Nargiza Umarova outlines the strategic rationale behind Uzbekistan’s efforts to establish a West-South transport axis as part of its broader ambition to emerge as a key logistics hub in Eurasia. She argues that Uzbekistan’s current participation in Europe-bound freight flows remains disproportionately low, just 2.3 percent of Central Asia’s total, despite the country’s advantageous geographic location. This marginal role, she notes, represents both a structural limitation and a latent opportunity. As European interest in Central Asian connectivity intensifies, particularly through the diversification of transport routes away from Russian infrastructure, Uzbekistan is positioning itself to fill a growing demand for new, geopolitically neutral corridors.
Umarova situates this development within the evolving geopolitical and economic relationship between Central Asia and the European Union. The EU, now Uzbekistan’s third-largest trading partner after China and Russia, has already seen a rise in bilateral trade turnover, particularly under the GSP+ trade preference scheme. Uzbekistan’s exports to Europe — dominated by chemicals and uranium — reflect both the scale and the narrow base of current exchanges. Thus, she argues, the expansion of transport connectivity is not just about logistics but about fundamentally restructuring Uzbekistan’s economic integration with global markets, enabling more diversified, higher-value exports over time.
To that end, Umarova highlights two transformative infrastructure initiatives. The first is the China–Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan railway, which will shorten trade routes between East Asia and Europe by nearly 900 kilometers. This railway is designed to turn the Southern Corridor, previously marginalized by sanctions on Iran and logistical difficulties, into a competitive monomodal artery for transcontinental trade. Although she acknowledges that the mountainous terrain in Kyrgyzstan may limit its scalability compared to Kazakhstan’s flatter routes, Umarova argues that the southern path offers new geoeconomic options, particularly through potential linkages to the Middle East and Africa via Iran and Türkiye.
The second initiative she examines is the Termez–Mazar-i-Sharif–Kabul–Peshawar railway, which aims to create a direct land connection from Central Asia to South Asia and the Indian Ocean. In Umarova’s assessment, this so-called Kabul Corridor has the potential to redefine regional transit flows by offering an alternative to traditional northward routes through Russia. If successfully linked to the Northern and Middle Corridors, the Afghan route could connect Northern Europe, Russia, Belarus, the Caucasus, and parts of Southern Europe to India and the Gulf, with Uzbekistan serving as the pivotal junction. This would not only enhance the country’s logistical profile but also elevate its geostrategic relevance in a fragmenting global order.
Umarova concludes that while Uzbekistan cannot fully compete with Kazakhstan’s dominance in regional freight due to its lack of Caspian Sea access and more limited rail infrastructure, these new corridors offer pathways to mitigate existing imbalances. The key, she asserts, is not to replicate Kazakhstan’s model, but to develop complementary routes that serve new geographies and actors. If Uzbekistan succeeds in establishing itself as an indispensable link between Europe, South Asia, and the Middle East, it could profoundly shift the regional transport matrix and secure a stronger role in the international economic system.
* 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.
