The Small and Poor Central Asian Countries..?

I saw a documentary about these countries (Kyrghistan, Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan...)

All the people who were interviewed were able to speak Russian and they seemed to like Russia a lot!
They were making lots of positive comments about being part of the USSR in the past. They explained the economic and moral decline that their countries had experienced since becoming independent. Criminality seems to be out of control.

Bear in mind that this was a British made documentary... If anybody had said anything bad about Russia, this would absolutely have been included. But all those interviewed were positive.... I also remember from school that these countries were literally built up from being very backwards places, by resources and expertise from Russia.

I don't know much about this region but I was sad to see the economic decline and the poverty of the people. It seems that lots and lots of people from there travel to Russia for seasonal work anyway. So they are not truly independent..

So my question is: Why exactly did these countries become independent?
If they like Russia and they are better off economically if they stick with Russia, then why did they leave? Or did Russia somehow throw them out of the federation?

It was in fashion then, to become independent... :-)

Got a link or title of the film? How old where these people? I will guess they were 50 or older? Why would Britain not make a film containing criticism of Russia? They thing sounds like propaganda to me. Where is the other side of the story? Just curious!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

So my question is: Why exactly did these countries become independent?
If they like Russia and they are better off economically if they stick with Russia, then why did they leave? Or did Russia somehow throw them out of the federation?

---

USSR was itself a federative state (at least formally). It was consisted of 15 Republics and Russia was only a part of the USSR. One of 15. There was a "federative" soviet government and "local" ones like Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Tajik etc. In 1991 USSR government was collapsed as a result of Gorbachev's reformations ("Perestroyka") and unsuccessfull insurrection of conservative communists. So leaders of 3 local governments (Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian) made a pact which abolished the USSR and gave all power to the local governments. And all 15 republics suddenly became independent of each other.

AFAIK, national elites of Central Asia were very unhappy of this fact but they were unable to do anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noheat

Got a link or title of the film? How old where these people? I will guess they were 50 or older? Why would Britain not make a film containing criticism of Russia? They thing sounds like propaganda to me. Where is the other side of the story? Just curious!

---

I checked it, and the title of the series was "Meet the Stans". It was a series of four programs but they were not allowed to film in Turkmenistan. It turns out the series was made by CBC (Canada), it was only the presenter who was British. That could be the explanation.

There was a bit of "propaganda" (lol) though... :tease: It seems impossible for anybody to make a film about Russia without that...

For instance half of the episode about Kirgistan was actually about a US airbase located there. The film crew was shown around the base by a US army "public relations officer" ( a super-friendly female soldier who actually had a stuffed toys collection in her bed at the base!!! I think you get the message...

After the visit to the US base, the film crew went to a Russian base nearby. However they were not allowed in at the Russian base and the presenter made a comment to complain about this...

But then the young Kirgiz guy who was "guiding" the film crew then said something like "People here don't trust the Americans but they trust the Russians, so we don't mind the Russian base...."

There was also a long section about contaminated material (radioactive) that had been left by USSR military without cleaning up. Can't remember which country that was in.

@ iti-ogo --- thanks for the helpful explanation... I didn't consider that...

Another thing that I just noticed is: These smaller countries don't have a land border with Russia -- Kazakhstan is in between and they are probably less interested in joining forces with Russia since they are doing well on their own.

Noheat, what are reasons to think, that it was propaganda? Do you think Russia is “bad” and “evil”? My friend, who very like a history, compares USSR with Rome Empire, because both tried to up culture, educate, economic and life levels in friendly states (do you forget a soviet idea “fraternal peoples”?). I’m not a “fanatic” of Soviet Union, but I think, that many things were brilliant in that time.

For example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Л. П. Берия

Наша внутренняя политика основана на нерушимом союзе рабочего класса и колхозного крестьянства, на братской дружбе между народами нашей страны, на прочном объединении всех советских национальных республик в системе единого великого многонационального государства -- Союза Советских Социалистических Республик.

---

"В системе единого великого..." Oh, I see, It's a symbol of "Jung" Self.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by it-ogo

It was consisted of 15 Republics and Russia was only a part of the USSR. One of 15. There was a "federative" soviet government and "local" ones like Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Tajik etc.

---

It's interesting that each of 14 republics had the own Communist Party, and only Russia did not have it. The Russian Communist Party has been created only in 1990.

