Richard Hougland, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, explained that Washington is intending to take consistent measures of human rights protection in Central Asia and it hopes to convince the government of each country that these reforms serve their national interests.

Anthony Blinken, the US Deputy Secretary of State, spoke in greater detail. According to him, security in Central Asian states strengthens the US security and therefore facilitates the global effort in anti-terrorism and extremism struggle. He emphasized that such stability can be reached in the circumstances when the Central Asian countries have not only a sovereign status, but, to a greater extent, are capable of protecting their own boundaries. In this context, the countries of the region will be connected with each other and with Asia’s developing economies, while the governments will be accountable to their own residents.

Azhdar Kurtov, the Leading Research Scientist of the Russian Strategic Research Institute, believes that the Americans will try to differentiate their approach to the Central Asian states. “Something crucially new can hardly be expected from this strategy. It will be going the same old way all over again. Most likely, using the softer approaches than those in 1990s”, Azhdar Kurtov told a NEO correspondent. The values to be dominated in the region are understood to be Western ones or American to be more exact. “They will promote the idea of independence as the main landmark for political, intellectual, journalistic elites of the Central Asia: to support the idea of strengthening independence the CA states will have to cooperate with the USA and EU. However, the political cooperation with the so called “rampant” regimes (implying Russia, Iran and to a certain degree China), that supposedly give no prospects for progress, is not quite forward-looking”, Kurtov said. According to him, geopolitical players are competing to win Central Asia.

Other experts believe that the new strategy pursues different goals. “The US needs to activate their strategy in the East to give a peaceful respite to Ukraine which has just quit Russia’s influence”, Shokhrat Kadyrov, the Doctor of Historical Sciences, Leading Research Scientist of the Institute of Oriental Studies, told a NEO correspondent. According to him, the basic criterion that defines the US strategy efficiency is weakening Russia and China and winning a dominant position among the states along the perimeter of borders with Russia, avoiding stepping into direct conflict with Russia. “I don’t think this strategy has focus on such complicated states as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan which can be destabilized spontaneously (especially, in the Ferghana region) without any US interference, and the entanglement into conflicts among which can hardly be of any interest for the USA”, Kadyrov said.

Andrei Kazantsev, the Director of the Analytical Center of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, believes the new strategy does not change the goals of foreign policy that the USA specifically pursues in various Central Asian states. Some states are more seen in the context of Afghanistan, South Asia and Great Middle East issues (Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan), others – more in the context of US geopolitical interests in the former Soviet Union (Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan as members of the Eurasian Integration Project launched by Moscow), while others – more in the context of energy issues (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan), etc. Besides, in terms of institutionalization, the Americans see Central Asia more in the context of issues of South Asia and Afghanistan than in the context of the former Soviet Union problems (the US State Department has the same division dealing with South and Central Asia). Only the general approach changes: more dialogs with Central Asian elites and more efforts to influence the groups in these countries that are ready to cooperate with the USA. This will allow to simultaneously and better promote the US interests (especially, achieve greater distance between the CA states and Russia, and most likely even China) and US values (i.e. standards of democracy and human rights). In the past, the USA constantly and actively criticized the Central Asian elites for violation of human rights, thus, in so doing, cutting off access to effective cooperation with them. And this approach, like the previous one, will be most likely disliked by Russia’s leadership. Now it will fear more that the USA can create its strong lobby in the Central Asia elites, which is going to be less willing to cooperate with Russia.

At the same time, the USA has nowhere stated officially that it confronts China. However, as Andrei Kazantsev noted, all the US documents covertly envisage it. This includes the concept of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Obama’s new military doctrine providing for the shift of US main political and military efforts to the Pacific Ocean. With regard to Central Asia, given the problems in Afghanistan and the Islamic world on the whole, as well as the confrontation with Russia around Ukraine, the USA takes more moderate positions with regard to China. It will try to initiate interaction between two Silk Road projects, one of its own and one of China. This approach has a kernel. To start with, these two projects are associated with the infrastructure support provided to the region’s countries, and therefore, any structure to appear with the US help will in fact interact with another in a certain way. Of course, the USA is not ready “to give away” Central Asia to China. The US main goal has always been to provide multi-vector politicians of Central Asian states with a possibility to have a pro-Western landmark as the third and key vector in addition to the Russian and Chinese ones. In this context, the USA has a reason to expect that the Central Asian elites will appreciate the additional freedom of movement offered by the USA with regard to Russia and China. Of course, such approach makes neither Moscow nor Beijing excited about it.

