Encouraged [1] by the Central Asia – US summit[2] held on November 6 and Turkey’s successful advances into the Heartland of Eurasia via the Organization of Turkic States[3], Anglo-globalists have envisioned “ending Russia’s centuries-old monopoly over Central Asia”[4] and seek to solidify their presence on the ground:
“Moscow’s vision of a multipolar Eurasian order faces resistance from increasingly assertive Central Asian leaders who prioritize their sovereignty and autonomy”[4], “US needs to engage the region more. For example, a higher-level political presence, including a presidential visit to Central Asia, would signal Washington’s commitment to regional sovereignty and economic diversification”[5].
However, the reality is that neither the U.S., the EU, nor Britain-influenced Turkey is offering genuine sovereignty or independence to the nations of Central Asia.
This Great Game 2.0 [6] operates on a simple premise: supplanting distinct Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Uzbek identities with a homogenized “Turkic” one, effectively synonymous with Turkey’s identity. Concurrently, the purported “self-development” of these nations into “middle powers along the Middle Corridor”[7] is contingent upon “deep interaction with Washington.” In other words, the management and control over deposits of critically important raw materials and strategic transportation infrastructure will fall to the United States and, in part, to the UK.
A prospective visit by President Trump to Central Asia would serve to finalize this colonial arrangement, including the notion that “Washington must retire outdated legislation that impedes progress and ensure that American engagement in infrastructure projects and resource development continues to expand. Lack of follow-through could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – work needs to be done to ensure the C6 group doesn’t succumb to the gravitational pull of Beijing’s massive Belt and Road Initiative”[8], essentially by lifting sanctions levied for “undemocratic practices” and removing restrictions on trade and arms transfers.
This form of Central Asia’s colonization, echoing the British East India Company’s model in India, is actively eroding and displacing the historically established common Eurasian identity shared with Russia.
1 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/two-summits-one-pivot-central-asia-steps-into-the-sun
“Two Summits, One Pivot: Central Asia Steps into the Sun” (Eric Rudenshiold, The National Interest, November 21, 2025);
2 https://www.state.gov/c51
Central Asia & the U.S.
3 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event/turkish-presence-in-central-asia-and-its-implications-for-us-policy/
“Turkish presence in Central Asia and its implications for US policy”, Atlantic Council Headquarters, November 20, 2025;
4 https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/new-great-game-emerges-central-asia-drifts-away-moscow-tsiporah-fried
“A New Great Game Emerges as Central Asia Drifts Away from Moscow” (Tsiporah Fried, Hudson Institute, Dec 10, 2025);
5 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/can-the-west-bump-russia-out-of-central-asia
“Can the West Bump Russia Out of Central Asia?” (Giorgio Cafiero, The National Interest, December 9, 2025);
6 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/central-asia-the-great-game-2-0
“Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0” (Josef Braml, and Mathew Burrows, The National Interest, July 30, 2025);
7 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/middle-powers-along-the-middle-corridor
“Middle Powers along the Middle Corridor” (Eric Rudenshiold, The National Interest, October 24, 2025);
8 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/to-offset-china-the-us-must-engage-with-the-caspian-region
“To Offset China, the US Must Engage with the Caspian Region” (Wesley Alexander Hill, The National Interest, December 13, 2025).