Huh? So what party were all the "party members" in then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Huh? So what party were all the "party members" in then?

---

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Quote:

---

AFAIK, national elites of Central Asia were very unhappy of this fact but they were unable to do anything.

---

Not entirely true. I just returned from Bishkek last week. I was there for their independence day. Kyrgyzstan was one of the first if not the first countries to declare independence from the Soviet Union after the Baltics. Its like July 21st (or somewhere right around there).

Also according to the Soviet Constitution, any republic was free to succeed at any time as long as 2/3 of the population voted and agreed to do so. When the leaders of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia met in December to form the CIS most if not all the republics had already declared Independence anyway. The Soviet flag was lowered for the last time on the 25th of Dec 1991 after the state dissolved itself. Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were the last 3 (well maybe Turkmenistan too) to succeed.

Annnnyways. As I said, I was in Bishkek for about 2 months. Kyrgyzstan is an amazing country. Its no more poor than Rural Russia. Bishkek is a completely modern city. The Americans I was there with were "shocked" to see BMWs and Mercedes "In a 3rd world country". I didn't know how to express to them that "Maybe we aren't in a F**@%ing 3rd world country?!?!" without sounding extremely rude.

Sure there is poverty, but as I said, its no worse than the outskirts of any eastern European city or even places in central or south America.

True, there were A LOT of people who expressed their nostalgia for the Soviet Union. I heard stories of being able to fly from Bishkek to Moscow to watch a football game and fly back that night for only about 50 Rubles.

As far as how Russia is viewed there, from what I saw it was 99.9% favorable. I think Medvedev was on TV more than Bakiev (their president)was.

99.9% of the population understands Russian and 75% speaks it. The remainder are the nomads and farmers who live in the mountains and steppes who most likely didn't even speak Russian in soviet times either.

Any Russian movie or show you want to see you can find it there as well as music too. The people are probably the nicest in the world. I left there with many many souvenirs and gifts, some very very verrryyy expensive and none of which I paid for. A Kyrgy man would literally spend their entire months salary on a new friend just so they could eat a nice restaurant or have a place to stay, totally disregarding their own well-being. I felt guilty accepting a lot of their gifts but they insisted it was "от души" and they wanted absolutely nothing in return.

I also left with about 50 phone numbers and email addresses. Everyone from taxi drivers to airport workers.

I will DEFINITELY go back someday, and rest assured when I do I will be taken care of. I'm very grateful for my new friends I met there and recommend to anyone who is even slightly interested to check out the Stans. I met many Uzbeks and Kazakhs as well in my travels, so I'm sure their hospitality is the same throughout.

In the end, Borat say VERY NICE!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogboy182

Kyrgyzstan was one of the first if not the first countries to declare independence from the Soviet Union after the Baltics. Its like July 21st (or somewhere right around there).

---

Wikipedia doesn't think so... :)
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%...82%D0%BE%D0%B2

As I remember those proclamations had very few relation to peoples will. (except baltic states maybe.) All referendums had been made postfactum. To live in the country when it is in the process of destruction is a specific feeling. Not much people were enough insane to enjoy it. Anyways that is over and we are forgetting...

Quote:

---

Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were the last 3 (well maybe Turkmenistan too) to succeed.

---

You will be surprized but Russia was among the first to proclaim its souveraineté (see the link). No way after Kyrgysia. The fish always stinks from the head downwards.

Quote:

---

The Americans I was there with were "shocked" to see BMWs and Mercedes "In a 3rd world country".

---

Looks like they have no much experience concerning 3rd world countries. :) High class cars are usual for them. Unusual are medium class cars.

Dogboy182, I can say only one thing. My sister's husband's parents ^))) live in the Kyrgyzstan, near from issikul lake, and they couldn'd agree with you about successfull live in the Kyrgyzstan )))
The capital, maybe, is looks more or less good, but other places generally not.

Well the Kyrgyz sound charming.
I am quite fascinated by all the Central Asian countries - have been since childhood actually. It's a great thing that people can speak Russian there.

I just read they kicked out the American airbase there --- rofl, Europe listen and learn!

But it seems that these countries have problems getting on between themselves - that's a pity.

Quote:

---

I just read they kicked out the American airbase there --- rofl, Europe listen and learn!