Shokhrat Kadyrov believes that the new US strategy is focused not on shifting landmarks, but on the new emphasis triggered by mutually beneficial interests that appeared between Washington and Tehran. First, Iran is able and is already preparing to provide Europe and Ukraine with gas. Second, the loyal relations between Iran and the USA may put on the back burner the consortium’s project of gas supplies from Iran to Pakistan – I will emphasize – with the participation of Russia, as well as the Nabucco Project aimed to connect the Azerbaijani and Turkmen pipelines running on the Caspian bottom for gas supplies through Turkey to Europe, which Russia strongly opposes. The Iran-Pakistan project is being delayed because the TAPI pipeline construction has been started, which will allow US-based Chevron to supply gas to Pakistan. The Nabucco Project is delayed because Turkmenistan may obtain approval from Iran to participate in its own gas supplies to Europe through Iran and Turkey, bypassing Russia, and to spite the supply of Turkmen gas solely to China. As we can see, in both cases the USA evade in style any direct confrontation with Russia, and at the same time place it in a disadvantageous position.

Indeed, the US strategy is not limited to economic projects only, as for example, the operating BTD (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) pipeline, that bypasses Russia; it was built in 2005 and was immediately joined by Kazakhstan. The work is under way to create, with the US help, the special guard units of the Caspian marine (Caspian sea) and land borders of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. The construction of Khizi and Astara radar stations in Azerbaijan can be considered a success of the US policy. These stations are efficient to generate electromagnetic interference with Russia’s early warning radars installed in Azerbaijan.

Viktoria Panfilova is a columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta and the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Russian president Vladimir Putin came up with the proposal of creating the currency union during a working visit to Astana. The Russian leader believes that introduction of the new currency in the next year will help protect the economy of the EAEU.

This is not a new idea, however. The initiative of introducing a single currency belongs to the Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. He spoke about it for the first time in 2003, stressing that it should be a supranational currency of the Customs Union countries – Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Nazarbayev proposed, at that time, to call it altyn. The prototypes of banknotes were developed. But the idea, although it was supported by leaders of the Customs Union, was in fact rather weakly promoted. Moreover, when the agreement was signed to create the EAEU in May 2015, the issue of currency was postponed until 2025 as well as the establishment of an EAEU Central Bank.

As it is, leaders are occupied with implementing immediate agreements. By the end of 2015 all the barriers that exist in the goods market should be removed. From 2016 it is expected that a single market for medical devices and drugs will have been created. Issues are being solved in the alcohol market. It is planed that all issues in the energy market will be resolved by 2019. And already since 2025 the single market for oil and gas will be created. The creation of a financial services market is the final stage. An agreement on the creation of a multifunctional body for financial market regulation is only expected to be signed by 2025. And it is only after the completion of all these stages that a single currency can begin to be introduced. So said Saadat Asanseitova, the Director of the Department of Integration of the Eurasion Economic Commission. A single currency ought to boost the totality of the EAEU’s export potential.

At the same time, an analyst at IFC Markets Dimitry Lukashev believes that the introduction of altyn is quite feasible. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan need it in the first place in order to get away from the dollar and Euro in the payments between each other, for international EAEU payments and financial investment projects. Experts do not exclude that if this matter is taken over by Putin the process of establishing a currency market will be accelerated.

However, Kazakhstan has already begun considering the de-dollarization of its economy. This is not, for the moment, about prohibiting the dollar in Kazakhstan. And not only because the population put their savings mainly in US currency. The fact of the matter is that foreign investors are not ready for settlements in another currency instead of the dollar. Nevertheless, the National Bank is developing a specific plan with the government to reduce the dollarization of the economy in 2015-2016.

The governor of the National Bank of Kazakhstan, Kairat Kelimbetov, said that the de-dollarization plan of the national economy is based on three main directions. The first direction is providing macroeconomic stability by taking steps to gradually decrease annual inflation. The National Bank calculates that inflation will fall to 3-4% by 2020. The second is the development of electronic payments and reduction of the shadow turnover. The third is the improvement of the tenge’s (national currency) priority over foreign currency. According to Kelimbetov a series of measures is provided: a prohibition on indicating prices for goods, services or work in foreign currency; introducing regulations for making cash payments between individuals for transactions of movable and immovable assets; an increase in deposit guarantees from 5 million tenges to 10 million tenges. Third, a decrease in the savings remuneration rate to 3%. According to Kelimbetov the plan for de-dollarization of the national economy involves launching various regulations for making cash payments between individuals for transactions on movable and immovable assets. These changes, according to the head of the National Bank, will be gradually introduced into legislation over the medium term.

