From September 7 to 9, Baku will once again become one of the key points where the future of Eurasian logistics will be discussed. On the shores of the Caspian Sea, representatives of ports and railways, cargo owners, logistics operators, investors, international financial institutions, and experts will gather for the fifth Black and Caspian Freight Forum 2026: Corridors, Infrastructure, Investments, organized by RDL Group with the support of Azerbaijan’s CASPIA Analytical Center and Kazakhstan’s TransConsulting.

However, this time, the discussion about transport corridors carries a somewhat different meaning.

Until recently, such discussions largely revolved around a relatively straightforward question: which route between Asia and Europe is faster, cheaper, and shorter? Today, that question has become considerably more complex. The issue is no longer only the efficiency of a route, but also how resilient it is in a world that is becoming increasingly unpredictable.

This is precisely why the title of this year’s forum accurately reflects the changes taking place within global logistics itself. The competition for transport corridors is no longer simply a competition over lines on a map. It is a competition for cargo flows, investment, infrastructure, and a position in the emerging economic geography of Eurasia.

The key question for the coming years is therefore who will be able to transform a favorable geographic position into a genuinely functioning, resilient, and competitive logistics system. For the Caspian region, Central Asia, and the South Caucasus, such a window of opportunity is opening precisely now.

The end of the era of a single optimal route

For decades, global supply chains were built around a relatively straightforward economic logic: cargo had to move from point A to point B as quickly as possible and at the lowest possible cost. This model assumed a relatively stable international environment and made it possible to concentrate enormous cargo flows along several of the most efficient routes.

However, recent years have clearly demonstrated the vulnerabilities of such a model. Armed conflicts, sanctions, crises affecting key maritime routes, trade disputes, and growing political risks have turned excessive dependence on individual transport arteries into an economic risk in its own right.

As a result, the logic behind decision-making is changing. For states, having multiple routes to external markets is becoming an element of economic security. For businesses, the ability to rapidly redirect cargo in the event of a crisis is becoming an important component of risk management. Global logistics is gradually moving away from the search for a single optimal route toward the creation of networks of alternative and complementary routes.

This structural shift largely explains why the Middle Corridor has, in a relatively short period of time, attracted the attention of a growing number of states, international institutions, and companies.

The Middle Corridor: From an alternative to a system

Just a few years ago, the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route was primarily viewed as an alternative route connecting China, Central Asia, and Europe. Today, that definition is becoming too narrow.

For the states of Central Asia, the Middle Corridor means diversifying routes to global markets. For Azerbaijan, it represents an opportunity to transform its position between the Caspian and the Black Sea into a long-term economic advantage. For Georgia and Türkiye, it means strengthening their role in transit between Asia and Europe. For the European Union, it provides an additional infrastructure link with Central Asia and the broader Eurasian space.

Perhaps the most interesting change, however, is taking place within the corridor itself. It is gradually ceasing to be a single line on a map. Instead, a network of interconnected routes is emerging, in which Central Asia, the Caspian, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Black Sea, and Türkiye gain multiple options for reaching European markets.

The traditional route through Azerbaijan and Georgia remains fundamentally important. Cargo can continue through the Black Sea or travel by rail along the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway toward Türkiye.

At the same time, new branches are emerging alongside the existing architecture. And this is of fundamental importance. Under the previous logic, two routes could primarily be perceived as competitors for the same cargo flow. In the new logistics reality, the existence of a second, third, and subsequent route increases the resilience of the system as a whole. The value of a corridor is increasingly determined not only by its length and transportation costs, but also by the number of reliable alternatives available within it. This is precisely why one of the most interesting elements of the emerging transport architecture is TRIPP.

TRIPP: A short segment with a broad geography

Following the agreements reached in Washington on August 8, 2025, the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity - TRIPP has primarily been discussed in the context of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process and the restoration of connectivity between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan.

However, the project’s economic geography is considerably broader than its immediate physical length. If implemented, TRIPP could create another transport axis within the Middle Corridor: Central Asia – Caspian – Azerbaijan – TRIPP – Nakhchivan – Türkiye – Europe.

It would be a mistake, however, to view this route solely as a replacement for the existing Georgian direction. On the contrary, the strategic advantage of the emerging system may lie precisely in the coexistence of several complementary branches. One runs through Georgia and the Black Sea; another follows the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars route; and another could, in the future, pass through TRIPP, Nakhchivan, and Türkiye. The Middle Corridor is therefore gradually acquiring a network structure.

Against this backdrop, President Ilham Aliyev’s latest statements in Nakhchivan are particularly important. They highlight four key points that help clarify how Baku views the next stage of the route’s development.

