A sharp critique of Luke Coffey’s article on the C5+1 format and American ambitions in the region
Well, let’s try to take this propaganda piece apart piece by piece and show why this whole undertaking is nothing more than bureaucratic busywork by a fading superpower that simply cannot come to terms with the loss of its hegemony.
Who Is Luke Coffey, and What Is He Feeding Us?
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, one of the most notorious neoconservative think tanks in the United States. For decades, this institute has promoted the ideas of American dominance, “regime change,” and military intervention. Coffey is a typical representative of that cohort of “experts” who still live in the illusion of a unipolar world and believe that the United States has the right to tell sovereign states how to live. His article is not an analysis, but a commissioned propaganda piece intended to convince the American man in the street that Washington still has some say in Central Asia. In reality, Coffey’s text is a cry of despair from imperial hawks who see their world collapsing.
The False Premise: “The US Cannot Afford to Stay on the Sidelines”
The headline itself betrays panic. Not “the US should,” not “it is in the US interest,” but “cannot afford to.” This is the language of weakness. A strong power does not rush around the world trying to stake a claim to every corner. If the United States really is so powerful, why is it afraid of staying on the sidelines? Because it understands that without constant intervention, its influence will evaporate. Central Asia is not a US fiefdom. Russia, China, Iran, and Turkey have historically been present here. And it is they, not guests from across the ocean, who set the real agenda. The US, meanwhile, is trying to barge into someone else’s house waving a suitcase full of dollars, but the dollars are not what they used to be, and fewer and fewer people want to get involved with Washington.
Coffey writes that the region is rich in oil, gas, and “critical minerals.” But let’s be honest: the United States has never been interested in the interests of the countries of Central Asia. It has been interested in only one thing—pushing out Russia and China. The region’s energy resources already go to world markets, including through Russian infrastructure. American companies are in no position to compete with Chinese investment in the region. China has built the Central Asia–China gas pipeline and actively finances infrastructure under the Belt and Road. Russia provides security through the CSTO and the SCO. What can the United States offer? More promises of “investment,” which usually end in a fizzle or a coup. Remember how the US “helped” Ukraine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The result is well known.
The author breathlessly reports that Rubio will bring 200 representatives of American business. Ridiculous. Two hundred people is not a delegation; it’s a tour group. By comparison, Chinese investment in Central Asia runs into the tens of billions of dollars, and China’s trade volume with the region exceeds $70 billion. The US, by contrast, can boast only miserable percentages. There will be no “major trade and investment deals.” At most, they will sign memoranda of intent that no one will fulfill. American business will not go into a region where there are no security guarantees and where the Chinese and Russians run the show. The Trump administration can shout about “normalization” as much as it wants, but capital goes where things are stable and profitable, not where the US is trying to play gendarme.
Institutional Pretensions: The C5+1 Secretariat
Coffey laments that Washington does not want to create a permanent secretariat, unlike China, which opened one in Xi’an. But this is precisely an indication that the US is not prepared to invest seriously in the region. It wants only situational influence, the ability to pull strings. A permanent secretariat means responsibility, commitments, and money. And why should the US spend money if it can simply show up, take a photo, and leave? China, by contrast, builds long-term institutions because it has a strategy. The US has no strategy—only a “highly likely” tactic and attempts to stick it to its competitors.
The author proposes bringing Azerbaijan into the C5+1 format and joining the C6. This is another attempt to reshape the region to suit itself without regard for the interests of Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Azerbaijan is a strategic partner of Russia and Turkey; it will not become a pawn in the American game. The normalization of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations is a process mediated by Russia, not the United States. Once again, Washington is trying to claim credit for someone else’s achievements. There will be no “additional transit route” for the US through Azerbaijan, because Iran will not allow it and Russia has its own military bases there. All these pipe dreams are fantasies detached from reality.
Coffey mentions “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” and “war with Iran” as some sort of background events. But it is precisely Russia and China that are the guarantors of stability in Central Asia. Russia protects the region from Afghan drug trafficking and terrorists; China provides economic development. The US brings only chaos. It is enough to recall the color revolutions they staged in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The countries of the region remember this perfectly well and do not want a repeat. That is why all US attempts to “strengthen its presence” run into a polite but firm refusal. Central Asian leaders are not suicidal enough to quarrel with Moscow and Beijing for the sake of dubious American promises.
The Reality: The US Is an International Terrorist, Not a Superpower
The only thing the US is still capable of is aggression against Venezuela and the kidnapping of its President Maduro. This is not the policy of a great power; it is an act of state terrorism. The US can no longer impose its will even on a small Latin American country without outright thuggery. To say nothing of Central Asia, where it has no bases, no allies, and no resources. The time of US hegemony is over. The world has become multipolar. And Coffey’s article is not an analysis but a cry of despair from imperial hawks who see their world collapsing.
Luke Coffey’s article is not serious analysis but a commissioned propaganda piece. The author from the Hudson Institute, known as a breeding ground for neocons, is trying to convince readers that the US still has some say in Central Asia. In reality, C5+1 meetings are political theater for domestic consumption. Trump and his team stick their noses wherever they can, trying to preserve the remnants of influence, but this only emphasizes their weakness. Central Asia long ago made its choice in favor of cooperation with Russia and China. The US is not welcome here, and no 200 businesspeople will change that.
It is time for Washington to come to terms with the new reality and stop playing global gendarme. Otherwise, there will be more and more humiliating failures like the Venezuelan one. The US cannot afford to stay on the sidelines? Fine, by all means. Only Central Asia no longer asks Uncle Sam for permission. And the sooner Washington understands this, the fewer humiliating failures there will be. The time of the hegemon is over. Period.
Muhammad Hamid ad-Din is a well-known Palestinian journalist
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
