What Not to Read: Stratfor on Central Asia 06/16/2010
Muhammad Alim Khan, Emir of Bukhara (modern-day Uzbekistan), one of the leaders of the last Central Asian revolt against Russia.
Stratfor often provides insightful commentary. That’s why I read their free reports. But they also have a whacky side, and like to make ludicrous, unfounded assertions (see here for more). Their piece on Kyrgyzstan falls into the latter category. They combine false assertions with loony theories, throw in some Russian revanchism and Uzbek irredentism, and voila! We have on our hands a potential Russo-Uzbek war.
Stratfor’s Peter Zeihan begins with a bunch of 19th century nonsense about Russia needing geographical barriers to protect against invasion. That makes seizing control of the Carpathian Mountains (!!!) central to Russian security.
In case you haven’t crawled out of your WWII bunker yet, it’s 2010. Nobody on the European continent aside from Russia (and America if you count bases in Germany) even has a military worth writing about. The mountains that Russia actually pays attention to are known as the Caucasus Mountains. Far from being a help against external invaders (Oh no! The Georgians are coming!), they serve as a refuge for Chechen terrorists. Yet all this jibber jabber about mountains makes Kyrgyzstan sound worthwhile to fight for (Kyrgyzstan is one of the most mountainous countries in the world), so Zeihan includes it.
Next comes the straw man.
Russia has reasserted itself as a dominant power in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine.
Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, I get it. In Azerbaijan, Russia is not really dominant, but at least it is a place where countries compete for influence. But Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan? Who had pushed the Kremlin out as the dominant power in these countries, before the Russian bear roared back? Nobody. But all of this talk sets the stage nicely for some Russian aggression.
Click "Read More" to Continue--------->
Stratfor’s Peter Zeihan begins with a bunch of 19th century nonsense about Russia needing geographical barriers to protect against invasion. That makes seizing control of the Carpathian Mountains (!!!) central to Russian security.
In case you haven’t crawled out of your WWII bunker yet, it’s 2010. Nobody on the European continent aside from Russia (and America if you count bases in Germany) even has a military worth writing about. The mountains that Russia actually pays attention to are known as the Caucasus Mountains. Far from being a help against external invaders (Oh no! The Georgians are coming!), they serve as a refuge for Chechen terrorists. Yet all this jibber jabber about mountains makes Kyrgyzstan sound worthwhile to fight for (Kyrgyzstan is one of the most mountainous countries in the world), so Zeihan includes it.
Next comes the straw man.
Russia has reasserted itself as a dominant power in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine.
Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, I get it. In Azerbaijan, Russia is not really dominant, but at least it is a place where countries compete for influence. But Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan? Who had pushed the Kremlin out as the dominant power in these countries, before the Russian bear roared back? Nobody. But all of this talk sets the stage nicely for some Russian aggression.
Click "Read More" to Continue--------->
We'll skip over some Malthusian scare-mongering (extrapolating current demographic trends to predict far in the future has a long history of, how should I put this, NOT WORKING) and come to a groundless assertion made to make the Uzbeks sound powerful:
Uzbekistan intervened decisively in Tajikistan’s civil war in the 1990s.
No, it didn’t. Uzbekistan supported the Tajik government against the rebels, but so did Russia and Iran, the actual powers in Central Asia. The decisive move was the Taliban defeat of the Tajik-led Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, which scared the Tajiks into making peace amongst themselves.
And now the real craziness beings.
Given Uzbek means, motive and opportunity, Moscow is fairly confident that sending Russian peacekeepers to southern Kyrgyzstan would provoke a direct military confrontation with an angry and nervous Uzbekistan.
What! The Uzbek regime, ruled by a tin-pot dictator intent on enriching his family through an iron grip on domestic power, wants to throw it all away by attacking Russian peacekeepers? I think not.
In STRATFOR’s view, Russia would win this war…
Really, Russia would win? Can I quote you on that? Thanks Stratfor, I think I want to pay now for all the extra analysis that I’ve been missing with my free subscription. I'll make the check out to captain f***ing obvious.
…But this victory would come neither easily nor cheaply…Uzbekistan could interrupt nearly all Central Asian natural gas that currently flows to Russia without even launching a single attack…Yet this may be a conflict Russia feels it cannot avoid… Russia is attempting to finesse a middle ground by talking the Uzbeks down.
So, Stratfor basically invented a coming war between Russia and Uzbekistan (!!!) to explain the "hidden side" of recent events in Kyrgyzstan, while failing to explain anything about what is actually happening in Kyrgyzstan. Sounds awfully like that coming war between American and Japan.
