The Foreign Service Institute (FSI) is at the forefront of equipping U.S. diplomats with the skills and knowledge needed to navigate today’s complex global landscape. To fulfill this mission, FSI evolves its curriculum to foster specialized expertise across the US foreign affairs community. At the helm of this effort for the South Caucasus is Dr. Jake Sotiriadis, a geopolitical strategist and former U.S. Air Force intelligence officer with a deep background in strategic foresight. Dr. Sotiriadis designs the curriculum to address the region's challenges and match the projected needs of U.S. diplomatic engagement. Caucasus Watch reached out to Dr. Sotiriadis in Washington to delve into his strategic analysis of the region’s evolving dynamics and the future trajectory of U.S. engagement in the region.

How do American diplomats prepare for service in the South Caucasus?

Thank you for the question. Diplomatically, the South Caucasus is a region as fascinating as it is challenging, steeped in layers of geopolitical competition among many major powers and marked by historical grievances stretching back thousands of years. It is also one of the world’s most ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse areas. Even the most seasoned American diplomats face formidable hurdles here, navigating complex dynamics in a landscape where history and geopolitics, conflict, and historical memory are deeply intertwined.

In response to these challenges, our Caucasus Regional Studies curriculum offers diplomats a comprehensive understanding of the region's historical foundations, spotlighting the major forces of disruption that continue to shape the present. As the principal instructor, my focus is on critical themes - geopolitics, energy politics, cultural dynamics, and the role of religion - that remain central to understanding the region’s influence and flashpoints. Language training is also paramount, with diplomats tackling some of the world's most challenging languages, including Armenian, Georgian, and Azerbaijani.

But teaching history and language alone is not enough. That’s why I’m piloting a groundbreaking program in strategic foresight for diplomats. This initiative blends deep geopolitical insights with the strategic engagement of guest lecturers to foster an anticipatory mindset. Diplomats can no longer afford to react to trends - they must shape them. In volatile regions like the South Caucasus, being able to envision multiple futures and prepare for them isn’t a luxury; it’s an essential skill set for navigating an increasingly uncertain world.

What I offer our diplomats is more than just an academic understanding of the South Caucasus - I endeavor to equip them with futures literacy, a critical skill set that empowers them to anticipate, adapt, and influence the trajectory of events in the region. Futures literacy goes beyond analyzing current geopolitical trends. It gives diplomats the tools to think ahead, identify emerging threats and opportunities, and craft forward-looking strategies that can shape positive outcomes.

By fostering an anticipatory mindset, diplomats gain the ability to see beyond immediate crises and react proactively to complex, evolving situations. And this isn’t just theoretical; the tangible results are clear. Diplomats who embrace futures literacy can navigate negotiations with greater confidence, identify points of leverage in regional power dynamics, and build more resilient foreign policy frameworks that account for the unexpected and unpredictable. The ability to envision multiple futures and strategically prepare for them provides a distinct advantage in an increasingly uncertain global landscape.

At the core of this training is the belief that foresight isn't just about forecasting trends - it's about building the capacity to shape and influence future policy. Whether it's preempting potential conflicts, capitalizing on diplomatic openings, or developing long-term strategies for regional stability, futures literacy turns uncertainty into opportunity. Diplomats will optimally leave this program with not only regional knowledge but also actionable, strategic insights that enhance their effectiveness in one of the most geopolitically critical regions in the world.

When it comes to scenario-building, we tend to think of foresight. How does that work in practice?

Scenarios are a highly effective and accessible dimension of foresight, offering diplomats an actionable way to navigate complexity. The methodology I use is fundamentally about reprogramming linear thinking into a systems-based approach. The goal isn’t simply moving from point A to point B. Instead, today’s interconnected world demands multi-layered thinking - a "systems perspective" - that helps diplomats understand how various geopolitical, economic, and societal variables interact to shape regional dynamics.

While this may sound theoretical, it’s a highly practical way of dealing with the complexities of regions like the South Caucasus. It allows diplomats to engage with a wide array of stakeholders - civil society, academia, and local influencers - who can reveal critical points of friction and opportunity. This holistic approach is how we gain a deep understanding of a region, its strategic relevance to the United States, and the potential paths it might take in the future.

And there is a broad application of futures thinking beyond the South Caucasus as well. For example, the State Department’s Office of China Coordination (also known as “China House”) recently sought out my insights to help U.S. diplomats tackle the emerging China challenge using this foresight-based training. So as China makes strategic inroads into the South Caucasus, alongside traditional players like Iran, Turkey, Russia, and Israel’s growing relationship with Azerbaijan, the need for this complex, forward-thinking approach is critical. Here, we analyze sources of disruption and map out a range of future scenarios. And more importantly, we identify the winners and losers in each of these scenarios. This allows us, and our allies, to envision how we can proactively shape these dynamics in ways that serve U.S. interests and foster regional stability.

What are the perceived American interests in the Caucasus? Have things changed since the invasion of Ukraine?

The South Caucasus has always been a difficult region to elevate to the U.S. President’s desk. That said, today’s shifting dynamics, particularly the war in Ukraine, have thrust this region into sharper focus for several critical reasons.

