The Great Game, the 19th-century Anglo-Russian rivalry for Central Asian dominance, never truly ended — it evolved. Today, the CARs remain a pivotal battleground in global geopolitics, with Russia, China, and the West vying for influence over the Eurasian heartland. As the Samarkand Summit of April 2025 ends today, the region’s strategic importance is undeniable, driven by its vast resources, trade routes, and proximity to global powers.
The Central Asian landmass, sitting at the crossroads of Eurasia, and often termed as Halford Mackinder’s “Heartland” in geopolitical theories, has forever been a prized chunk of real estate. Control of this region, rich in lithium, uranium, oil and natural gas, offers unparalleled strategic leverage. The original Great Game saw Britain and Russia compete for influence to secure trade routes and buffer zones. Today, new players have emerged: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), are being countered by Western initiatives like the European Union’s Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor (TCTC). These modern manoeuvres echo the historic contest for Eurasian dominance, keeping the geopolitical tussle for the heart of Asia alive.
The Samarkand Summit 2025, hosted in Uzbekistan’s historic Silk Road city, underscores Central Asia’s reemergence as a global focal point. The EU aims to deepen ties through the TCTC, a trade corridor bypassing Russia to connect Europe with Asia. This initiative promises 15–20% faster transit times, boosting access to critical minerals and energy. For Central Asian nations, it offers economic diversification, reducing reliance on Moscow and Beijing. However, the $20–30 billion infrastructure cost and potential pushback from Russia and China highlight their stakes involved in the region.
Beyond trade, the EU’s €1.5 billion Central Asia Water and Energy Program targets green energy and climate resilience, aligning with global sustainability trends. The EU’s Connecting Central Asia Initiative further promotes digital connectivity, countering China’s tech influence. Yet, regional challenges — water disputes, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and the digital divide — are sure to complicate implementation. That aside, the very real challenge of Western proposals on clean energy, social governance, has witnessed deindustrialization, large-scale unemployment, and a drop in living standards. Europe during the Ukraine crisis is a great example. Traditionally too, the CAR regimes have demonstrated their wariness of European governance conditions, especially the Western obsession over democratization, which has invariably led to the proliferation of NGOs, different rights groups, and colour revolutions. What remains to be seen in the near future is if they find the consequences more acceptable over the tangible offers of security, stability, and economic development – as proposed by China and Russia.
Russia and China on the other hand, have tangibles like security and economic stability to offer to these republics. Russia’s military presence and China’s BRI investments — dozens of industrial projects in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan — cement their influence. That aside, these two regional giants always put special emphasis on countering terrorism and separatism, reinforcing the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) motto. To the regimes in charge of these republics, this has traditionally been a better arrangement.
The West’s strategy is reminiscent of past Great Game tactics. It is about avoiding direct control, aiming instead to weaken adversaries. By leveraging the Russo-Ukraine conflict, the EU and US target Central Asia to disrupt Sino-Russian dominance. But the one significant difference between 19th century and now is that Central Asian states have a voice, an opinion. And CAR leaders have traditionally been wary of any kind of unrest – racial, religious, or economic – especially ones that echo historical patterns of external manipulation.
As the Samarkand Summit ends today, Central Asia’s leaders have to find ways to navigate this geopolitical chessboard with caution. The EU’s cooperative rhetoric contrasts with their traditional eye over Central Asian resource extraction. The CAR leaders understand and are fully aware of that. They also remain aware of this that balancing Western ambitions with Russo-Chinese stability will define the region’s future.
What remains to be seen is how they interpret and strategize. In this reborn Great Game, it looks like Central Asia is once again the ultimate prize, and the global powers’ moves in the regional chessboard would play a crucial role in shaping the multipolar world order.
