Thread: The Small and Poor Central Asian Countries..?

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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?

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

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. The explanation "Russia is closer" looks just like that.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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. The explanation "Russia is closer" looks just like that.

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?

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

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.

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.

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.

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