are as follows: 1. Balancing between stability and flexibility of the energy system Nuclear and gas-fired generation provide a stable base load, while RES such as solar and wind power are subject to fluctuations. Integrating these sources requires significant investment in energy storage infrastructure and grid modernization. For example, in Spain, where 57 per cent of electricity comes from renewables and 20 per cent from nuclear plants, a recent large-scale blackout has sparked debate about the reliability of the grid and the role of nuclear power in ensuring stability.   2. Cost-efficiency and investment risks Maintaining a diverse energy portfolio requires significant investment. In the UK, despite efforts to meet Net Zero targets, the North Sea oil and gas sector continues to play an important role in the economy, generating £20bn annually and supporting over 200,000 jobs. However, high taxes and policy uncertainty could discourage investors and slow the sector's development.   3. Geopolitical risks and energy security Dependence on energy imports makes countries vulnerable to external shocks. China, to reduce its dependence on oil and coal imports, is investing in the development of renewable energy sources and electrification of its economy, which has already enabled it to meet 30 per cent of its energy consumption from electricity.   4. Technological challenges and infrastructure modernization The integration of different energy sources requires grid modernization and the introduction of new technologies. The US and China are planning to add nearly 890 GW of gas capacity by 2040, which will require significant investment and infrastructure modernization.   Countries with a complex energy mix: The US has extensive oil, gas, renewable energy resources and a developed nuclear power industry. However, policy changes could affect RES development. For example, reduced incentives for electric vehicles could slow the transition to clean energy.   China is actively investing in renewables and electrification to reduce its dependence on imported fossil resources. These efforts have already led to significant success in reducing its carbon footprint and improving energy security.   Spain plans to increase the share of renewables to 81 per cent by 2030 and decommission nuclear plants by 2035. However, recent power outages have raised questions about the reliability of the grid and the need to revise plans to move away from nuclear power.   Countries with a diverse energy mix face unique challenges in the transition to sustainable energy. The development of different energy sources needs to be carefully balanced, considering economic, technological and geopolitical aspects. Investments in infrastructure modernization, development of energy storage technologies and flexible energy policies are key to a successful transition to sustainable energy.   Several key lessons for Uzbekistan, which itself is endeavoring to balance the development of all these areas, can be identified from this analysis:   1. The energy balance requires strategic management Lesson: There is a need to avoid bias towards a single energy source - even if it is renewable energy. Context: As the example of Spain shows, a rapid increase in the share of RES without supporting baseload generation (gas, nuclear) can lead to instability of the energy system. For Uzbekistan: Given the ambitious targets to increase the share of solar and wind power to 25% by 2030, it is critical not to weaken the development of gas and nuclear generation, and to modernize the electricity grid to cope with fluctuations in RES generation.   2. Nuclear power as a pillar in the energy transition Lesson: Nuclear power plays an ‘anchor’ role for grid stability in countries with a high share of RES. Context: France, the US and China are using nuclear as a stable low-carbon source against the backdrop of growing RES. For Uzbekistan: The construction of a small nuclear power plant (SNPP) in Jizzakh region, and possibly a large plant in the future, can ensure energy security in the long term. But it is important to ensure: localization of components, training of personnel, transparency of financing, international safety standards.   3. Gas as a transition fuel, not a dead end Lesson: Gas-fired generation is not an obstacle to decarbonization, but a support for it. Context: In the US and China, gas is being used as a support to move away from coal dependence and to integrate renewables. For Uzbekistan: Uzbekistan’s own gas resources allow the country to utilize the flexible generation mechanism, while increasing export opportunities and creating added value (CCGT, gas chemistry). But it is important to eliminate subsidies that inhibit efficiency and to develop Digital Load Management.   4. Transparent investment policies and integration into global chains Lesson: In the context of energy transition, international investments go where: clear regulatory environment, long-term stability, ESG-oriented projects. For Uzbekistan: The state should strengthen transparency of conditions for private and international investors, including auction models for RES, open access to grids, guarantees of return on investment. Example: PPA model for ACWA Power or Masdar shows efficiency but needs to be scaled and institutionalized.   5: Energy diplomacy as a strategic asset Lesson: Geopolitics directly affects the success of an energy transition: access to critical resources, technologies, and markets. For Uzbekistan: It is important to develop energy diplomacy through participation in European initiatives (EU Global Gateway, Central Asia-EU Green Energy Dialogue), partnerships with China and South Korea on hydrogen and storage technologies, strengthening communication with the international community (particularly Russia) on nuclear and gas.   For Uzbekistan, energy transformation is not a choice between RES and FEC, but a search for a reasonable balance.   Key priorities: Synchronization of all sources in a single energy system model. Investments in infrastructure and grid flexibility. Supporting domestic industry in the construction of new capacity. Active participation in regional and international co-operation.   * 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.