In respect to the question: whether Kazakhstan will be able to reject dollar payments completely, Elena Kuzmina, the head of the sector for economic development of the post-Soviet states of the RAS Institute of Economics, thinks that today, for Kazakhstan it is possible to gradually substitute the dollar with other currencies, primarily the yuan. A number of agreements with China were signed either in yuans or require yuan-tenge swaps. Moreover, there is an agreement between the national banks of the two countries. Only, it is not about all currency operations but only a certain volume of currency. Moreover, within the framework of the EAEU, a number of Russian-Kazakh trade and production contracts were signed in roubles or foreign currency swaps. However, the situation with the sharp fall of the Russian rouble has severely impaired the situation for the growth of this trend.

“Another process which could be initiated by the Kazakhstan authorities will be directed at depriving the dollar of its function as a parallel currency. Moreover, the only official unit of accounts in the country is the tenge. It will damage the population seriously since they mainly put their savings in dollars. Moreover, according to Kazakh economists, if in 2012 the currency deposits of the population were 38%; then today they are already 45%,” said Elena Kuzmina.

Concerning foreign trade, Kazakhstan’s main export commodity is hydrocarbons which are tied to the dollar in the world market. Perhaps when they are sold to China this could be done with the national currency. But Kazakhstan not only trades hydrocarbons with China but also with Europe, Iran and Russia. And most of the industrial goods and technology they buy from the West.

Most likely, the Kazakh authorities can, and will, pursue de-dollarization policies, as this will contribute to the strengthening of the national economy, and in doing so will help China and the EAEU (provided that this union will purposefully handle those economic issues that were declared in the Treaty on the EAEU). But doing this quickly, and even more so all at once, is not possible and unwise (the dollar is still, for now, the world’s leading currency). Elena Kuzmina noted that de-dollarization is gradually becoming a world trend. “It is not an independent initiative by Kazakhstan or any other country which promotes or leads de-dollarization policy,” said the economist.

Kazakh parliamentarians are divided on this issue. Some are convinced that: Kazakhstan needs to reject mutual dollar and Euro payments by all means. Deputies have calculated that: one $100 bill costs only 14 cents. This means that countries which settle their accounts in American currency are working for the economy of one country only: the USA.

Viktoria Panfilova is a columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta and the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Kyrgyz opposition is stirring things up in the republic.  General elections will take place in November of this year. The leader of the “United Opposition Movement” Ravshan Jeenbekov feels that the irregular actions of the authorities have brought the country to a standstill. “The country is in crisis. We want to warn the government that sooner or later it is going to happen. Nobody expected that events in 2005 and 2010would lead to two ousted presidents.  (On March 24, 2005 the president Askar Akayev was ousted as a result of a coup d’etat and again on April 7, 2010 the president Kurmanbek Bakiyev got overthrown). We urge the people to show resistance against the authorities”, said Jeenbekov, specifying at the same time that he means peaceful demonstrations when he calls for “resistance”.  Experts however are predicting the next destabilization phase of the country. This might hinder Kyrgyzstan’s integration into the EAEU on one hand but on the other it might strengthen the shaky position of the US in the country after the withdrawal of US bases from the air base at the international airport “Manas”.

The Kyrgyzstan US Ambassador Pamela Spratlen called Bishkek’s rapprochement policy with Moscow a threat to Washington’s interests in November of last year. This turned out to be an error of judgement for the diplomat. Pamela Spratlen missed the accession of Kyrgyzstan to the EAEU and the expulsion of American troops. The well-known American diplomat, Richard Miles, known as the “father of revolution” in post-soviet circles, has been sent to Kyrgyzstan to smooth things over. Incidentally Washington sent him as the charge d’affaires and not as the ambassador. Experts say that this is not a coincidence. With Miles’ reputation of “father of revolution” the authorities wouldn’t have given him the agrément.

Andrey Grozin, head of the Central Asia and Kazakhstan department at the Moscow-based Institute of Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) believes that if Miles doesn’t try to disrupt the process of Kyrgyzstan’s accession to the EAEU then at least he will try to slow it down. “I don’t think that Miles will be successful in disrupting things until spring. The “color revolution” is a system with well-know expert algorithms, a set of tools and necessary resources. It is almost March and this spring Kyrgyzstan simply does not have time to prepare for “democratic transformation”. But the expected general elections in fall is an entire other matter”, Grozin said to journalists. Taking this into consideration, the proposal from the Foreign Affairs Minister Erlan Abdyldaev to parliamentarians to re-examine the issue of NATO forces returning to the republic, shouldn’t be seen as random.