---

Well, I guess you read wrong. Cuz its still there.

Moi, misread? Never! Story here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=14967

If you can't be fussed to follow the link, basically the story was that the Kirghiz upped the land rental and other fees by several hundred percent, to the point that America wasn't prepared to pay anymore. At the same time Russia offered to pay something that was acceptable to the Kirghiz and as a result there will now be a few Russian bases there (same as during Soviet times) but no US base. As I understand it,the Kirghiz were never too thrilled about the US base but they got an offer they couldn't refuse at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan. The Americans stayed on longer than the Kirghiz had expected and instead of telling them outright to leave they used the fees to make it impossible.

So even if the base is still there at the moment, it's only for a short while until it's been packed up...

http://i078.radikal.ru/0909/e0/d8f1e1f17a16.jpg

http://s47.radikal.ru/i115/0909/8a/d8f4b52ee3ac.jpg

Well, yes they talked about closing it because we've been there for about 8 years now. But then they just jacked up the rent price about 1000 percent.

That base is probably Kyrgyzstan's top money maker. Plus, the amount of Kyrgys who are employed on that base, trust me, its not going anywhere soon.

Why do you care anyways? The soldiers stationed there are not even allowed to go off base unless they are with someone high ranking to watch them and make sure they can't do anything stupid. They aren't allowed to drink or really even interact with the locals at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogboy182

Why do you care anyways? The soldiers stationed there are not even allowed to go off base unless they are with someone high ranking to watch them and make sure they can't do anything stupid. They aren't allowed to drink or really even interact with the locals at all.

---

What are they doing there then? Sust sit there playing poker?

Actually yeah, they do. And basketball and x-box and watch tv, like all other normal people.

Why do you care? They're not raping your women or stealing your vodka. Its not even your country. Я за 6 лет ни разу на этом форуме никого из Киргизии не видел. А те, с которыми я познакомился в Бишкеке им тоже было по*** что эти военные там делают на базе. Им больше интересно какие мы люди, что мы думаем о их стране, идт. They don't care, why do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogboy182

Actually yeah, they do. And basketball and x-box and watch tv, like all other normal people.

Why do you care? They're not raping your women or stealing your vodka. Its not even your country. Я за 6 лет ни разу на этом форуме никого из Киргизии не видел. А те, с которыми я познакомился в Бишкеке им тоже было по*** что эти военные там делают на базе. Им больше интересно какие мы люди, что мы думаем о их стране, идт. They don't care, why do you?

---

Well, I don't care either. Still it seems strange to me that your government is willing to pay them for doing absolutely nothing. Nothing useful at least. Not to mention the money they pay for the maintenance of that base. Isn't it a bit... well... wasteful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Still it seems strange to me that your government is willing to pay them for doing absolutely nothing. Nothing useful at least. Not to mention the money they pay for the maintenance of that base. Isn't it a bit... well... wasteful?

---

I think that's quite a powerful question. So, since I have no insiders in the Pentagon and I can't speak for them, I can only assume they're gaining some political dividends. Established presence or something like that. And since that place is relatively quiet, I somewhat doubt that base's military personnel are among the best fighters of the US Army. :unknown:

By the way, the exact same powerful question could be asked about the Russian base there. Isn't it a bit expensive for Russia either?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Still it seems strange to me that your government is willing to pay them for doing absolutely nothing. Nothing useful at least. Not to mention the money they pay for the maintenance of that base. Isn't it a bit... well... wasteful?

---

I think that's quite a powerful question. So, since I have no insiders in the Pentagon and I can't speak for them, I can only assume they're gaining some political dividends. Established presence or something like that. And since that place is relatively quiet, I somewhat doubt that base's military personnel are among the best fighters of the US Army. :unknown:

By the way, the exact same powerful question could be asked about the Russian base there. Isn't it a bit expensive for Russia either?

---

Yes, it is. Russia pays less though. And it's closer to Russian borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yes, it is. Russia pays less though. And it's closer to Russian borders.

---

Cool, but that's not a good answer. It's the relative cost that matters for the countries when doing their budget calculations. "Closer to Russian borders" is not a reason either. It's exactly half the hemisphere which is closer to Russia, why not building some bases around? :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

I just read they kicked out the American airbase there --- rofl, Europe listen and learn!

