Policy analysis of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict has relied, often unreflectively, on a narrow set of Western-brokered settlements as its comparative reference points. Yet these cases carry with them assumptions that bear little resemblance to the post-Soviet realities of the region. The result has been a policy conversation that is well-furnished with precedent but poorly matched to context. This paper makes the case for a different comparative orientation: Central Asia has generated a body of cooperative practice over the past three decades that is both more structurally analogous and more substantively instructive than the Western canon typically consulted. Yet it has been almost absent from the analytical frameworks applied to the Armenia-Azerbaijan case. The paper draws on 12 semi-structured interviews conducted with practitioners and policy analysts working across both regions. It examines four domains in which Central Asian states have developed cooperative mechanisms despite persistent distrust: transboundary water governance; the Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan border delimitation; cultural heritage diplomacy; and regional connectivity infrastructure. A consistent pattern runs through all four cases. Cooperation did not emerge from comprehensive political settlements. It was driven, instead, by sectoral negotiations around shared technical necessities that no single state could manage alone.

DOWNLOAD the Report