Criminals will be stopped from “gaming the system” by choosing jury trials in order to increase the chances of proceedings collapsing, the courts minister has said, promising to enact radical changes to limit jury trials by the next election.
Drug dealers and career criminals were “laughing in the dock” knowing cases can take years to come to trial, Sarah Sackman told the Guardian, saying inaction would be a road to “chaos and ruin”.
The seventh Consultative Meeting of the Heads of State of Central Asia, held in Tashkent, was far more than a routine regional gathering. It marked a pivotal moment with the potential to shape the political and economic architecture of the region for the next decade or two. President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s keynote address stood out for articulating a forward-looking and comprehensive strategic vision. Notably, he proposed redefining the format itself from a loose “consultative mechanism” into a more cohesive and institutionalized “Central Asian Community.”
At the summit, leaders endorsed several landmark documents: the Concept for Regional Security and Stability in Central Asia, the Catalogue of Threats to Central Asia’s Security and measures for their prevention for 2026-2028 and its implementation plan, a joint appeal supporting the Kyrgyz Republic’s candidacy for the UN Security Council, and the decision to admit Azerbaijan as a full-fledged participant. Taken together, these steps signal that Central Asia increasingly sees itself not as a passive bystander amid global geopolitical turbulence, but as an emerging regional actor capable of shaping its own trajectory.
Two broader trends deserve special emphasis. First, the region is moving beyond reactive engagement with external initiatives and power blocs. Rather than relying solely on structures created by outside actors, Central Asia is beginning to develop its own institutions. This shift mirrors a global pattern: as the international order becomes more fragmented and unpredictable, regional communities are strengthening their internal mechanisms as a means of resilience. Second, the format envisioned in Tashkent diverges from “Brussels-style integration.” It does not require the transfer or dilution of sovereignty. Instead, it relies on soft integration, consultation, consensus-building, and phased convergence.
As President Mirziyoyev noted, having a shared and realistic sense of “what we want our region to look like in 10-20 years” is essential. Without such a vision, Central Asia risks remaining the object of great-power competition rather than an autonomous participant in it.
One of the summit’s most consequential developments was the decision to welcome Azerbaijan as a full-fledged member of the format. The emerging political and economic bridge between Central Asia and the South Caucasus is quickly becoming not only a transit nexus but also a cornerstone of a broader geopolitical space. The strengthening of Trans-Caspian corridors, the advancement of the “China – Kyrgyzstan – Uzbekistan” railway, the Trans-Afghan corridor, and the alignment of Caspian Sea transport routes will significantly expand the region’s strategic and economic potential.
A further nuance is worth highlighting: Azerbaijan’s long-standing ties with the Western political and security architecture, through NATO partnership mechanisms and energy corridors, as well as its membership in the Organization of Turkic States, introduce new layers of connectivity. Its inclusion repositions the “Central Asian Community” from a post-Soviet platform into a wider geopolitical constellation spanning Eurasia, the South Caucasus, and the Middle East. For Central Asian states, this new configuration opens additional room for multi-vector diplomacy and reduces the risks of unilateral dependence.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the publication, its affiliates, or any other organizations mentioned.
In 2019, Keaidy Bennett and her then-husband bought a large home in Fort Worth, Texas.
But when their relationship ended, they decided to sell it during their divorce.
Now, with home prices soaring, Bennett says she regrets selling and wishes she’d kept the house.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Keaidy Bennett, a 36-year-old who sold her marital home in Fort Worth, Texas, in 2021. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
In 2019, my ex-husband and I purchased our first home in Fort Worth, Texas, for $222,000. We were able to buy our home with down payment assistance available to veterans.
Our starter home had four bedrooms and three bathrooms, and was an almost 3,000-square-foot home. I had my own garden, an office, and all three of my children had their own rooms, as well as an upstairs playroom. We were also in a really great school district. The home really was a dream come true.
Unfortunately, by 2020, our marriage was coming to an end. When you’re breaking apart a life you once built, it just feels like everything is crashing down. Eventually, I moved in with my mom.
When I finally filed for divorce, there wasn’t much conversation about it — we just decided to sell the house. It felt like our life together was over, so that was over, too.
I wish we hadn’t sold our house
Once I finally got to a point where I was ready to divorce, my emotions were so heightened that all of my common sense kind of went out of the window. I can’t speak for him, but in that moment, I wasn’t thinking about the long-term vision.
During the divorce, he agreed to take whatever he had, and I agreed to take whatever I had. The only real sore spot was the house. We both felt strongly about wanting to keep the house.
Bennett’s former home garden.
Courtesy of Keaidy Bennett
I assumed I’d stay at home with our children, as we were within walking distance of their school.
Still, I hired a real estate attorney to help with the sale process because I was overwhelmed. In the end, we sold it and split the proceeds.
Looking back, it was the wrong approach. I wish we had taken some time to really consider the future for our children — and how keeping that asset could have benefited everyone in the long run.
It’s more difficult to become a homeowner now
When we purchased our home in 2019, it was the perfect time in the real estate market — everything fell into place: A low mortgage rate and a reasonable home price. However, today it’s a very different story; the housing market just isn’t what it used to be.
When we bought back then, we had more leverage. I remember walking into certain places and saying, “I don’t like this,” and they’d be agreeable to making changes. But now, the prices of everything have gone up.
Florida townhomes.
Marcia Straub/Getty Images
My children and I now live in a townhome in Central Florida that I’m renting. It’s been four years since we moved, but my children still make comments about missing their old playroom or the scenic view they had from their bedroom.
I pay $1,598 for my townhome, and with extras like internet and the in-unit washer and dryer, it comes to almost $2,000 a month. It’s more than our previous mortgage of $1,738.
The last time I checked, our old home’s value had also almost doubled since we purchased it. Instead of selling and losing that asset, I wish we could have found another solution that would have had a more positive financial impact on us and our children.
Don’t let emotions rule your finances
Fortunately, my ex-husband and I are on great terms.
Still, if I had known then what I know now, I would have found a way to cohabitate. I’d say to my ex, “Let’s just keep the house. When it’s your time, I’ll leave — and vice versa.”
Honestly, I think that could have worked for us if we had slowed down and really thought the process through.
I don’t think anyone gets married expecting to get divorced, but if I were to go through a divorce again, I’d definitely be more of an adult about it. I’d also have those tough discussions upfront — like, if anything were to happen, this is how we’d handle it.
Editor’s note: Bennett’s ex-husband declined to comment.