The policy brief by Islomkhon Gafarov, Hamza Boltaev, and Bobur Mingyasharov, published on The Diplomat, provides an incisive analysis of Uzbekistan’s evolving policy towards Afghanistan under Taliban rule, characterized by pragmatic engagement despite the absence of formal diplomatic recognition. The authors argue that Uzbekistan’s recent bilateral agreement on the joint management of the Amu Darya River with Afghan provincial authorities signifies a deepening of institutional ties, driven by a strategic imperative to secure transboundary water resources. This development reflects a calculated shift in Tashkent’s foreign policy — from cautious observation to selective, interest-based cooperation, underscoring the need to address pressing regional challenges through direct dialogue and functional arrangements.   The brief underscores that Uzbekistan's stance on the Taliban government embodies a form of de facto recognition, exemplified not only by the acceptance of a Taliban-appointed ambassador but also by sustained intergovernmental cooperation. While such steps raise questions under international law, the Uzbek government’s priority remains practical problem-solving over ideological posturing. In this context, the authors stress the centrality of water diplomacy, especially as Afghanistan’s controversial Qosh-Tepa Canal project threatens to divert significant volumes from the Amu Darya, jeopardizing downstream water availability in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Given the canal’s potential environmental and geopolitical consequences, Uzbekistan’s strategy signals a proactive commitment to defending vital interests, regardless of the international community’s indecisiveness regarding Taliban legitimacy.   Security concerns remain a critical factor in Tashkent’s calculus. The persistent threat from extremist groups operating in Afghanistan compels Uzbekistan to extend its security and developmental engagement across the border. This includes soft-power tools like funding religious educational institutions in Afghan provinces, designed to foster stability and counteract radical influences. At the same time, the authors point to the absence of a collective regional approach toward managing water disputes with Afghanistan. While Iran and Afghanistan have recently made progress over the Helmand River, countries like Pakistan remain locked in unresolved negotiations, further highlighting Uzbekistan’s preference for bilateralism over multilateral dependency.   Importantly, the brief reveals that Uzbekistan is developing a nuanced model of “limited recognition” anchored in economic interdependence, cross-border trade, and municipal cooperation. The authors cite examples such as the establishment of Afghan trade infrastructure in Termez and plans for Uzbek commercial representation in Mazar-i-Sharif. These moves suggest that official recognition is not the only pathway to effective engagement, especially when national interests demand urgent and adaptive diplomacy. Uzbekistan’s approach offers a blueprint for other regional actors seeking stability without conferring political legitimacy on a controversial regime.   In conclusion, the authors argue that Uzbekistan’s Afghanistan policy is less a break from tradition than a continuation of a strategic doctrine that balances principle with pragmatism. As the international community stalls, Uzbekistan’s actions may eventually catalyze a broader regional realignment, prompting others to pursue similar policies of conditional engagement. Thus, Tashkent’s carefully managed cooperation with the Taliban may well redefine the contours of Central Asian diplomacy, illustrating how mid-sized powers can take initiative in shaping regional security and development agendas.   * 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.

The article by Professor Ibragim Mavlanov published in the electronic scientific and practical journal “Human Capital and Labor Protection” focuses on the fact that the country’s share in world exports is the most important macroeconomic indicator directly affecting its status in the world economy. He stresses that the growth of Uzbekistan’s export potential is a key condition for realizing the tasks set by the President, including the strategic goal of joining the ranks of developed countries. Analyzing statistics, Professor Mavlanov demonstrates the positive dynamics of Uzbekistan's export growth in recent years, but points to its inconsistency with the scale achieved by countries with similar or smaller populations.   An important place in the article is given to economic diplomacy as a strategic tool for promoting export policy. The author stresses that strengthening foreign economic interaction and supporting exports of services and intellectual property are becoming key areas of export strategy modernization.   The author concludes with several practical recommendations, ranging from interagency coordination to radical expansion of services exports. He argues that to achieve the target indicators of the Uzbekistan-2030 Strategy the volume of exports should be increased by 2.5-3 times. Thus, the article is a substantial and well-founded contribution to the scientific and applied discussion on the place of Uzbekistan in the global economy.   * 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.

