“Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, though both poor, don’t show the same potential for all-out war, and though the power struggle in Tashkent will probably have a violent element I wouldn’t consider it nearly on the scale Zeihan seems to imply.”

I would agree with this analysis of Kyrgyzstan, the past 18 months have given the Kyrgyz many chances to go over the edge, but they have pulled back each time.

However, Uzbekistan may be a very different animal. I once talked at length with a former Uzbek KGB officer. He told me that we Westerners underestimate the potential for violence among Uzbeks. He forcasted an outright bloodbath at the fall of Karimov. He also predicted that Uzbekistan would devolve into 4-7 regional powers, reflecting the (officially denied) regional ethnic diversity of the country.

The fact that the man is an ethnic Uzbek made his blunt assessment all the more interesting. Perhaps the fact that the man just finished a MA from Princeton factors into all this.

Furthermore, I have heard basically the same analysis from a Kyrgyz friend who was well-placed during the Soviet days. Although I am sure there is a tinge of racism in this man’s analysis, he defines himself as a “Ferganna Valley Kyrgyz” which means he is as much Uzbek as Kyrgyz in his culture and values.

In the course of the past few years I have heard locals in Central Asia make many similar comments concerning Uzbekistan. So, perhaps Stratfor is not so wrong about Uzbekistan afterall.