This all could be blamed on the initiative of local troops, but considering that they’ve actively contributed to instability in Georgia and Moldova, I have to wonder…

Russia should care not one whit who is running CIS countries as long they are amenable to Russia’s interests. Kyrgyzstan’s opposition says it views Russia as a special partner. Russia’s got no horse in this race.

As for Akayev, what he has to negotiate over is survival – the scope of his role in Kyrgyz politics. He’s in the same situation as Shevardnadze. If he is willing to cede some power to other politicians, he will probably be able to maintain a special place in Kyrgyz politics as an elder statesman once his term runs out.

Russia certainly wasn’t the cause of Tajikistan’s civil war. If I suggested that, it wasn’t my intention. They contributed to the instability once it was underway though.

I’ll never get the Alaska thing. I just can’t understand why Central Asians care so much about it. I always told them that even if we were right, they weren’t getting Alaska back, so what’s the big deal? Never seemed to matter to them.

Russian troops that remained in Tajikistan after 1991 could have intervened and stopped the bloodshed. Still, the regiment while under Russian flag was by that time already fully made up by ethnic Tajiks, making any intervention incredibly difficult. Blaming Russia for sowing instability is – to my mind – wrong.

Tajikistan can act as an interesting warning sign towards Kyrgyzstan. But for other reasons than hinted at here. Regional fragmentation and ethnic frictions should lay at the centre of any such analysis.

Akayev has just ordered a probe into the elections. Let’s hope that the following days will show some more pragmatism rather than sabre-rattling.

As I said, I’m no expert in Kyrgyzstan, but as you point out Tajikistan had a terrible civil war, and I’m not sure Russia is entirely to blame for that tragedy , given what happened in Afghanistan and Iran, not to mention fighting between Armenia and Azerbijan, as well as in Georgia, Moldova, Yugoslavia and so forth. And Eastern Europe is not home tfor Islamist terror cells.

What is there to negotiate here? What would be in it for Akayev? Or Russia? And if they have nothing to gain from negotiations, why should they?

I’m going to take the State Department at its word because the track record backs it up. It’s the same standard I’ll apply to any state. When actions follow words, words are worth taking seriously.

Like I said, there’s an overlap. Certain groups support the political position we have, but it is the case that we have defunded organizations for being partisan.

Russia’s foreign policy in the CIS tends to be to sow instability to create reliance on Moscow’s money and troops. It worked in Tajikistan and it worked in Georgia. Russia usually could care less about instability so long as it creates reliance.

And, they certainly learned a lesson in Ukraine. Gleb Pavlovsky, who is a true son of a bitch in my book, called for the policy that Russia seems to be following. If Russia stays out of domestic politics in the CIS, it doesn’t run the risk of looking like such an asshole and more importantly, increases the chance that a new government wouldn’t be hostile to Moscow.

As for Kyrgyzstan’s stability itself, the government has never had a terribly strong hold on some parts of the country. Violent suppression of protests would be a mistake – it only made matters worse in Aksy when five protesters were killed a few years ago.

The best path to stability is to negotiate, open the system up, allow more competitive elections. Societies need ways to let off steam and Kyrgyzstan is losing its (which, by the way, has much more to do with the protests – not the US interference and encouragement you seem to suggest is behind them).

It’ll be a message alright, a message to everyone that still harbours delusions about Russia’s role and nature. I’m not sure Russia can afford such a message in this juncture. She could crush this half-assed limited “rebellion”, and sow the seeds for a truly widespread anti-Russian pan-kyrgyz (if not pan-CIS) revolution 5 years hence.

Pn my part I’d be all in favour of a democratic “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan, but am not at all sure this is it. So far it seems to me to be just mobs of political elites fighting for benefits, instead of them actually having a democratic vision for an open society. I could be wrong ofcourse, and I hope I am.

Nobody is fooled by the official stance. It is obvious that the US is taking sides here. I’m no expert on Kyrgyzstan, but I’d say it would be in Russia’s interest to crush this rebelllion, brutally if necessary, as a message to the USA to lay off trying to destabilize the CIS, whatever Russia’s official position might be…

IMHO The region does not need more instability. But as I said, I could be wrong.

As for Russia, they learned from their failure in Ukraine not to back a side. They’ve kept contacts with the opposition. The opposition has mentioned that they place great hope in Russia and look forward to maintaining excellent ties with Russia.

But, of course, I could be wrong.