In his new policy brief, Dr. Islomkhon Gafarov explores the shifting contours of American foreign policy toward Afghanistan. He presents a nuanced periodization of U.S. engagement, tracing four evolving phases that reflect Washington’s strategic ambiguity, internal contradictions, and the absence of a long-term vision in its dealings with the Taliban regime. Beginning with the continuation of counterterrorism efforts beyond the military withdrawal — epitomized by the 2022 killing of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri — Dr. Gafarov highlights how terrorism remained the dominant lens through which U.S. policymakers initially viewed Afghanistan.   The subsequent phase, characterized by political disengagement, saw Washington adopt a posture of strategic patience and indirect diplomacy, largely withdrawing from political and infrastructural involvement while maintaining limited humanitarian assistance. Dr. Gafarov then focuses on the Trump administration’s more assertive yet bifurcated approach. On one hand, President Trump’s MAGA-driven rhetoric called for punitive measures against the Taliban, such as suspending aid and demanding the return of military equipment. On the other, pragmatic calculations led to direct contact with Taliban representatives—underscoring a willingness to adjust tactics when electoral messaging proved inadequate for realpolitik imperatives.   In analyzing the most recent phase of direct engagement, Dr. Gafarov argues that the United States has begun to reassess its methods, engaging Taliban officials in dialogue despite earlier antagonism. This shift is attributed, in part, to growing Chinese influence in Afghanistan, which has challenged U.S. strategic interests in the region. The resumption of U.S.-Taliban contact — symbolized by high-level meetings and hostage releases — signals Washington’s renewed recognition of Afghanistan’s geopolitical centrality, particularly considering China’s Belt and Road ambitions.   Dr. Gafarov also explores the potential for Uzbekistan to serve as a diplomatic bridge between the United States and the Taliban. He underscores Tashkent’s historical and logistical relevance, its alignment with U.S. perspectives on regional development and stability, and its unique standing as one of Afghanistan’s most engaged neighbors. In this context, Uzbekistan’s mediation role is portrayed as a promising avenue for cautious re-engagement that would allow Washington to advance its interests while maintaining a degree of political distance.   Ultimately, Dr. Gafarov concludes that the U.S. strategy toward Afghanistan remains fragmented and reactive. Internal divisions within the Taliban, the persistence of terrorist threats, and the unresolved issue of human rights all contribute to Washington’s uncertainty and strategic hesitation. While pragmatic engagement may increase, he suggests, it is likely to remain constrained by ideological, geopolitical, and humanitarian considerations.   Read on The Asia Today   * 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.