Stratfor could’ve instead talked about how ethnic conflict often erupts during periods of state collapse, and that Kyrgyz in the south are rioting against the new government because they lost all their patronage jobs after the fall of the former regime.
Russia doesn’t want to get involved for the same reason Europe did not want to get involved in the Balkans—not because Brussels was afraid of Milosevic, but because ethnic conflict is ugly, and the Balkans are of peripheral strategic importance. And when the U.S. did get involved (Europe realized that it didn’t have a working military of its own) it certainly wasn’t because Europe needed to control the Balkan Mountains to protect against invaders.
Likewise, the Fergana Valley, where the conflict is taking place, is of peripheral importance to Russia. The more interesting subtext is how Russia claimed to be so concerned about human rights in South Ossetia—but now doesn’t seem to care about ethnic cleansing in Kyrgyzstan. But that’s not as fun as a Russian-Uzbek war, is it? Where is Enver Pasha when you need him?
- Jon
Uzbekistan intervened decisively in Tajikistan’s civil war in the 1990s.
No, it didn’t. Uzbekistan supported the Tajik government against the rebels, but so did Russia and Iran, the actual powers in Central Asia. The decisive move was the Taliban defeat of the Tajik-led Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, which scared the Tajiks into making peace amongst themselves.
And now the real craziness beings.
Given Uzbek means, motive and opportunity, Moscow is fairly confident that sending Russian peacekeepers to southern Kyrgyzstan would provoke a direct military confrontation with an angry and nervous Uzbekistan.
What! The Uzbek regime, ruled by a tin-pot dictator intent on enriching his family through an iron grip on domestic power, wants to throw it all away by attacking Russian peacekeepers? I think not.
In STRATFOR’s view, Russia would win this war…
Really, Russia would win? Can I quote you on that? Thanks Stratfor, I think I want to pay now for all the extra analysis that I’ve been missing with my free subscription. I'll make the check out to captain f***ing obvious.
…But this victory would come neither easily nor cheaply…Uzbekistan could interrupt nearly all Central Asian natural gas that currently flows to Russia without even launching a single attack…Yet this may be a conflict Russia feels it cannot avoid… Russia is attempting to finesse a middle ground by talking the Uzbeks down.
So, Stratfor basically invented a coming war between Russia and Uzbekistan (!!!) to explain the "hidden side" of recent events in Kyrgyzstan, while failing to explain anything about what is actually happening in Kyrgyzstan. Sounds awfully like that coming war between American and Japan.
Stratfor could’ve instead talked about how ethnic conflict often erupts during periods of state collapse, and that Kyrgyz in the south are rioting against the new government because they lost all their patronage jobs after the fall of the former regime.
Russia doesn’t want to get involved for the same reason Europe did not want to get involved in the Balkans—not because Brussels was afraid of Milosevic, but because ethnic conflict is ugly, and the Balkans are of peripheral strategic importance. And when the U.S. did get involved (Europe realized that it didn’t have a working military of its own) it certainly wasn’t because Europe needed to control the Balkan Mountains to protect against invaders.
Likewise, the Fergana Valley, where the conflict is taking place, is of peripheral importance to Russia. The more interesting subtext is how Russia claimed to be so concerned about human rights in South Ossetia—but now doesn’t seem to care about ethnic cleansing in Kyrgyzstan. But that’s not as fun as a Russian-Uzbek war, is it? Where is Enver Pasha when you need him?
- Jon
Comments
Marc
06/16/2010 09:02
Well put.
Joe
06/18/2010 02:12
Yo, those war-like Uzbeks are clearly planning on blitzkrieging southern Russia via Kazakhstan. The goal: The Volga! Unbeknownst to most non-Strafor readers, Uzbekistan has never forgiven Moscow for destroying the Aral Sea and is planning to use the violence in Kyrgyzstan as a pretext to get back their f**ing water. Remember, Jon, world politics all comes down to topography.
Joe
06/18/2010 02:35
By the way, Jon, you were far too glib in dismissing Stratfor's prediction of a Russian victory. Had you upgraded to that premium content, you would know that the only reason Russia would win is that its vast timber reserves give it an insurmountable advantage in building siege craft. Uzbekistan's foreboding deserts and doubly landlocked isolation simply could not overcome the Russian forests.
Chuck Kraus
06/20/2010 20:11
Some of the better analysis I've read about the situation in Kyrgyzstan has been on Sean Roberts' blog: http://www.roberts-report.blogspot.com/
Leave a Reply
Loading