First and foremost are energy interests. The war in Ukraine has disrupted Europe’s energy reliance on Russia, underscoring the strategic importance of the South Caucasus as a vital energy corridor. European nations, recognizing the vulnerabilities of their overreliance on Russian energy, are now turning to alternative sources. Projections for 2025 indicate a significant increase - double digits - in the supply of Azerbaijani gas to Europe, positioning the region as a critical supplier in global energy markets.

Transportation is another key consideration. The geopolitical landscape of the Caspian, Black Sea, and Mediterranean regions has been reshaped, not only by developments in Ukraine but also by broader shifts in the Middle East. The United States has deep strategic interests in maintaining stability and securing transport routes in these regions, particularly as they serve as essential links for both energy and commerce, enhancing both European and American security.

Moreover, promoting democratic values remains a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy, and the South Caucasus is no exception. With upcoming elections in Georgia on October 26th      and ongoing challenges to democratic governance throughout the region, U.S. engagement is critical. Ensuring free, fair elections and supporting democratic governance align with broader American values and long-term strategic interests in promoting stability and countering authoritarian influences.

Finally, Secretary Blinken’s personal involvement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace negotiations underscores the region's growing significance. This high-level engagement reflects the U.S. commitment to fostering peace and stability in this strategically vital area. Just recently in fact, Secretary Blinken reaffirmed the importance of a "durable and dignified peace" between Armenia and Azerbaijan in a call with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. So, the U.S. is certainly playing an active role in working to ensure stability and is keen on facilitating an agreement that would have significant implications for both countries and broader regional dynamics.

I believe that the South Caucasus is increasingly a microcosm of the broader multi-polar competition unfolding across the globe today. We are living through a transformational period in history, and foreign policy decisions made today will influence the trajectory of global geopolitics for the next 50 years.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, US foreign policy framed the region as a dependent variable to a “Russia policy.” Has the region now also become a dependent variable to a “Turkey policy” or “Iran policy?     ”

The shifting dynamics in the South Caucasus are precisely what make working on the region so fascinating! However, there's a common misperception that Russia is in retreat or losing influence due to its focus on Ukraine. We need to be cautious with such projections. Despite its military commitments elsewhere, Russia remains deeply embedded in the region - both economically and politically. This is evident in places like Georgia and Armenia, where Russian influence is still palpable. For Armenia, which is nearly 100% dependent on Russia for its energy resources, simply “disengaging” from Moscow is not an easy option. So Washington needs to help re-shape and create a framework for long-term stability and strategic alignment with U.S. interests, taking into account the regional dependencies on countries like Russia and Iran, which are key U.S. adversaries. 

At the same time, Chinese investment is flowing into the South Caucasus, which naturally raises lots of red flags in Washington. China's expanding economic footprint adds another layer of complexity, making the region a battleground for great power competition. Yet perhaps the most significant shift in recent years has been Turkey’s growing influence. Since the end of the Cold War, Turkey has been strategically positioning itself, and its vision of a pan-Turkic alliance stretching into Central Asia is now coming into focus. The military dimension of this influence became glaringly clear with Azerbaijan's victory over Armenia in 2020, which was backed by Turkish military support. This Turkish ambition not only challenges Russian interests but also threatens to upset Iran's standing and interests in the region.

Vladimir Putin’s recent visit to Baku in late August underscored Russia's desire to maintain its role as a power broker in the region, particularly regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan peace talks. While Armenia and Azerbaijan may be inching toward a bilateral peace agreement without direct Russian intervention, its materialization remains uncertain. Nevertheless, we cannot underestimate Turkey's growing intervention and strategic vision for the South Caucasus. It represents one of the most profound shifts in the region's geopolitical landscape since the early 1990s.

The 2008 Bucharest Summit promised an open-door policy for Ukrainian and Georgian accession to NATO. Is this kind of Euro-Atlantic parallel enlargement still possible?

Let’s set Ukraine aside for a moment and focus on Georgia. The country’s political trajectory since 2008 is nothing short of tragic - not just for its relationship with the West but for the Georgian people themselves. The upcoming elections in Georgia are deeply concerning, and I believe we may be approaching a tipping point. With the upcoming U.S. presidential election in November and the world’s focus on Ukraine, Georgia is in danger of being overlooked. This neglect could have irreversible consequences for a country that has long aspired to integrate with Western institutions. There is a clear gap between what the ruling party is trying to achieve and the aspirations of the Georgian populace.

My greatest fear is that we may soon cross the point of no return, particularly if the ruling Georgian Dream party moves to ban opposition parties after the next election. Ivanishvili’s recent remarks, likening the upcoming elections to a sort of “Nuremberg trial” for the opposition, are alarming. This rhetoric suggests an intent to silence dissent and consolidate power in ways that are incompatible with democratic norms. It’s playing directly into Russia’s hands. 

