The vulnerability of global trade routes is once again forcing governments and logistics companies to reconsider how goods move between continents. From the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Suez Canal to other strategically important maritime passages, geopolitical tensions have exposed the risks of relying heavily on a limited number of transport arteries. Disruptions at these chokepoints can affect shipping schedules, insurance costs, commodity prices and the reliability of international supply chains.
Against this backdrop, the Middle Corridor, also known as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, is attracting increasing attention as an overland and maritime connection linking China and Central Asia with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Türkiye and European markets.
Unlike traditional ocean routes, the corridor combines railway, Caspian Sea shipping, port infrastructure and road transport. Its strategic importance lies not simply in offering an alternative geographical route, but in creating additional options for cargo operators seeking to reduce their exposure to disruptions elsewhere.
Yet the development of the Middle Corridor raises a more complicated question. Greater demand does not automatically translate into greater efficiency. Limited vessel capacity, differences in customs procedures, infrastructure constraints and the need for coordination between several national transport systems remain significant challenges.
Azerbaijan occupies a central position in this emerging network. Through the Port of Baku, its railway connections with Georgia and Türkiye, and its wider transport infrastructure, the country provides a crucial link between the eastern and western sections of the route. The development of additional connections, including those envisaged through the Zangezur Corridor, could further diversify the regional transport network.
Speaking to AzerNEWS, transport expert Rauf Aghamirzayev examined the Middle Corridor's growing relevance, the limitations that must be addressed and the possibility of developing a more coordinated security framework among participating countries.
“Generally speaking, yes, there are risks associated with traditional routes; however, at the same time, major container shipping companies have increased their orders for large container vessels. In other words, competition persists there, despite all the risks. This does not mean that maritime transport has lost its relevance due to these risks—in fact, even today, despite the lengthening of routes, 90% of cargo is still transported by sea.
This has, in turn, increased the importance of multimodal transport and brought the issue of developing alternatives for each region to the forefront. Furthermore, regarding overland transport, the significance of the ‘Middle Corridor’—which operates on a multimodal basis—has also grown. Over the last decade, various infrastructure projects have been implemented, with others still underway. This has influenced the dynamics of cargo transportation, and certain elements of digitalization have also been observed.
I believe that synchronization is essential; it will be necessary to make adjustments in response to rising demand for cargo transport, while carefully evaluating all potential risks. Given that events are unfolding very rapidly, it is crucial that projects—and the approach taken toward them—reflect this pace...” ...it lays the groundwork for making decisions that are both prompt and forward-looking—truly pragmatic decisions. There are certain projected figures."
Turning to the corridor's infrastructure capacity and the need to eliminate existing logistical bottlenecks, Aghamirzayev pointed to projected cargo volumes, fleet expansion and opportunities to diversify the types of goods transported along the route.
“For the Middle Corridor, targets have been set to transport between 11 million and 20 million tons of cargo in the coming years. This cargo can vary widely: ranging from oil shipments—which play a role in energy security—to uranium, grain (essential for food security), and fertilizers. Container traffic is also on the rise; in response, countries in the region are expanding their fleets and upgrading port infrastructure. Furthermore, as road freight transport increases, the introduction of 10 new "ro-ro" (roll-on/roll-off) vessels in the near future will significantly impact the volume of vehicular cargo moving along this corridor.
I believe another aspect of the corridor—one that remains underutilized and whose potential has yet to be fully realized—involves the transport of oversized cargo and postal/parcel shipments. If we create the right conditions, this corridor could accommodate a diverse range of cargo—regardless of size, weight, or significance—offering new transport opportunities...”
Addressing the security of regional transport corridors and Azerbaijan's contribution to their development, the expert emphasised the importance of joint security arrangements, drawing attention to the existing cooperation between Azerbaijan, Georgia and Türkiye and the possibility of extending this approach to Central Asia.
“Creating opportunities across all modes of transport will directly ensure both resilience and attractiveness. Security is a key issue, and I believe the countries along the corridor should jointly assess how to ensure it. Currently, each country handles security along its own section of the route, but there is a need to consider this collectively. Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Türkiye have already established a shared approach; I believe the time has come to extend this toward the east. Consider the communication links that have been operational for years, such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipelines, the Southern Gas Corridor, the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, and the rail and road connections to Poti and Batumi. These form part of a route that links the South Caucasus and Anatolia to a much broader geography. Since these three nations have already succeeded in shaping a regional security architecture—specifically regarding the protection of these communication links—I believe a similar framework could be extended to the countries of Central Asia, perhaps through joint projects. Another point is that... Diversification is essential, and Azerbaijan is already taking steps in this direction."
Conversely, the expert at the end pointed to the Zangezur Corridor's [TRIPP] potential with regard to further development of the Middle Corridor:
"Over the past five years, the physical construction of the Zangezur Corridor, moving it from the map to the ground in the territories liberated from occupation, has reached its final stage. Work has begun on constructing missing elements within the sections located in Azerbaijan proper and in Nakhchivan. Furthermore, existing infrastructure is being upgraded and adapted to modern requirements to enable the transport of significantly larger volumes of cargo. In short, the Corridor holds immense potential, though I wish to avoid unnecessary repetition. With its various routes and diversified infrastructure, this Corridor could facilitate the transport of goods of varying significance. One could envision different scenarios; for instance, it could prove successful as a premium-class transport route, handling lower volumes at a higher cost, but ensuring reliable delivery.”
While Mr. Aghamirzayev emphasised the importance of infrastructure development, route diversification and extending regional security cooperation towards Central Asia, David Dzagania, an Operation Risk Advisor specialising in Transport & Supply Chain and Digital Logistics, offered a complementary perspective, arguing that the Middle Corridor's long-term resilience will also depend on operational transparency and the ability to reconcile competing geopolitical interests through shared commercial objectives.
"In my view, transport security has to be institutionalized first at the operational level: common procedures and standards, coordinated border and customs processes, interoperable digital systems, corridor-wide risk monitoring, contingency plans, clear crisis-response mechanisms and reliable information exchange between countries and operators."
Dzagania cautioned against presenting the Middle Corridor as a direct replacement for established maritime routes. Its strategic contribution, he suggested, lies in strengthening the overall resilience of international logistics through diversification:
"I would also be careful with the idea that the Middle Corridor can “replace” vulnerable maritime trade. Its real strategic value is diversification. A resilient system needs several interconnected routes, ports, railways, roads and maritime links so that disruption at one point does not paralyze the entire supply chain."
He then argued that transit states should avoid making the corridor an exclusive geopolitical project and instead concentrate on the commercial conditions that make cooperation beneficial to all participants.
"Regarding competing interests of China, the EU, the US, Russia and regional states, I would be cautious about making geopolitical judgments. From the transport perspective, however, the strongest model is to keep the corridor commercially viable, transparent and as non-exclusive as possible. Predictable rules, tariffs, access conditions and measurable performance can create common economic interests even where political interests differ."
He concluded that the broader objective should be to develop a transport system capable of functioning under pressure, rather than concentrating exclusively on the security of one designated route.
"For me, the key question is therefore not only how to protect one corridor, but how to build a transport system capable of continuing to function when one route, border, port or political relationship comes under pressure."
*the cover image has been created by AI