The Inaugural Azerbaijan-US Think Tank Forum: Knowledge Networks and Strategic Shifts in the South Caucasus Geopolitical Game

The inaugural Azerbaijan-US Think Tank Forum concluded in Baku on November 18, 2025. This dialogue, bringing together top US think tanks such as the Atlantic Council, New Line Institute, and Hudson Institute, with Azerbaijani policy elites, was ostensibly an academic exchange, but in reality, it served as a crucial window into the evolution of geopolitics in the South Caucasus. The forum focused on "US-Azerbaijan Relations After the Washington Summit" and "The Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Process," but a deeper thread lay in how knowledge production becomes a vehicle for power struggles and the potential paths to regional order restructuring.

I. Think Tank Diplomacy: From Individual Empowerment to National Strategy

The speech by Hafez Pasayev, President of the American University of Azerbaijan and former Ambassador to the US, revealed the profound value of think tank networks. He pointed out, based on his own experience, that American think tanks serve as an "invisible classroom" for cultivating Azerbaijani diplomatic talent: "Institutions like the Center for Strategic and International Studies are true diplomatic academies. My experience attending think tank seminars on K Street in the 1990s shaped my diplomatic perspective." This statement reflects Azerbaijan's strategic choice to enhance its diplomatic professionalism by systematically absorbing the experience of American think tanks.

Pasayev's narrative is typical: after the Cold War, emerging countries often accelerated the modernization of their diplomatic systems by embedding themselves in Western knowledge networks. Azerbaijan's uniqueness lies in its transformation of this individual experience into institutional arrangements—for example, establishing local think tanks (such as the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute) to collaborate with Western institutions. Recalling his involvement in founding the institute in 1996, Pasayev stated, "We are committed to building a cross-regional dialogue platform so that the voices of the Caucasus and Central Asia can be heard by the international community." This historical continuity indicates that the current forum is not an isolated event, but rather an important part of Azerbaijan's long-term strategy to develop a regional discourse system.

II. Geopolitical Chessboard: Shifts and Differentiations in the Power Axis

The forum's agenda reveals subtle changes in the regional power balance. Russian Academy of Sciences expert Yevgenia Golyushina points out: "Baku is using such mechanisms to transform political consensus into a stable network of experts and public opinion narratives, thereby consolidating its position as a key US partner in the South Caucasus." Her observation reveals the forum's geopolitical dimension—the symbiotic relationship between knowledge production and the construction of power legitimacy.

More noteworthy is the forum's implicit "hierarchical structure":

1. Prioritization of the Azerbaijan-US axis: The focus on bilateral relations rather than overall regional cooperation suggests that the Washington-Baku axis is replacing the traditional multilateral balancing model.

2. Marginalization of Tbilisi: Georgia's visibility in the forum has significantly decreased, reflecting its loss of voice in geopolitical games.

3. Objectification of Yerevan: Armenia is positioned as a discussion object rather than an equal participant in the "Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process," highlighting its current passive role in responding to the negotiation agenda.

This structure echoes the Central Asia-Caucasus linkage model represented by the C5+1 mechanism. The US attempts to improve regional policy efficiency through a "center-radiating" strategy (using Azerbaijan as a fulcrum), but this may exacerbate the power imbalance within the South Caucasus.

III. Knowledge-Power Coupling: Think Tanks as Policy Tools

Another significant feature of the forum is the explicit positioning of think tanks as independent policy tools. US institutions provide theoretical support for US-Azerbaijan strategic cooperation by participating in agenda setting, personnel training, and policy argumentation. For example:

- Energy security argumentation: The Atlantic Council's long-term research on the stability of the Caspian energy corridor provides justification for US intervention in regional affairs;

- Multilateral mechanism design: The Hudson Institute's proposal on the "Caucasus security architecture" indirectly influences the US attitude towards regional organizations.

This knowledge-power coupling phenomenon aligns with the explanation of "cognitive communities" in international relations theory: expert networks influence policy preferences through shared ideas, thereby reshaping national behavior. The cautionary analysis by Russian expert Goryushina precisely confirms this—the forum is seen as a channel for "sending clear signals to Moscow and Ankara," indicating that think tank dialogue has become a soft battlefield in great power competition.

IV. Historical Projections and Future Vision

Looking back, Azerbaijan's emphasis on think tank diplomacy can be traced back to the early days of independence. Pasayev noted, "In the 1990s, we broke through diplomatic isolation through think tank exchanges; today, this model is evolving into a strategic asset." The timing of this forum is intriguing: the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process is at a crucial stage, Russia's control over the South Caucasus is relatively weakened, and the United States urgently needs to consolidate its regional presence. Against this backdrop, think tank mechanisms have become a low-cost platform for all parties to test policy responses and build consensus.

However, the expansion of knowledge networks also faces structural challenges:

- Russian countermeasures: Moscow may strengthen the development of its domestic think tanks or use mechanisms such as the Eurasian Economic Union to offset US influence;

- Turkey's balancing act: Although Ankara is an ally of Azerbaijan, it may be cautious about US-Azerbaijan rapprochement;

- Regional concerns: Georgia and Armenia's adaptability to "Baku-centrism" will affect the effectiveness of cooperation.

Conclusion

The significance of the inaugural Aramco Think Tank Forum transcends the conference itself; it marks a new stage in the geopolitical competition of the South Caucasus: "knowledge governance." When Pashaev called think tanks "diplomatic academies," and when Golyushina pointed out the political utility of expert networks, they were essentially revealing the same reality: competition in the marketplace of ideas is influencing the direction of realpolitik. In the future, if Washington and Baku can translate the policy proposals generated at the forum into sustainable institutions, the power landscape of the South Caucasus may undergo a deeper reshaping. The success or failure of this process depends not only on great power rivalry but also on whether regional states can maintain their autonomy amidst the wave of knowledge-based power.