Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 24 – The looming
defeat of Vladimir Putin’s plans in southeastern Ukraine makes it more likely
rather than less that he will seek to project Moscow’s power elsewhere, both to
cover his retreat in Ukraine and to move toward the realization of his plans to
reverse the results of 1991.
That has sparked speculation in many
of the post-Soviet states and further afield as to where the Kremlin leader is
likely to move first. Some have pointed
to Belarus, others to Baltic countries even though they are members of NATO,
and still others to the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
The possibility Putin might move in
Central Asia is perhaps especially likely for three reasons: many of the
regimes there are relatively weak, Moscow is worried about both the impact of
Afghanistan and of US withdrawal from it, and it is seeking to expand its reach
toward China without allowing Beijing to expand too much in the other
direction.
In a commentary on the Centrasia.ru
regional aggregator site, Zhantoro Shadakulov directly addressing the issue by
asking “Will It Again be Kyrzgystan after Ukraine?” and suggesting some
additional reasons why Bishkek may very well be in Putin’s sights (centrasia.ru/news.php?st=1406192160).
Shadakulov summarizes Kyrgyzstan’s
post-Soviet history in the following way: “14 years of peace and stability,
then two revolutions over the course of several years and as a result constant
meetings and mass dissatisfaction, international anger and clashes, and a
fragile state of national security.”
To call that country “independent
and sovereign” in any meaningful way, he argues, is to drain any meaning from
those words, especially since Bishkek has become “a puppet” now for the United
States and now for Russia over this period, each of which has its own reasons for
keeping Kyrgyzstan from “standing on its own feet.”
Russia is in by far the more
advantageous position in this regard, the analyst says. Its 70 years of rule
there means that Moscow knows the specific details of the Kyrgyz regime and the
national character of the peoples who live there. And more to the point, he says, “for decades,
the Kremlin has intentionally sown the seeds of discord and fratricide among
the republics and peoples” of the region. The Kyrgyz Republic is “one of the
first of these to come to harvest.”
After Joomart Otorbayev who is
pro-American became prime minister, Shadakulov says, “the Kremlin has been
trying not to allow any weakening of its many-years-long influence.” It isn’t
going to organize another revolution because “it well understands” that in
Kyrgyzstan the population includes both pro-American and pro-Russian groups.
According to the Centrasia.ru
commentator, Moscow operates on basis of the principle that “if you want to run
peoples, then weaken and destroy their culture,” but “if you want to control
the governments, take control of their economies.”
With regard to the first half of
this, he says, Moscow has succeeded extremely well in Kyrgyzstan. Now, it is moving
to gain control over Kyrgyz strategic economic facilities. Its most immediate
goal is “not to allow any deepening of Kyrgyz-Ukrainian military cooperation.”
Kyiv had a contract with Bishkek for torpedoes; Moscow wants that contract to
go to North Korea.
In addition, Shadakulov says, Moscow’s
operatives are working overtime to ensure that Kyrgyzstan’s “Russian speakers”
have the correct views on Ukraine. Recently, they organized a conference of Russian
compatriots in Bishkek, nominally to talk about legal support for Russians and
the Russian language there but in fact to promote Moscow’s political agenda.
Conference participants adopted a resolution calling for the
accelerated integration into the Customs Union which they said should have as
its “end goal … the creation of a single
political-economic space.” That is what
Vladimir Putin has been pushing for across the entire region. They also asked
for the simplification of the procedure for taking out Russian citizenship.
Those statements sparked objections from that part of the Kyrgyz
opposition which Shadakulov describes as having “pro-American views,” thus
setting up a potential conflict like the one in Ukraine. “God forbid,” he says, “that Kyrgyzstan will
become again the next place for a bloody confrontation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment