Kyrgyzstan Snubs US and Rejoins Soviet Union

[PenguinHunter]

At least that's what the title of this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7868586.stm) article should have been.

A couple of points of interest:

- The US can't afford to keep its bases.
- In the face of recent tensions between the US and Russia, Kyrgyzstan feels better throwing it's lot in with the Russians.

It's just like in Civilization 4 when someone's "cultural influence" envelopes one of your cities and the bastards give you the finger and join another empire.


Kyrgyzstan's government has submitted a decree to parliament for the closure of a key US air base in the Central Asian state, Kyrgyz officials say. . .

The announcement comes at a critical moment, just as the new administration of US President Barack Obama plans a sharp increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan.

For Russia, on the other hand, it is a significant diplomatic victory as it seeks to reassert its influence in all former Soviet republics and beyond, our correspondent says.

President Bakiyev made his announcement on Tuesday in Moscow, where he was promised more than $2bn (£1.4bn) in Russian aid. He said the Manas base - set up in 2001 to assist the US military operation against al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan - was only meant to be open for two years at the most.

But perhaps more importantly, he made it clear the Americans had not been willing to pay what Bishkek regards as the right price to keep the base open, our correspondent says.

[C.J.Woolf]

The Great Game continues. Any country next to Russia knows that the US won't stay forever, but Russia will.

[avolkiteshvara]

This is not only for US but also NATO.


I can't imagine this was just all over money. Wonder if they are sayiny they US Dollar is shit? Russia does have a lot of oil.

Interesting.

[demagogic_schizoid]

hmmm

whatever it rejoined, it is not the Soviet Union.

[C.J.Woolf]

hmmm

whatever it rejoined, it is not the Soviet Union.
It's the Russian Empire, whatever you call it.

[nonperson]

Russian Imperial interests = Soviet interests = Russian Federation interests

[CEOofRawness]

Maybe now Obama will forget about Afghanistan and just end both wars :grin:

I know that won't happen, but I can still dream, right? :mellow:

[C.J.Woolf]

Has Afghanistan set a record for being a giant pain in the ass of the most great powers? Its scalps include:

United States (it's only a matter of time)
Russia/Soviet Union
Britain
Some Indian empires?
Persia?
...
Macedonia (Alexander's empire)

[nonperson]

The VDV were actually quite successful in Afghanistan; the Soviets committed only about 5% of its forces to the campaign.

What is stunting the success of the West's campaign is the small number of troops committed and a lack of willing on the politicians to provide proper funding.

Why we should pay the Afghans not to grow poppies is beyond. Fund them to grow food nothing else........

[avolkiteshvara]

Why we should pay the Afghans not to grow poppies is beyond. Fund them to grow food nothing else........

Good point. Never thought about it, but yeah, compensating for them for doing nothing seems to breed complacency and corrruption.

At least make them do a hula dance for the money. The best Afghan Hula dancers in the world.

[nonperson]

Good point. Never thought about it, but yeah, compensating for them for doing nothing seems to breed complacency and corrruption.

At least make them do a hula dance for the money. The best Afghan Hula dancers in the world.

I think it comes from the same school of thought of paying or rewarding kids to attend school.

We have a humanitarian duty to make sure they don't starve.

Perhaps we should pay the small family farmers of the Mid West not to grow drugs either. (Of course the payments would have to be commensurate with the US standard of living.......)

[PenguinHunter]

Has Afghanistan set a record for being a giant pain in the ass of the most great powers? Its scalps include:

The Muslim expansion in the 7th century stopped short in Afghanistan, unable to keep all of it under control.

It was also the site of the collision between the Khwarezmian Empire and the Mongol Empire. Both sides got screwed on this one. The Mongols suffered one of their few major defeats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Parwan) in Southern Afghanistan which was the beginning of a war that ultimately destroyed the Khwarezms.

[lowtech redneck]

Any country next to Russia knows that the US won't stay forever, but Russia will.

That maxim only really holds for Central Asia, and even there, Russia has to compete with China.

Still, this is a huge loss for us in the short-term (due to Afghanistan); in the long-term, we already lost sufficient influence to affect outcomes in the Central Asian states that really matter (with the possible exception of Turkmenistan, which is still hedging its bets).

[avolkiteshvara]

I think it comes from the same school of thought of paying or rewarding kids to attend school.

We have a humanitarian duty to make sure they don't starve.

Perhaps we should pay the small family farmers of the Mid West not to grow drugs either. (Of course the payments would have to be commensurate with the US standard of living.......)

Upon further reflection though, the conspirorist in me says the US wouldn't want Afghanies to be fed.

Eliminating hunger--------->empowering masses-------->destabilization of puppet leaders.

[nonperson]

Upon further reflection though, the conspirorist in me says the US wouldn't want Afghanies to be fed.

Eliminating hunger--------->empowering masses-------->destabilization of puppet leaders.

US foreign policy doesn't come from a vacuum. It is the ultimate product of the US people. (Just as the US armed forces are made up of the same people you meet in your neighbourhood, went to school with, play ball with etc.)

Those who chant not in my name are right; it is a democracy and the majority (whether they vote or not) bring a government into being.

EDIT: Wasn't there a Sesame Street song "These are the people in my neighborhood." ?

[djm]

We have a humanitarian duty to make sure they don't starve.

Sending food in only frees up land for poppy production anyway, when enough of them starve they will turn land back to more useful crops.

There is an environmental and societal responsibility not to put food into any nation at a greater levels than it's natural capacity to produce it (sustainably). Until this stops all you get is too many people in the wrong places, nature has to be allowed to set the correct population level for a region.

[nonperson]

Sending food in only frees up land for poppy production anyway, when enough of them starve they will turn land back to more useful crops.

There is an environmental and societal responsibility not to put food into any nation at a greater levels than it's natural capacity to produce it (sustainably). Until this stops all you get is too many people in the wrong places, nature has to be allowed to set the correct population level for a region.

Actually I agree. Spending too much time with lefty academics. :)

(I thought did cross my mind early today about as to why the free movement of labour is so popular with academics. Their's is one of the few professions where you can get a job anywhere in the world. They forget that 95% of a Western population stays where it is born. Detached from reality? You bet..)

[nonperson]

it's natural capacity to produce it

Oh yes! What an idea if you take it and run with it. An acre of French farmland farmed by a Frog; as opposed to the same acre farmed by a Brit. Obviously the former is natural. Poles would be shagged as well......:grin:

[C.J.Woolf]

The VDV were actually quite successful in Afghanistan; the Soviets committed only about 5% of its forces to the campaign.
In the end the Soviets went home, so I score it as a win for the Afghans.


What is stunting the success of the West's campaign is the small number of troops committed and a lack of willing on the politicians to provide proper funding.
I'd say there is more than that going on. Many Afghans see the Kabul government as their enemy. They returned to backing (or sympathizing with) the Taliban for the same reasons the Taliban rose in the first place: they bring order and justice, albeit of the medieval variety.

We are backing a corrupt "government" that controls very little of the country. (That's stating the obvious, I know. If the government did control the country, our troops wouldn't have to be there.) By extension that makes us the Afghans' enemy. This hearts and minds shit matters, even to great powers. If enough people hate us, while they can't kick us out, they can make our stay most uncomfortable. The question becomes: Is our commitment sustainable? If it is increased, then it becomes less sustainable.

[djm]

We are backing a corrupt "government" that controls very little of the country. (That's stating the obvious, I know. If the government did control the country, our troops wouldn't have to be there.) By extension that makes us the Afghans' enemy. This hearts and minds shit matters, even to great powers. If enough people hate us, while they can't kick us out, they can make our stay most uncomfortable. The question becomes: Is our commitment sustainable? If it is increased, then it becomes less sustainable.

I don't even see Afghanistan as a country, it's more a geographic region populated by tribes nominally called Afghanistan. The tribes cross over into Pakistan also, so to all intents and purposes it is a war against multiple tribes who trade sides constantly according to what is most advantageous at the time.

The region could not be tamed by the British even at the height of our Empire, I don't believe it can be tamed by any power. Best just ignore it, and police the borders better.

[C.J.Woolf]

I don't even see Afghanistan as a country, it's more a geographic region populated by tribes nominally called Afghanistan. The tribes cross over into Pakistan also, so to all intents and purposes it is a war against multiple tribes who trade sides constantly according to what is most advantageous at the time.
You're right. It was lazy of me to call it a country. When the man spoke of "tribes with flags", I'm sure Afghanistan was Exhibit A (and B, C, D...).


The region could not be tamed by the British even at the height of our Empire, I don't believe it can be tamed by any power. Best just ignore it, and police the borders better.
Funny how many great powers found a reason not to ignore it. Afghanistan has no inherent value, but it sits on the route(s) to some places that do. The al-Qaida training camps were perhaps the most compelling reason to go there. But it should have been a simple punitive expedition and not an occupation.