---

Well, Kyrgyzstan was never a member of NATO, so no obligations from the Kyrgyz side towards the US. If that would be their will, so be it. It's different for Europe though. We have started that discussion earlier and so far you haven't provided a sufficient justification for Europe to desert a military treaty. The reason you gave so far ("we're strong now") is disgusting in my opinion. Military treaties are not a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yes, it is. Russia pays less though. And it's closer to Russian borders.

---

Cool, but that's not a good answer. It's the relative cost that matters for the countries when doing their budget calculations. "Closer to Russian borders" is not a reason either. It's exactly half the hemisphere which is closer to Russia, why not building some bases around? :no:

---

I'm only saying that Russia has more reasons to maintain a military presence there than the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'm only saying that Russia has more reasons to maintain a military presence there than the US.

---

But, so far the explanations you provided were invalid. So, until your explanations are sufficient, I'd say NO Russia does NOT have more reasons than the US.

PS. Do you remember Kalinka was trying to convince us to accept the State Department's explanations about Iran's threats and Polish missiles? We refused it back then. :friends: The explanation "Russia is closer" looks just like that. :ROFL:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

We have started that discussion earlier and so far you haven't provided a sufficient justification for Europe to desert a military treaty.

---

---

:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
I have a degree in Political Science and Economics. I could completely trash your posts if I wanted, but A) I don't get a kick out of arguing on forums or humiliating people, and B) I'm actually primarily here to learn Russian... (Just making the odd political comment for fun and am not interested in debating / defending them in a serious way.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'm only saying that Russia has more reasons to maintain a military presence there than the US.

---

Yes definitely. I am no expert on the area but it seems the Kyrghiz have no issue with Russia being there, while they are quite sceptical against the presence of the US base. I suppose they could use the money and the job opportunities though, so it's understandable that they are milking their stratigic location for all it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

I have a degree in Political Science and Economics. I could completely trash your posts if I wanted

---

Well, you're much welcome. Otherwise, it's just bragging. :ROFL:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Just making the odd political comment for fun and am not interested in debating / defending them in a serious way.

---

Well, if you have learned Political Science you must know by now that after your "fun" political comments reach a certain amount, they start becoming propaganda, and that's what I don't like that much. It seems that you continuously stress your favor for Russian politics without even knowing that much of it or the Russian history. (And yes I'm a native Russian speaker and I was born in Moscow.) Btw, you did care to defend your point until I think you couldn't. *)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'm only saying that Russia has more reasons to maintain a military presence there than the US.

---

But, so far the explanations you provided were invalid. So, until your explanations are sufficient, I'd say NO Russia does NOT have more reasons than the US.

PS. Do you remember Kalinka was trying to convince us to accept the State Department's explanations about Iran's threats and Polish missiles? We refused it back then. :friends: The explanation "Russia is closer" looks just like that. :ROFL:

---

If you put it this way then well. Ok

Russia has a land border to defend while US doesn't.
Since Central Asia has never been a stable region (with possible exception of the time when these republics were a part of USSR) it is only natural to have some military force in a region that can explode at any moment (figuratively speaking, of course). Major drug traffic routes come through the Central Asia. Drugs are either transited then through Russia or are distributed within its territory.
There are also obligations that Russia carries out or has been carrying out as a part of C.I.S. Also it's a good and relatively safe place to conduct intelligence operations in Central Asian regions. And of course, from a pure military standpoint it covers the path from Tajikistan and Afganistan.
Are these reasons sound enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

Russia has a land border to defend while US doesn't.
Since Central Asia has never been a stable region (with possible exception of the time when these republics were a part of USSR) it is only natural to have some military force in a region that can explode at any moment (figuratively speaking, of course). Major drug traffic routes come through the Central Asia. Drugs are either transited then through Russia or are distributed within its territory.
There are also obligations that Russia carries out or has been carrying out as a part of C.I.S. Also it's a good and relatively safe place to conduct intelligence operations in Central Asian regions. And of course, from a pure military standpoint it covers the path from Tajikistan and Afganistan.
Are these reasons sound enough?

---

That is much much better than before. Here's what I think about it.

1. Russia has a land border to defend while US doesn't.
=> There is no common border between Russia and Kyrgyzstan http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/asi...kyrgyzstan.jpg

2. It is only natural to have some military force in a region that can explode at any moment
=> So, the US could also say the same thing. The US Army is used to "maintain stability" all over the globe. :ROFL:

3. Major drug traffic routes come through the Central Asia.
=> Don't call me names, but I somewhat believe some of the traffic goes through the Russian bases. And the other part of the same traffic goes through the US bases. Drugs are drugs.

4. There are also obligations that Russia carries out or has been carrying out as a part of C.I.S.
=> Ok, this is a good one. I need to read more on those obligations to form my opinion.

5. Also it's a good and relatively safe place to conduct intelligence operations in Central Asian regions.
=> Whoa! Why do you need a military base for that?! How many tanks do you need to conduct intelligence operations?

6. And of course, from a pure military standpoint it covers the path from Tajikistan and Afganistan.
=> What path? Do you think Afganistan has any capabilities to attack Russian border in any foreseeable future?

So, to sum it up, out of six reasons there's only one potentially valid. And I said "potentially" just because I have no means to assess it. That's not much better than the US does. Who knows what "obligations" do they have? After all, they're there under some type of agreement with the Kyrgyz government. Does that make sense?

1. The fact that Russia doesn't have any common border with Kyrgyzstan doesn't mean that it doesn't need a military base there. Kazakhstan is a relatively stable state and one doesn't expect something happen on the Russian-Kazakh border. Tajikistan is NOT stable and the next closest neighbor is Kyrgyzstan.

2. The US Army doesn't (cannot) maintain stability anywhere. And where chaos had been before the US soldiers came it is still there now (unlike Russian military forces). Kyrgyzstan had been stable enough long before they established a base there.

3. So the Americans just want their share in the profits, eh?

4. There is a treaty of collective security between the CIS members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective ... ganisation.

5. OK

6. Nobody's going to invade Russia, but certain criminal elements can infiltrate through this corridor and you need military to patrol certain less poopulated areas.

1. The fact that Russia doesn't have any common border with Kyrgyzstan doesn't mean that it doesn't need a military base there. Kazakhstan is a relatively stable state and one doesn't expect something happen on the Russian-Kazakh border. Tajikistan is NOT stable and the next closest neighbor is Kyrgyzstan.
=> Alright, so Tajikistan is planning to invade Russian borders? You see, that "instability" argument has a huge disadvantage. It still does not justify anything. If Russia is worried for its borders it should put the bases IN RUSSIA CLOSE TO THE BORDER and not on the other country's land.

2. The US Army doesn't (cannot) maintain stability anywhere. And where chaos had been before the US soldiers came it is still there now (unlike Russian military forces). Kyrgyzstan had been stable enough long before they established a base there.
=> I don't think it's equal. You can't compare Afghanistan with anything as even the mighty USSR Army was "defeated" in a similar way there. Let's brush off Iraq as that war is clearly a one big fishy thing. What remains is the stable world around the US bases.

3. So the Americans just want their share in the profits, eh?
=> I'm not sure that was the primary reason for establishing the base though. *)

4. There is a treaty of collective security between the CIS members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective ... ganisation.
=> As I said, I need to read through it and other things. But, do you have a reference on an agreement between the US and Kyrgyzstan? it's always useful to read and compare both.

5. OK
=> I'm glad we came to an agreement on this one.

6. Nobody's going to invade Russia, but certain criminal elements can infiltrate through this corridor and you need military to patrol certain less poopulated areas.
=> A certain criminal elements enjoy their share in Moscow and St Peter's public markets. Others own a share in the above mentioned drug traffic. They don't plan to attack Russian borders and Russian army and don't need to infiltrate through either corridors. Also, tanks are usually not useful in fighting criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

4. There is a treaty of collective security between the CIS members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective ... ganisation.

---

Ramil, you got me a very interesting link. Thanks! There's a very important point that I haven't had a clue before:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organisation

In May 2007 the CSTO secretary-general Nikolai Bordyuzha suggested Iran could join the CSTO saying, "The CSTO is an open organisation. If Iran applies in accordance with our charter, we will consider the application."

---

And I think there might be some pretty compelling reasons for Iran to join if the things go the way they go now. So, NATO is trying to expand (which I think is a very bad thing) but also the CSTO is at least in favor of expansion! What the h***?! I was thinking better of them. :spiteful:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

2. The US Army doesn't (cannot) maintain stability anywhere. And where chaos had been before the US soldiers came it is still there now (unlike Russian military forces). Kyrgyzstan had been stable enough long before they established a base there.

---

=> I don't think it's equal. You can't compare Afghanistan with anything as even the mighty USSR Army was "defeated" in a similar way there. Let's brush off Iraq as that war is clearly a one big fishy thing. What remains is the stable world around the US bases.

---

You're brushing things off too easily, nevertheless, these two regions are the latest war theaters US Army was engaged in. As someone said, one case could be a chance, two cases make you think of it, three cases is already a tendency.
Must we wait for the third case in order to confirm my words?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

6. Nobody's going to invade Russia, but certain criminal elements can infiltrate through this corridor and you need military to patrol certain less poopulated areas.

---

=> A certain criminal elements enjoy their share in Moscow and St Peter's public markets. Others own a share in the above mentioned drug traffic. They don't plan to attack Russian borders and Russian army and don't need to infiltrate through either corridors. Also, tanks are usually not useful in fighting criminals.

---

You're oversimplifying things. There are some criminal elements that control some businesses in Russia, but what does this has to do with the fact that Russian southern border needs to be guarded? Many criminals (and terrorists) cross the border illegally and that's no big a secret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crocodile

And I think there might be some pretty compelling reasons for Iran to join if the things go the way they go now. So, NATO is trying to expand (which I think is a very bad thing) but also the CSTO is at least in favor of expansion! What the h***?! I was thinking better of them.

---

We both know that Iran would never become a member of C.I.S. Besides, there is another block forming up that has much greater potential than CSTO. I'm speaking of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and possible military block that can be formed within it.

Then again, if we look at my original question, I was merely wondering about why the US government is willing to pay for that base. What are the US's interests there? I've already tried to cover some of the reasons for Russia, but what is the purpose of the American presence there? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind them being there, I am merely wondering.

1) America has the money (for now) to maintain that base, or any other base anywhere they want. So who cares how much their paying? Its like a waiter warning Donald Trump that a bottle of champaign is going to be expensive. I'm pretty sure he can handle it.

2) It doesn't take a political science degree or a paranoid America fear complex to understand why the US has a base there.
Are you ready for it?! Are you???

Look at a map! It is there simply to support to the war in Afghanistan and thats it. The only other "close" base in the region is Al U died in Qatar. To fly from Qatar to Afghanistan you have to fly all the way around Iran. Its much easier to just have a small staging area 2 hours north of Afghanistan than 800 miles the other side of Iran.

And its not a US Army base. Its not even a base. Its just a small camp of Air Force personnel who are stationed there to maintain the planes that come through (back and fourth) from Afghanistan. The real "военные" Soldiers and Marines who pass through are never there for more than 24 hours either going to or from Afghanistan. Then from there they go back to their bases in the States.

Believe me, the scrapped missile "shield" in Poland is much more of a threat than the 500 Mechanics stationed in MANAS, Kyrgyzstan.

And yeah, good point. Russian has a base in KANT. So are we gunna argue that Russia is gunna fight the US for Afghanistan? Get real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

There are some criminal elements that control some businesses in Russia, but what does this has to do with the fact that Russian southern border needs to be guarded? Many criminals (and terrorists) cross the border illegally and that's no big a secret.

---

Maybe you're right, but still, tanks are not helpful in that scenario. Also, I would really like you to address my suggestion that if "Russian southern border needs to be guarded" then GUARD IT FROM RUSSIA, don't go to the other country and guard it from there. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

I was merely wondering about why the US government is willing to pay for that base. What are the US's interests there?

---

As I mentioned earlier, I have no insiders in the Pentagon, so Dogboy's comments make sense to me so far. I was assuming they just gain some political dividends significant enough to open their wallet. The comment that "Russia has more reasons to be there" still does not make much sense to me. :unknown:

From what I remember reading. We help them secure their borders, help them fight drugs, well, whatever. You know, I'm sure if you google it you can find it too. Its not like we just threw a briefcase full of COM at Bakiev and he said "Ok yankees! Do your worst! Muahah".

Its more like we give them money to build their country up and protect itself from extremism, and they let us park a few planes at an airport.

Wether or not they actually use that money constructively, or if they just build themselves another palace, well, I guess that is left to be determined.

PS Johanna im sorry I hijacked your thread :)