Comments on: Five countries, under God, Divisible… http://registan.net/index.php/2009/08/13/divsible/ Central Asia News -- All Central Asia, All The Time Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:32:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Noah http://registan.net/index.php/2009/08/13/divsible/comment-page-1/#comment-381359 Noah Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:00:31 +0000 http://www.registan.net/?p=9166#comment-381359 I think that the Reuter's comment about US-Uzbek relations "forcing Uzbekistan out of Moscow's orbit" actually has it backwards. All the evidence/opinions I've seen more or less say that Uzbekistan thawed the relations with the US because they felt like the Russia was getting too grabby (which, in fairness to Russia, can mean utterly anything in Tashkent). I think in general all of these things are very reactionary explanations--not that I'm faulting you, Michael, you're just rounding up the news in this post. This thing about <i>everything</i> having to be a competition between Russia and the US in CA makes for a compelling coldwar-ish narrative but I don't think it really affects the choices that these states are making at the end of the day. I don't believe for a second that the (2nd) base in Krygyzstan wasn't a Russian condition to accepting the renewal of Manas, and I also don't think that at the top levels they ever really wanted the US out. The MSM tends to forget over and over that Russia has a stake in AF too and usually doesn't push pestering us a little over influence in CA enough to do something that would actually hamper our/NATO efforts there in a serious way. For my two cents, I think the recent attacks in the Ferghana Valley and Tajikistan remind everyone that they'd really rather keep trouble on the other side of the Amu Darya. I think that the Reuter’s comment about US-Uzbek relations “forcing Uzbekistan out of Moscow’s orbit” actually has it backwards. All the evidence/opinions I’ve seen more or less say that Uzbekistan thawed the relations with the US because they felt like the Russia was getting too grabby (which, in fairness to Russia, can mean utterly anything in Tashkent).

I think in general all of these things are very reactionary explanations–not that I’m faulting you, Michael, you’re just rounding up the news in this post. This thing about everything having to be a competition between Russia and the US in CA makes for a compelling coldwar-ish narrative but I don’t think it really affects the choices that these states are making at the end of the day. I don’t believe for a second that the (2nd) base in Krygyzstan wasn’t a Russian condition to accepting the renewal of Manas, and I also don’t think that at the top levels they ever really wanted the US out.

The MSM tends to forget over and over that Russia has a stake in AF too and usually doesn’t push pestering us a little over influence in CA enough to do something that would actually hamper our/NATO efforts there in a serious way.

For my two cents, I think the recent attacks in the Ferghana Valley and Tajikistan remind everyone that they’d really rather keep trouble on the other side of the Amu Darya.

]]>