Can the Organisation of Turkic States help fill Eurasia’s security vacuum?

The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ

Eurasia is no longer a passive space shaped by great powers but an active arena of contestation involving multiple overlapping conflicts and competing connectivity projects.

The war in Ukraine, tensions in the Middle East, and ongoing energy challenges in South Asia are reshaping the global security environment. Many analysts now view this period as a turning point that could significantly alter existing international systems.

Currently, regional organisations are under increasing pressure to move beyond symbolic cooperation and embrace more practical roles in ensuring stability. The Organisation of Turkic States (OTS) is one of the bodies that is evolving beyond symbolism.

The OTS, consisting of Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, sits at the intersection of these dynamics. Linking the Caspian basin, Central Asian hinterland, and Anatolian gateway, it forms a corridor of growing importance for both trade and security.

The key question, however, is whether the Organisation of Turkic States can evolve into a meaningful security actor in Eurasia. The answer depends not only on its strategic potential, but on its ability to leverage its advantages into tangible geopolitical influence.

From a cultural platform to an emerging geopolitical actor

The OTS has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past decade. Initially conceived as a cultural and linguistic forum, it has gradually evolved into a platform addressing economic integration, connectivity, and more recently security cooperation.

The 2025 Gabala Summit marked a turning point, with member states explicitly prioritising “regional peace and security” and discussing frameworks for defence cooperation, including joint military exercises.

The organisation has already demonstrated tangible contributions in non-military domains, particularly through its support for the Trans-Caspian “Middle Corridor,” an alternative route linking China and Europe amid disruptions to northern routes due to the war in Ukraine.

This cooperation is not merely economic. It carries significant strategic implications, as control over trade corridors increasingly intersects with questions of geopolitical influence and resilience.

Despite its growing ambitions, the Organisation of Turkic States is yet to evolve into a formal security alliance and continues to function primarily as a coordination platform rather than a binding institutional structure.

Unlike NATO or even the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the OTS does not yet have key features of collective defence, such as a mutual defence clause, unified command systems, and integrated military planning. These factors have direct implications for its role in regional crises.

In the context of the war in Ukraine and instability in the Middle East, the OTS has not articulated a unified security position. While individual member states have issued diplomatic statements and maintained coordination, the organisation itself has not emerged as an independent actor leading crisis management or conflict mediation.

This stems from a combination of structural and political factors. First, many member states pursue multi-vector foreign policies, carefully balancing their relations with major powers such as Russia, China, the European Union, and the United States.

For countries such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, avoiding confrontation with Russia remains a priority, while Türkiye maintains a complex and flexible position between Western and non-Western actors. These differing strategic orientations make it difficult to formulate unified security responses.

Secondly, the absence of hard power integration constrains the organisation. Although there have been efforts to expand defence cooperation and conduct joint military exercises, these initiatives remain largely symbolic and do not amount to institutionalised defence commitments.

Third, several member states participate in other security frameworks and maintain ties with external powers, which creates overlapping obligations and impacts decision-making within the OTS.

• Georgia–Azerbaijan trade shows promise despite differing figures, says business leader
• Lithuania and Azerbaijan ties grow amid EU strategic shift
• Azerbaijan’s niche strategy in the Western Balkans

Critical juncture for the OTS

The organisation suffers from normative ambiguity. It has yet to clearly define its strategic identity whether it seeks to function as a geopolitical bloc, an economic integration project, or a cultural community. This lack of clarity weakens its ability to act decisively in an increasingly unstable Eurasian environment.

The evolving geopolitical environment in Eurasia marked by overlapping crises such as the Ukraine war and Middle Eastern tensions has exposed the limits of global governance while simultaneously creating opportunities for regional actors.

In this context, the Organisation of Turkic States stands at a critical juncture: its limitations in the realm of the security cooperation are evident, yet the structural conditions increasingly favour its strategic elevation.

As major powers become overstretched, responsibility for regional stability is gradually shifting to local actors. This dynamic enhances the relevance of the OTS, which possesses several comparative advantages. Its geostrategic position along key transport and energy routes, particularly the Middle Corridor, provides tangible leverage in Eurasian connectivity.

At the same time, shared linguistic and historical ties among member states facilitate trust and reduce coordination costs, while the organisation’s flexible institutional design allows for adaptive and pragmatic cooperation.

Despite these strengths, the OTS has not yet translated potential into influence. The absence of clearly defined defence-related priorities disperses efforts across multiple domains, while institutional constraints limit implementation capacity. Furthermore, member states tend to prioritise bilateral approaches as collective geopolitical action continues to evolve.

The OTS needs to adopt a more focused and functional approach to regional security. This begins with articulating a clear security doctrine centered on counterterrorism, energy security, and conflict mediation. Institutional strengthening, including enhancing the Secretariat and establishing dedicated security mechanisms, is equally essential.

The organisation could further prioritise cooperation through joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and crisis response coordination. Connectivity initiatives should be reframed as instruments of strategic resilience, not merely economic projects. Expanding external engagement through formats such as “OTS+” can further enhance legitimacy and regional reach.

The OTS also has the potential to position itself as a neutral mediating platform in regional conflicts. Its relative distance from major power rivalries offers diplomatic flexibility that could facilitate dialogue. Unlocking this potential depends on its ability to move toward strategically coherent and institutionally grounded action.

While the OTS has already moved beyond its original cultural mandate and is gradually acquiring geopolitical relevance across Eurasia, its evolution as a security actor is ongoing. In today’s fragmented and crisis-prone international environment, the need for credible regional stabilisers is growing.

The OTS possesses important advantages - strategic geography, shared political identity, and expanding connectivity networks. However, the organisation needs to adopt clearer strategic priorities, stronger mechanisms of coordination, and a readiness to act jointly in times of crises.

Ultimately, the future of the OTS will depend on whether its member states are willing to treat it as a strategic instrument rather than a diplomatic platform.

If they do, it can emerge as an important pillar of stability in Eurasia. If not, it will continue to exist on the margins of regional politics, while the security order is shaped by external powers.

Nurbolat Nyshanbayev is an Assistant Professor, PhD at the Higher School of International Relations and Diplomacy,  Turan University,  Almaty, Kazakhstan

Tags

Politics Organization of Turkic States Eurasia Türkiye Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Security