What makes this situation even more disheartening is Georgia’s proven commitment to NATO interoperability. I’ve served alongside Georgian soldiers, and I can attest to their professionalism and dedication. Georgia has made remarkable strides since the early 2000s in preparing for NATO membership. Yet, despite all this progress, both the U.S. and Europe have consistently overpromised and underdelivered. Georgia has been left in geopolitical limbo, with its aspirations unfulfilled.

Armenia faces a similar predicament. This is a small, vulnerable nation in a highly volatile region, desperately seeking a security guarantor. Despite its overtures to the West, there is no comprehensive Western strategy to address Armenia’s needs. Promises like visa liberalization and greater access to the EU have yet to materialize. The West continues to dangle the carrot but has largely failed to deliver tangible outcomes. This echoes the same dynamic we see in the Western Balkans — a region promised much but often left waiting at the door.

In my opinion, if the West is to maintain credibility in these regions, it needs to rethink its approach. It must recognize the urgency of Georgia’s and Armenia’s predicaments and act decisively to provide not just promises but real, strategic engagement.

Following the events in Syria, it appears that the 3+3 plurilateral framework of the Near East now encompasses the Caucasus region. Does this pose a threat to Washington?     

It’s certainly a significant problem. When you look at this proposed regional framework - Russia, Turkey, Iran, along with Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia - the glaring absence is the United States. And this is no accident. To be sure, Washington shouldn’t tolerate a diminished role for itself and its European allies in this critical region. The U.S. clearly has vested interests in counterbalancing the influence of Russia and Iran, both of which continue to exert significant sway. And let’s not forget there are other malignant actors in the region as well.

The OSCE Minsk Group might still exist in name, but it unfortunately failed in its core mission of bringing peace to the region. So, the U.S. now faces the task of engaging more directly, perhaps through bilateral relations or by creating new diplomatic mechanisms that can counterbalance the influence of autocratic powers.

At the same time, the upcoming COP29 summit in Baku presents a unique opportunity for the South Caucasus to gain some global attention. With Azerbaijan positioning itself as a key player in Europe’s energy security and the broader global energy transition, this is a chance for the region to redefine its role on the world stage. For the United States and its allies, COP29 could serve as a platform to promote environmental cooperation and economic development as a means to enhance stability and reduce dependency on Russia and Iran. 

Following this line of thinking, what is Washington's position on the International North-South Transport Corridor? Is there any reflection on the fundamental contradiction of American allies working with Russia and Iran on this strategic route, or is this tacitly accepted as a fact of life? 

Look, I think there is a tacit acceptance at some level that allies like India are going to pursue their own pragmatic relations with Russia and Iran for economic and logistical reasons. India already benefits from cheap Russian energy, especially in the wake of the Ukraine war. 

Overall, Western sanctions have not, at least in my view, brought the Russian economy to its knees, and Moscow continues to be able to support its war economy. There's no question that the United States is wary of any infrastructure projects that could enhance Russian and Iranian influence, especially in a strategic global energy corridor like the South Caucasus. On the flip side, there are alternative routes that better serve Western interests. The United States is diplomatically highlighting these contradictions, but I don’t think it will seek a rupture with its key allies, especially considering the delicate global geopolitical situation right now. 

Is the South Caucasus a laboratory testing the resilience of what we call “a rules-based order,” in the sense of alternative visions for a global order being put to the test?      

Let's unpack this a bit. Rather than proposing "alternatives" to the global order, the Caucasus region itself is at the forefront of a dramatic transformation. Decisions made today in capitals like Washington, Brussels, Moscow, Ankara, Tehran, and Beijing will shape international relations for the next century, making this a fascinating yet challenging historical juncture.

We’re at an inflection point for the United States and its Western allies in the South Caucasus region. Perhaps the last ten years have transformed the region more profoundly than any time since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Where do we go from here? 

Will actors like China continue to dominate the region? Beyond their hallmark infrastructure investments, China is also expanding its soft power through Confucius Institutes, language training programs, digital cities, and start-ups - developments the United States needs to closely monitor.

We must consider the broader picture, including the emergence of a pan-Turkic bloc stretching from Turkey and Azerbaijan to Central Asia. How will this bloc integrate into the future geopolitical landscape? With Turkey contemplating joining BRICS and the future of U.S.-Turkey relations hanging in the balance, enhancing bilateral cooperation with Turkey will be central to the evolution of the South Caucasus. This is of course complicated by Turkey’s increasingly eastward - looking foreign policy and a sense of profound mutual mistrust between Washington and Ankara. 

Regardless of who wins the next presidential election, there is potential to bridge key differences over policies concerning Israel, initiate a normalization process with Armenia, and limit Iran's influence. We also need to consider the ramifications if the Iranian regime collapses, which would significantly impact Turkish and Russian influence in the region. Additionally, the outcome of the war in Ukraine could either prompt Russia to double down to save face or lead to irreversible changes in the region’s political map. Ultimately, we must examine how any of these shifting variables might realign interests. And this is exactly the value proposition of taking a futures-based approach to teaching diplomats about the region. 

Disclaimer: The views and positions expressed in this article are those of the interviewee and do not reflect official positions of the US State Department or the US Government.

Interview conducted by Ilya Roubanis