First: The route ıs acquiring a clearly defined cargo capacity

For the first time, the target capacity of Nakhchivan’s railway infrastructure has been outlined in such concrete terms.

The existing railway infrastructure in Nakhchivan has a capacity of approximately 1.5 million tonnes of cargo, which, according to Ilham Aliyev, is sufficient for the initial launch of the route.

However, the strategic objective is considerably more ambitious. The President has directly instructed that the capacity of Nakhchivan’s railway infrastructure be increased to at least 15 million tonnes of cargo per year. The gap between the current capacity and the stated target speaks for itself.

At such a scale, this is no longer simply about restoring an internal connection between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. It is about creating infrastructure of international transit significance, capable of becoming part of a broader Eurasian transport system.

This is precisely where the discussion around the Zangezur Corridor is increasingly moving from the realm of predominantly political concepts toward the economics of infrastructure.

The key questions are no longer limited to the route’s political significance. They increasingly concern very concrete parameters: how much cargo the route will be able to handle, what level of investment will be required for modernization, how efficiently it will connect to the existing transport network, and what role it will be able to play within the broader architecture of the Middle Corridor.

Second: The route ıs beginning to develop an ınternational ınvestment architecture

Aliyev stated that international organizations and states have expressed interest in the route, specifically mentioning the European Union. EU representatives have already visited Nakhchivan and examined the infrastructure on the ground.

Moreover, the President raised the possibility of establishing an international consortium for the reconstruction of the Nakhchivan railway, provided that Azerbaijan retains a controlling stake.

This point is particularly significant. As Aliyev emphasized, Azerbaijan is capable of financing the construction and modernization of the relevant infrastructure on its own. Therefore, the involvement of international participants is not simply about finding additional sources of funding.

The significance of an international consortium is much broader. It could make the route more attractive to international stakeholders, potential shippers, transport operators, and investors.

Here, an important economic principle comes into play. When international financial institutions, European structures, private investors, or major transport operators become involved in infrastructure, they acquire an interest not only in building the railway but also in ensuring that it is subsequently utilized.

Investment can therefore perform a dual function: financing infrastructure while simultaneously helping to create the future cargo base around it. This is why international interest in the Nakhchivan railway deserves particular attention. Ultimately, international participation could serve as a means of internationalizing the route itself. In other words, the question is not simply who will build the railway, but who will subsequently have a vested interest in ensuring that cargo continuously moves along it.

Third: The Zangezur corridor ıs moving beyond classical transport logic

The third development is perhaps even more significant. Aliyev has effectively broadened the very concept of the Zangezur Corridor. He emphasized that Baku now views it as more than simply a road and railway.

Electricity transmission lines and fiber-optic cables could run through the route, while oil and gas pipelines could potentially be added in the future. The President explicitly described an energy connection through Armenia to Nakhchivan and onward to Türkiye and Europe as part of this broader concept.

This is where another fundamental transformation becomes apparent. The traditional concept of a “transport corridor” is gradually becoming too narrow to describe what is being created today.

A 21st-century corridor is no longer simply a road along which cargo moves. It is a space through which goods, energy, data, and capital can move simultaneously. As a result, the investment logic is changing as well.

A port needs to be considered together with railways and dry ports. A railway needs to be considered alongside energy and digital infrastructure. A physical route needs to be considered together with customs procedures, integrated digital platforms, and cargo-flow management systems. This is why future competition will no longer be between individual ports, railways, or highways. The competition will be between transport and economic ecosystems.

Fourth: Timelines, distances, and concrete physical ınfrastructure are emerging

The fourth point is equally important. The route is increasingly being defined not only by strategic concepts, but also by concrete implementation timelines and physical infrastructure parameters.

Aliyev stated that the railway from mainland Azerbaijan should reach the Armenian border by 2027. In Nakhchivan, work is underway on the remaining sections. Following reconstruction, the railway is expected to have a total length of 194.2 kilometers, with 10 stations scheduled for reconstruction.

Construction has already begun on a seven-kilometer section of railway toward the border with Armenia. The Nakhchivan connection toward Türkiye, meanwhile, is expected to be technically integrated with the Kars–Iğdır–Dilucu project.

Until recently, the main question was whether this transport configuration could emerge at all. Today, the discussion is increasingly moving to a different level: what exactly the infrastructure will look like, what cargo capacity it will have, how quickly it will be built, and how it will be integrated into the existing network of international routes.

This transition from a political concept to concrete infrastructure implementation may become one of the defining features of the next stage in the development of the South Caucasus’ transport architecture.

Why the United States and the European Union have become ınvolved

This also helps explain another characteristic feature of 2026: the unusually high level of diplomatic activity surrounding transport connectivity in the South Caucasus.

