Why we are taking a closer look at the Middle Corridor right now
Do you know the feeling: a route that you have noticed only in passing for years suddenly comes up in every second industry conversation? That is exactly what is happening to us right now with the Middle Corridor, the connection between Asia and Europe via Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
For a long time, for many in our industry this was an alternative that was known but rarely booked. Too cumbersome, too many transhipments, too little predictability. The classic routes via Russia or through the Suez Canal were simply more convenient. Except that it is precisely this convenience that has fallen away in recent years. Sanctions in the north, risks for shipping in the south. Anyone planning freight between East Asia and Europe today can hardly avoid the question "What about the way via the Caucasus?".
A few days ago a piece of news came in that sounds unspectacular at first glance, but shows exactly where this route has been stuck until now. At the Böyük Kəsik border station between Azerbaijan and Georgia, the two railway administrations have agreed on a new procedure. Electric locomotives will in future run through from Böyük Kəsik to Tbilisi and back without the train being uncoupled at the border. Until now, every wagon was technically inspected twice: once on the Azerbaijani side and once on the Georgian side. Now one inspection per direction is enough.
Sounds like an administrative detail, doesn't it? But it isn't. According to official figures, the time a freight train loses at this border is to be halved as a result. And it is precisely such details that ultimately decide whether a route is a genuine alternative for us as freight forwarders at all. A container that loses days en route because a train is standing at a border ruins any calculation. Anyone in the transport business knows: it is not the big headline that changes everyday life, but the small rule change at a border station.
Imagine a consignment that is to go from Almaty via Baku, Böyük Kəsik and Poti to Hamburg. On the map the route looks like a few days of travel. In practice, however, every border, every transhipment point, every additional inspection has its own little time window. It is at exactly these points that it is ultimately decided whether an offer delivers what it promises, and whether you can give a customer a firm delivery date with a clear conscience.
In addition, Azerbaijan and Georgia are digitising their data exchange, including with the customs authorities. This, too, is not an end in itself. The less paper travels back and forth at a border, the less time is lost, and the more reliable an arrival time given to a customer becomes. Anyone who has ever waited for a customs release that was really only a formality knows how much that alone can make a difference.
And the figures for the Middle Corridor as a whole are impressive: in 2019 around 759,000 tonnes of freight were transported on the route; in 2025 it was 4.119 million tonnes. More than five times as much in six years. The Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway line has also been massively expanded: on the Georgian section, among other things, 13 stations, 55 bridges and more than 320 buildings were modernised; part of this was financed by Azerbaijan on Georgian territory. The capacity of the line has thus risen from 1 to 5 million tonnes per year.
Now to our assessment, because simply stringing numbers together would not do justice to the topic. We honestly find the development promising. But we would not recommend anyone to blindly switch their entire Asia planning to this corridor now. Why? Because despite the growth, the route is still small compared with the established ways. There are serious analyses showing that the Middle Corridor currently reaches only a fraction of the capacity of the classic Northern Route via Russia. And then there is the Caspian Sea itself: the water level has been falling noticeably for years, which limits ferry capacity between Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. New ferries have been announced, but not all of them are in service yet. On the Georgian side, too, much depends on port projects, some of which are being delayed, for example the planned deep-sea port of Anaklia, whose funding was recently cut back significantly, while the existing ports of Poti and Batumi are reaching their capacity limits. This does not diminish the good news from Böyük Kəsik, but it does show that a single border station does not save the entire chain.
What does this mean for us in practice? We would say: test the Middle Corridor where it fits, but do not plan it as the only solution. For time-critical consignments, a look at the new border rules at Böyük Kəsik is definitely worthwhile, especially when other routes are uncertain or expensive. For large volumes on a tight schedule, we would continue to plan with a buffer, if only because of the ferry situation on the Caspian Sea.
Incidentally, what convinces us most about the whole thing is not a single figure, but the pattern behind it. Azerbaijan is investing consistently, including beyond its own borders, as can be seen on the Georgian BTK section. That is a different approach from "We have a good geographical location, that's enough." It shows that someone is thinking long-term, and that is ultimately exactly what makes a route plannable for us as a freight forwarder. In our business, predictability is in the end often more important than the fastest individual figure on paper, because a customer rarely forgives a surprise, no matter how good the average time on the route looks.
How do you see it? Are you already actively using the Middle Corridor, or are you watching the development, as we are currently doing rather from the second row? We look forward to hearing about your experiences – feel free to leave a comment below this article.
FAQ on the Middle Corridor
