The Black Sea – Caspian Arc: Anaklia as a Hub of Cross-Regional Cooperation and Extra-Regional Engagement

This article examines the Anaklia port project as a pivotal element of Georgia’s maritime infrastructure and a potential component of transit in the Black Sea – Caspian arc. By the mid2020s, the project has been developing amid simultaneously deepening domestic political polarization and deteriorating relations with European institutions, including a publicly declared pause in advancing toward EU membership until 2028. Against this backdrop, the legal regime regulating “foreign influence” has acquired practical significance for the distribution of trust, the acceptable forms of public oversight, and the choice of external partners for strategic facilities. The aim of the article is to identify how changes in domestic legitimacy and in the rules governing state interaction with civil society and external sources of support affect decisions on strategic infrastructure and, through them, the configuration of regional connectivity around the Black Sea. The analysis is based on a qualitative comparison of political and infrastructure trajectories, including the dynamics of public mobilization and regulation of organizations, foreign-policy signals, and the parameters of relaunching the port project, as well as a scenario-based assessment of likely paths for the development of connectivity. The article shows that the choice of an external partner for Anaklia is driven not only by economic considerations, but also by the need to reduce political risks and enhance project manageability in a confrontational environment. As distrust of external conditionality grows and access to Western financial and legal frameworks becomes more complicated, cooperation with an actor willing to finance and build with minimal political requirements becomes more attractive. At the same time, entrenching the state’s controlling role reduces symbolic risks, but increases the project’s dependence on the quality of public administration, procedural transparency, and the level of public trust. The article concludes that sustainable connectivity around the Black Sea requires combining infrastructure development with predictable rules, measurable transparency, and reduced political volatility; otherwise, the advantages of transit geography will not translate into resilient cross-regional cooperation.

1. Volkhonskiy, Michael A., and Vadim M. Mukhanov. “Russian ‘Soft Power’ in the South Caucasus: Conceptual Uncertainty and Issues of Practical Application.” World Eсonomy and International Relations 66, no. 5 (2022): 98–111 [In Russian].

2. Dudayti, Albert K. “Security Problems in the South Caucasus in the Relations of Russia, Iran and Turkey in the Region in the Post-Soviet Period (the 90s of the XX – the Beginning of the XXI Century).” Post-Soviet Studies 5, no. 8 (2022): 771–779 [In Russian].

3. Zharkov, Sergei A. Sredinnii koridor: bol’shie ozhidaniia i zhestkie realii. Expert Commentary no. 10. Tomsk: Center for Eurasian Studies Tomsk State University, 2024 [In Russian].

4. Zuenko, Ivan Yu. “Problems of Development of EastWest International Transport Corridors in the Caspian Region.” Journal of Frontier Studies 9, no. 4 (2024): 169–185 [In Russian].

5. Krylov, Alexander B., ed. Postsovetskie gosudarstva: 25 let nezavisimogo razvitiia. In 2 vols. Vol. 2: Iuzhnyi Kavkaz. Moscow: IMEMO RAN, 2017 [In Russian].

6. Markedonov, Sergei M. Gruziia posle vyborov: novyi kurs? Analytical Brief. Moscow: Russian International Affairs Council, 2025 [In Russian].

7. Novikov, Vladimir V. “The Anaklia Deep-Sea Port Project: Transport, Logistics, and Political Significance.” Geoeconomics of Energetics 31, no. 3 (2025): 124– 143 [In Russian].

8. Pak, Evgenii V. “Transit Potentials of Russia and Kazakhstan.” World Eсonomy and International Relations 64, no. 11 (2020): 132–138 [In Russian].

9. Silaev, Nikolai Yu. “The Limits of Normalization: Russian-Georgian Relations after the Parliamentary Elections in Georgia.” Journal of International Analytics, no. 3 (2016): 7–14 [In Russian].

10. Burduli, Ana, Salome Solomnishvili, and Giorgi Papava. Anaklia Port Development. Policy Paper N2024/07. Tbilisi: ISET Policy Institute, 2024.

11. Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

12. Buzan, Barry. People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. 2nd ed. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1991.

13. Charaia, Vakhtang, and Vladimer Papava. “Belt and Road Initiative: Implications for Georgia and ChinaGeorgia Economic Relations.” China International Studies, no. 67 (2017): 122–139.

14. Cowen, Deborah. The Deadly Life of Logistics: Mapping Violence in Global Trade. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014.

15. Dilanchiev, Azer, and Tengiz Taktakishvili. “Determinants of Bilateral Trade Balance Between Georgia and China.” Ekonomika 101, no. 1 (2022): 6–19. https://doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2022.101.1.1.

16. Dudayti, Albert K., Arina A. Bagaeva, Boris G. Koibaev, and Batraz G. Tauchelov. “Political Processes in Georgia and Interaction with the European Union in 2004–2014.” In Proceedings of the International Session on Factors of Regional Extensive Development (FRED 2019), Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, vol. 113, 585–589. Paris: Atlantis Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2991/fred-19.2020.119.

17. Finko, Anton. “Ukraine: Politics in the Black SeaCaspian Region and Relations with the Caucasian States.” The Caucasus and Globalization 3, no. 4 (2009): 30–42.

18. Khalili, Laleh. Sinews of War and Trade: Shipping and Capitalism in the Arabian Peninsula. London: Verso, 2020.

19. Khishtovani, Giorgi, Mariam Zabakhidze, Irakli Gabriadze, and Rezo Beradze. The Belt and Road Initiative in the South Caucasus Region. Tbilisi: PMC Research Center, 2019.

20. Khutsiberidze, Lika. The Unrealized Anaklia Port Project – Strategic Importance and Challenges, edited by Irina Gurgenashvili. Tbilisi: Research Institute Gnomon Wise, 2025.

21. Larkin, Brian. “The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure.” Annual Review of Anthropology 42 (2013): 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevanthro-092412-155522.

22. Larsen, Joseph. Georgia-China Relations: The Geopolitics of the Belt and Road. Policy Paper. Tbilisi: Georgian Institute of Politics, October 2017.

23. Ocaklı, Beril, and Valentin Krüsmann. “Whom the Roads Bypass: Rikoti’s East-West Connections in a Disconnecting Georgia.” Mobilities 20, no. 6 (2025): 1038–1058. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2024.2445808.

24. Schurich Rey, Amélie, and Hugo Brisebard. Realising the Potential of the Middle Corridor. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/635ad854-en.

25. Smolnik, Franziska. Georgia Positions Itself on China’s New Silk Road: Relations Between Tbilisi and Beijing in the Light of the Belt-and-Road Initiative. SWP Comment 13/2018. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2018.

26. Sutterová, Dita, and Vincenc Kopeček. “Hybrid Threats in Georgia: The Influence of Kremlin-Linked Political Parties in the Port of Anaklia.” Problems of PostCommunism (2025): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2025.2566290.

27. Zabakhidze, Mariam, Irakli Gabriadze, Rezo Beradze, and Giorgi Khishtovani. “Connectivity, Trade and Financial Integration of the South Caucasus Via the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).” Caucasus Analytical Digest, no. 111 (2019): 3–9. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000368298.