Washington is increasingly viewing TRIPP not as an isolated infrastructure project, but as part of a broader architecture of regional connectivity. The European Union, meanwhile, is intensifying its focus on the Middle Corridor and South Caucasus transport links as part of its own infrastructure connection with Central Asia. This represents a fundamental shift.

The South Caucasus is gradually ceasing to be viewed solely as a space between Russia, Türkiye, and Iran. Within the new transport geography, it is becoming a connecting link between Europe, the Caspian, and Central Asia.

This is why the diplomatic activity of Washington and Brussels around TRIPP and the Middle Corridor should not be examined separately from logistics, but precisely through its prism.

Behind transport routes lie much broader strategic interests, including access to Central Asian markets, energy connectivity, critical minerals, digital infrastructure, and the diversification of global supply chains. As a result, a relatively small section of transport infrastructure can become embedded within a much larger international geoeconomic architecture.

The next stage: the economics of the corridor

This is where the broader geopolitical concept ends and the most difficult part of the work begins. The political rationale for the Middle Corridor has already been established to a significant extent. But political interest alone does not move containers.

A new railway can be built, a port can be expanded, and additional vessels can be acquired. But if a container loses time at the border, if ferry and train schedules are not synchronized, if tariffs change at every national segment, and if a cargo owner cannot predict the cost and delivery time in advance, infrastructure alone will not make the route competitive.

The next stage in the development of the Middle Corridor will therefore be determined by four interconnected concepts: infrastructure, coordination, investment, and cargo base. The ability to combine these elements into a single functioning system will determine the position of the Caspian and the South Caucasus on the future transport map of Eurasia.

It is increasingly clear that competition for logistics corridors, cargo flows, investment, infrastructure, and a position in the emerging economic geography of Eurasia will shape global political and economic processes in the decades ahead.

The central question for the coming years is who will be able to transform a favorable geographic position into a functioning logistics system. For the Caspian region, Central Asia, and the South Caucasus, this window of opportunity is opening now. But a window of opportunity does not remain open indefinitely. Geography alone does not guarantee success.

Between a favorable location on the map and a fully functioning international corridor lies a complex chain of infrastructure projects, financial decisions, political coordination, digital systems, ports, railways, shipping capacity, customs procedures, and, ultimately, the most important factor of all — sustainable cargo flows.

Baku: Discussing not what might happen, but what ıs already happening

It is against this backdrop that the fifth Black and Caspian Freight Forum 2026: Corridors, Infrastructure, Investments will take place in Baku from September 7 to 9.

This year, we would like to move beyond the familiar discussion of why the Middle Corridor matters. That stage of the debate has, to a significant extent, already been completed. The next questions are more concrete.

What volumes of cargo can the corridor realistically handle? Where are its main bottlenecks? What infrastructure will be required by 2030? Can the Caspian shipping fleet keep pace with growing demand? How can the operations of railways, ports, and ferry services across different countries be synchronized? Which projects are genuinely attractive to private capital and international financial institutions? How will TRIPP change the configuration of routes across the South Caucasus? How will Nakhchivan’s railway infrastructure develop, and will it be able to reach its strategic capacity of 15 million tonnes of cargo per year? How could an international investment consortium change not only the financial model of the project, but also the future geography of cargo flows? How can the growing political interest of the United States, the European Union, and other international actors be translated into tangible infrastructure projects?

And, ultimately, how can the most important condition for long-term success be ensured — the economic utilization of this new infrastructure?

These questions form the agenda of the forum, from the current state of the Middle Corridor and new East–West route branches to the development of port infrastructure, shipping, digital customs, international financing, and the attraction of private capital.

In Baku, decision-makers, infrastructure developers, port and railway operators, cargo carriers, and project financiers will come together. The forum will take place from September 7 to 9 at the Four Seasons Hotel Baku. However, the subject of the discussion will extend far beyond a single event. Before our eyes, the logistics geography of Eurasia is changing.

The Middle Corridor is ceasing to be simply an alternative route between East and West and is gradually evolving into a network of routes, infrastructure, and interconnected economic interests. TRIPP has become one of the clearest and most recent manifestations of this transformation. The United States and the European Union are becoming increasingly engaged in the region’s transport agenda. Political interest is gradually being followed by capital.

New infrastructure requires increasingly sophisticated international coordination. And the geography of the region is acquiring new economic value. Yet every new road, port, or railway ultimately requires one thing above all else — sustainable cargo flows capable of ensuring its long-term economic viability.Just a few years ago, we were asking whether the Middle Corridor could become a major international route.

Today, the more relevant question is different: What will its next architecture look like — and who will participate in building it? This is precisely what we intend to discuss in Baku this September.