The article by Dr. Islomkhon Gafarov has attracted considerable attention, having been shared by 12 Pakistani media and analytical sources — an indication of its growing relevance in the discourse on regional connectivity and strategic cooperation between Central and South Asia. The author presents a compelling case for recognizing Uzbekistan and Pakistan as key drivers in advancing interregional dialogue across the Eurasian space.   Gafarov’s central argument is that the growing “region-to-region” cooperation model is not only timely but essential for addressing complex challenges such as regional security, sustainable development, and economic interdependence. He identifies the dialogue between Central and South Asia as a leading example of this trend, with Uzbekistan and Pakistan emerging as principal actors. Unlike global powers whose interest remains largely declarative, these two countries have demonstrated genuine commitment through investment-backed infrastructure initiatives, most notably the Trans-Afghan Transport Corridor.   The article highlights a strategic convergence in the foreign policy priorities of Uzbekistan and Pakistan, both of which are transitioning from geopolitics to geo-economics. Uzbekistan seeks access to maritime routes and integration into global supply chains through Afghan and Pakistani territory, while Pakistan views Central Asia as a promising market and transit route to northern Eurasia. These aligned interests have led to active cooperation in transport, trade, and energy, positioning both countries as indispensable to the future of Central–South Asian connectivity.   Afghanistan, as a geographical and logistical bridge, plays a pivotal role in this framework. Dr. Gafarov underscores the necessity of stabilizing Afghanistan not only through infrastructure development but also through educational and humanitarian initiatives. He cites the construction of a madrasa in Mazar-i-Sharif by Uzbekistan as a positive example and proposes greater educational exchanges and scholarship programs as instruments for long-term peace and regional integration.   However, the author also identifies persistent challenges that threaten to slow down progress: weak transport connectivity, a deficit in people-to-people diplomacy, water-sharing disputes, and the continued presence of extremist groups. To overcome these barriers, Dr. Gafarov proposes the institutionalization of platforms like the Termez Dialogue and the creation of joint academic and cultural institutions. Notably, he calls for the establishment of a Central and South Asian Joint University in Termez and a Museum of the Peoples of South and Central Asia in Lahore, aiming to foster mutual understanding and build durable foundations for cooperation. Through this multi-layered and forward-looking vision, Dr. Gafarov’s article provides not only a strategic diagnosis but also a roadmap for sustainable interregional engagement.   Read the article: Diplomatic News Agency – DNA Pakistan in the World The Diplomatic Insight Islamabad Post Daily Ittehad Daily Spokesman (PDF) The World Ambassador The Gulf Observer News Guru The Europe Today World News Common Future Society   * 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.

The 100-day mark of President Donald Trump’s second term has been defined by an extraordinary pace of executive activity, sparking intense debate both within the United States and across the international stage. At this juncture, political analysts and journalists alike have turned their attention to the trajectory of Trump’s approval ratings, the cohesion of his cabinet, and the administration’s early legislative and executive milestones.   Operating within the framework of the conservative “Project 2025” – an ideological blueprint for restoring traditional values and consolidating executive power – Trump launched a wave of sweeping reforms under the banner of “Make America Great Again”. His domestic policy agenda has been marked by what observers have dubbed a “Trumpian restructuring”: a concerted effort to downsize the federal bureaucracy, challenge prevailing socio-cultural norms, and redirect the nation’s economic strategy.   Note: Project 2025 is a set of conservative policy proposals aimed at overhauling the federal government and expanding presidential authority, developed by the Heritage Foundation and released in April 2023 in anticipation of the 2024 election.   Pursuing a strategy of “flooding the zone” — a deliberate inundation of executive actions to disorient opponents — Trump signed approximately 140 executive orders within his first 100 days, far exceeding the pace of both his first term and his predecessors. The overwhelming majority of these orders focused on domestic affairs.   Values Realignment. A central theme of Trump’s second-term agenda has been dismantling what he calls the “deep state” and rolling back “woke culture” – particularly the emphasis on minority rights and inclusivity in government institutions. One of Trump’s earliest actions was the repeal of all federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. His administration officially recognized only two genders and eliminated regulatory oversight on public discourse, citing the need to restore free speech.   This cultural rollback extended beyond government: corporations scaled back inclusion initiatives, and universities came under direct pressure to terminate DEI programs or face funding cuts. The administration’s crackdown on campus political activism, especially concerning pro-Palestinian movements, triggered high-profile clashes with leading academic institutions.   Government Downsizing. Trump established a new Department of Government Efficiency, reportedly headed by Elon Musk, to streamline federal operations and reduce bureaucracy. Under its oversight, an estimated 260,000 federal employees were laid off, with severance and termination-related costs surpassing $135 billion.   One of the hardest-hit institutions was the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which was merged into the State Department. Over 5,000 projects were cancelled, and 90% of staff were dismissed. The Department of Education began a phased dismantlement, transferring its functions to state and local governments. Major staffing cuts were also initiated in agencies overseeing national security, including the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, and NSA. The resulting budgetary savings were redirected to reindustrialization efforts and deficit reduction.   