[djm]

Funny how many great powers found a reason not to ignore it. Afghanistan has no inherent value, but it sits on the route(s) to some places that do. The al-Qaida training camps were perhaps the most compelling reason to go there. But perhaps it should have been a simple punitive expedition and not an occupation.

I would just keep to air strikes, they have no capability to challenge allied air supremacy. Pakistan is far more important, as it is a failed state with nukes and also has problems with tribal regions. Britain needs to turn it's attention to helping Pakistan shut down the tribal regions, that's where our internal security threat is coming from. Britain would have far better relations with Pakistan if it got out of Afghanistan. America on the other hand can afford to just ignore it, it does not have the same potential for terrorism problem with Pakistani immigration influx as does Britain.

Having a relatively small force there like the allies have at the moment does not cut the mustard, either far more troops need to be committed (which quite likely still would not work), or pull them all out and bombard errant tribes from the air whenever they kick up. Shit or get off the pot, to put it succinctly.

[lowtech redneck]

Funny how many great powers found a reason not to ignore it. Afghanistan has no inherent value, but it sits on the route(s) to some places that do. The al-Qaida training camps were perhaps the most compelling reason to go there. But it should have been a simple punitive expedition and not an occupation.

The Taliban made themselves accessories to a direct terrorist attack on US soil; we had to set a precedent demonstrating what happens when foreign governments do that-leaving the Taliban in power was not an acceptable option after that.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Actually I agree. Spending too much time with lefty academics. :)

(I thought did cross my mind early today about as to why the free movement of labour is so popular with academics. Their's is one of the few professions where you can get a job anywhere in the world. They forget that 95% of a Western population stays where it is born. Detached from reality? You bet..)

hmmm I would guess the majority of people working as immigrants aren't academics, and that the fact that these people can usually find work is a reason for them to be complacent about the free movement of labour, not support it (especially considering that restrictions on free movement of labour are unlikely to affect them anyway as it's a very specialised field). I think that industrial, construction and service workers in general regardless of nationality, including the 200 000 British construction workers working overseas currently, have a lot more to lose than academics if the freedom of labour is restricted. An interesting quote from a post on the bearfacts (pro-Lindsey Oil refinery strike website) forum:

“I’m a Brit working overseas, just like many of you have done in the past - and might end up having to do in the future. Please think carefully about how you deal with your situation. The last thing we all want are bosses exploiting the divisions between workers that are based on nationality. The scum that send jobs from profitable factories in the developed world to sweatshops exploiting children and wage slaves in other parts of the world would end up having a field day with all of us if they could play us off against other Europeans.”

http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/

[slacker]

Kyrgyzstan is also, most likely the least important of the former USSR stans (esp from the US perspective). The US is probably pulling back resources there to focus on more important countries in that region.

[lowtech redneck]

That maxim only really holds for Central Asia, and even there, Russia has to compete with China.

Still, this is a huge loss for us in the short-term (due to Afghanistan); in the long-term, we already lost sufficient influence to affect outcomes in the Central Asian states that really matter (with the possible exception of Turkmenistan, which is still hedging its bets).

Hmm, it seems that Uzbekistan may be seeking reapproachment with the United States (for a long time they were our most "loyal" strategic ally in the region before they kicked us out for protesting a government crackdown on protestors, which had resulted in more than 20 deaths if I remember correctly); if true, that will go a large way toward ameliorating the damage-we could go right back to using a better-placed military base on the Afghan border.

[garak]

Has Afghanistan set a record for being a giant pain in the ass of the most great powers? Its scalps include:

United States (it's only a matter of time)
Russia/Soviet Union
Britain
Some Indian empires?
Persia?
...
Macedonia (Alexander's empire)

I've heard it called the graveyard of empires.

[Dark Razor]

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w95/Zaphod1983/Putin.jpg

[thod]

I recall reading some 19th century writing about Afghanistan. About how the people love fighting and thus cannot be subdued. The idea that most nations go in with is that the people want peace and if you take out whatever has been decided as the cause, then they will settle down into peaceful farmers. The invaders always come unstuck because they like to fight, its the culture. They are set up in cells, that we call tribes each largely independent lead by a warlord meaning there is no single weak point to attack. Everyone that has ever entered Afghanistan has found the same, nobody has ever beaten it. The Brits found it best to let them get on with fighting each other. They set up camp in the Khyber pass and just fielded any attacks that came their way.