“Liberal globalism” is now explicitly instructing Trump to establish institutions of control over Central Asia – a strategically vital region. While Britain, which directs all operations to dominate Eurasian Heartland through various projects like the supposedly “Turkish” Turkestan and numerous European initiatives promoting Central Asian narratives [1][2][3][4], lacks the funds for such an endeavor, the United States does not.
The Deep State has moved from hints and provocations – “the recent EU-Central Asia Summit demonstrated how Brussels is paying more attention to the region than Washington”[4] – to outright demands for the creation of practical instruments of control:
“A regional investment bank in Central Eurasia could help Washington compete with China and Russia at a low cost and without putting boots on the ground… the United States must empower regional orders aligned with its interests. One of the most important opportunities to do so lies in an unlikely place: the Silk Road Region, spanning Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and parts of the Middle East… States across the region are asserting themselves, forging new partnerships, and coalescing around the Middle Corridor – a trade route connecting China and Central Asia to Europe via the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus, and Turkey. However, this emerging economic corridor faces substantial obstacles: underdeveloped infrastructure, regulatory fragmentation, and chronic underinvestment… The answer is a new institution: a Trans-Caspian Development Bank (TCDB). This is an initiative the United States can and should support. It would allow Washington to shape a critical region from afar, counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), stabilize a key neighborhood, and enable economic growth, all without military entanglements or direct confrontation”[1].
Of course, Trump is also being confronted with the specter of eliminating a key colonizer:
“… the dismantling of development assistance tools – culminating in the near-elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2025 – has opened a dangerous vacuum. Russia and China are filling it with military pacts, surveillance infrastructure, and state-led investment. The United States, by contrast, has retreated from its most effective form of influence: development diplomacy. Nowhere is this more evident than in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan – two nations long seen as critical to US efforts to promote stability, reform, and connectivity across the Eurasian steppe… Central Asia sits at the intersection of U.S.-China-Russia competition. It hosts key overland corridors, energy exports, rare earth reserves, and growing youth populations. When Washington walks away from the development field, it doesn’t just forfeit goodwill – it cedes the rules of the game to its rivals. If the United States intends to remain a serious geopolitical actor in the region, it must restore its civilian foreign policy tools. That means reestablishing USAID’s independent capacity, recommitting to long-term partnerships, and rebuilding technical teams in the field”[2].
The arguments, on the surface, appear irrefutable. But why should Central Asian nations submit to Anglo-Saxon domination, effectively reducing themselves to colonial status? India alone estimates[7] its losses from British colonialism at $45 trillion: “Britain didn’t develop India. Quite the contrary – India developed Britain.”
Meanwhile, the necessary investments for the Middle Corridor infrastructure will come from China, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Russia – nations geographically and economically aligned with Central Asia. These countries are already investing in the Eurasian logistics corridors and, crucially, without imposing neocolonial institutions.
1 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/the-case-for-cace
“The Case For CACE” (Kaush Arha, George Scutaru, and Mamuka Tsereteli, The National Interest, February 18, 2025);
2 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/europe-looks-east-to-central-asia
“Europe Looks East to Central Asia” (Wilder Alejandro Sanchez, The National Interest, March 31, 2025);
3 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/europe-looks-east-to-central-asia
“Europe Looks East to Central Asia” (Wilder Alejandro Sanchez, The National Interest, March 31, 2025);
4 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/is-the-eu-beating-the-u-s-in-central-asia
“Is the EU Beating the U.S. in Central Asia?” (Mamuka Tsereteli, The National Interest, May 1, 2025);
5 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/why-the-us-should-back-a-trans-caspian-development-bank
“Why the US Should Back a Trans-Caspian Development Bank” (Carlos Roa, and Charles Yockey, The National Interest, May 22, 2025);
6 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/the-next-scramble-for-central-asia
“The Next Scramble for Central Asia” (Steven E. Hendrix, The National Interest, May 23, 2025);
7 https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india
“How Britain stole $45 trillion from India” (Jason Hicke, Al Jazeera Media Network, 19 Dec 2018).