Migration. The administration adopted a stringent stance on immigration, resuming construction of the southern border wall and designating human smuggling cartels as terrorist organizations. Reports suggest illegal border crossings have dropped by up to 90% — a 60-year low. While many Americans supported these measures, critics, including human rights groups and courts, condemned the deportation of immigrants who had long integrated into American society and faced persecution in their countries of origin.   In parallel, Trump moved to tighten electoral regulations, introducing mandatory citizenship verification for voters and limiting mail-in ballots. These actions drew sharp accusations from Democrats, who claimed they infringed upon civil liberties.   Economy. Trump reignited a trade war with China and escalated global tariff disputes. Duties on Chinese imports soared to 145%, while base tariffs on goods from more than 180 countries were raised to 27–67%. Though later lowered to 10% for 75 nations, the moves disrupted global trade.   These protectionist measures, justified as efforts to restore “trade fairness” and reshore manufacturing, caused turmoil in financial markets. The S&P 500 fell by 8.5% — the worst first-quarter performance since the Nixon era. Wall Street investors suffered over $8 trillion in losses, and the U.S. economy shrank by 0.3% in Q1 2025, marking its first contraction since 2022.   Public sentiment was largely unfavorable: according to Fox News, 58% of Americans opposed the tariffs due to fears of inflation and recession. Trump, in response, blamed the economic turbulence on the Biden administration’s legacy and urged patience. Economists noted that tariff revenues ($1.9 trillion over 10 years) would fall short of covering the cost of Trump’s proposed corporate tax cut from 21% to 15%—a move estimated to cost nearly $4 trillion.   Foreign Policy. On the international front, the Trump administration pursued an assertive agenda to end major conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East. In the case of Ukraine, Trump sought direct negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow, prompting criticism from both domestic and European allies who accused him of favoring “peace through capitulation”. U.S. military aid to Ukraine was temporarily suspended as leverage, while Trump demanded audits and “gratitude” from Kyiv, as well as resource access agreements on heavily skewed terms.   Observers noted a broader crisis within the Republican Party’s foreign policy doctrine, where loyalty to Trump appeared to eclipse traditional ideological positions. Prominent figures such as Senator Lindsey Graham and Secretary of State Marco Rubio softened previously hardline stances toward Russia.   Relations with the European Union grew strained. Vice President J.D. Vance’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference about reevaluating transatlantic solidarity and pressuring European states on defense spending and trade fueled further discord. The administration also withdrew funding from public diplomacy programs while promoting the global expansion of MAGA-aligned values.   Elements of geopolitical adventurism also surfaced: renewed efforts to purchase Greenland, coercive overtures to Canada about U.S. accession, calls for the return of the Panama Canal, continued military support for Israel, strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, unexpected outreach to Iran, and the redeployment of U.S. naval forces to Libya after five decades.   Yet, constitutional constraints hampered these ambitions. The administration faced legal hurdles requiring Senate ratification for new treaties (Republicans lack a supermajority) and compliance with the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which limits unilateral presidential powers to lift sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea.   Note: Passed in 2017, CAATSA mandates congressional approval for any easing or removal of certain sanctions, curbing the executive branch’s autonomy in foreign affairs.   Conclusions   I. Public opinion has largely turned against the administration. National polls show Trump’s approval ratings dropping to 39–44%, down from 53% at the start of his term. This decline is particularly evident among key voting blocs and in traditionally Republican states.   The public disapproves of Trump’s policies on trade, governance, foreign affairs, and economic management. While Trump’s media-saturating approach kept him in the spotlight, the long-term viability of his chaos-based governance remains in doubt — especially with the 2026 midterms looming.   II. Trump’s economic policies have heightened domestic anxieties and triggered global market volatility. Fears of a recession, coupled with falling oil and commodity prices, are driving sell-offs in U.S. debt. Having spent nearly a decade cultivating his image as a steward of economic growth, Trump now faces reputational risks that could erode his political capital.   Signs of a constitutional crisis are emerging. The balance of power between branches of government, long a pillar of American democracy, appears destabilized. Congress — once seen as firmly under Trump’s control — is showing signs of rebellion. Republican senators are drafting legislation independently, and Democrats, though in the minority, have begun exploring impeachment proceedings.   III. U.S. alliances are fraying. Canada is reportedly exploring EU membership, while China, South Korea, and Japan are deepening regional economic ties. Mexico is expanding cooperation across Latin America.   Despite high energy and assertive leadership, Trump’s second-term strategy of information overload and relentless initiative-taking may have overstretched the administration’s capacities. Without a clearly articulated, step-by-step roadmap, doubts are mounting over the long-term coherence and sustainability of the White House’s policy direction.   * 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.