“The North Atlantic alliance has raised the question of the extension of the Agreement on the transit of cargo for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with Kyrgyzstan, to reflect the changes of format of operations in Afghanistan”, said the Foreign Affairs Minister Erlan Abdyldaev at a meeting of the Committee of International Affairs.

This “request” is tied to the fact that the United States intend to maintain a greater military presence than previously thought in Afghanistan.

The final decision on how many US troops will stay in Afghanistan as well as what their mission will be is still pending.

Reportedly the initiative lies with the Afghan president Ashraf Ghani, who allegedly asked Washington for “some flexibility” in fulfilling the withdrawal schedule of troops and military base closures.

According to the Kyrgyz minister Abdyldaev, “the decision to facilitate a new NATO operation in Afghanistan is almost taken.”

“As a result of an inter-ministerial meeting, the decision on the need to elaborate a separate protocol amendment to the agreement on the transit of goods of ISAF through the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic was taken on May 21, 2012″, he said.

Changing the format of the presence of US forces in Afghanistan does not change their objectives, said Alexander Knyazev, expert author on Central Asia and the Middle East, in an interview. The USA secured their entry point. Having strong military transport aircraft, they can drop mobile forces and supplies in the region and not spend money. Americans will prolong the control of the country without leading military actions. Since September 2014 the USA has virtually not led military operations in Afghanistan. Military actions occurring today are solely conducted by Afghan security forces, the police, etc. The Americans are not involved in this but they provide military presence and protection. Therefore one can only speak of the full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan if ever for some internal reason the Americans deem it unnecessary to stay in Afghanistan.”, said Alexander Knyazev.

Asked whether it is a pretext for Americans to return to Kyrgyzstan Knyazev said that nothing could be ruled out.

“There is a very strong pro-Western lobby surrounding Atambayev: the Foreign Prime Minister Elran Abdyldaev, the head of foreign policy in the office of the President Zhapar Isakov, the leadership of the State Committee for National Security (GKNB) and the Prime Minister Djoomart Otorbaev.

“Manas” in the meantime stands empty. There was mention that the base was being transferred to the National Guard, but there is no doubt that such an large area and number of buildings, structures, including equipment is simply not needed by the National Guard nor are they able to cope with it. The “Manas” air base has always been a subject of bargaining for all parties including Kyrgyz authorities. The temptation to the Kyrgyz leadership to again make money is clearly understandable. It is not at all impossible that Bishkek might try to enter in agreement for “Manas” with opponents of a Western presence in Kyrgyzstan: Russia or maybe even China. We must remember that Bishkek’s politics are irregular and the alleged view on Atambayev’s pro-Russian stance is naive. NATO and more specifically the USA, can always make the Kyrgyz government an offer they can’t refuse.”, Knyazev told the correspondant of “NEO”.

One must remember that the American base that they called “Ganci” was erected close to the Bishkek airport “Manas” in 2001. The base was the main transit point and NATO logistics centre in the region. In February 2009 the ex Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev announced that the government had approved the withdrawal from the air base in the country. At the end of February the Kyrgyz parliament denounced the agreement with the USA. However in June 2009 the agreement was signed in which the air base was restructured into a transportation Transit centre at the “Manas” international airport. In 2014 the Transit centre ceased to exist and NATO’s military contingent left the territory of Kyrgyzstan. Now the story of the deployment of Western troops in the Central Asian country may start a new countdown.

Viktoria Panfilova is a columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta and the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

While the world is increasingly polarized due to the recent West-Russia standoff, Russia seeks to establish a good footing with its traditional partners, while increasing  cooperation with new ones, all while attempting to cancel out the hostile steps taken by the opposing camp. These collectively are the key principals of today’s Russian foreign policy.

In December Russia’s President Vladimir Putin made two brief but fruitful trips to Uzbekistan and India. The former of the two can be easily called one of the most important countries in Central Asia while the latter remains traditionally sympathetic to Russia. In Tashkent, where Russia’s President stopped on his way to India, he was received by his Uzbek counterpart Islam Karimov.

The arrival of such a significant figure as the president of the Russian Federation is an important even in political life of any country. But this event was particularly important for Uzbekistan as the country enters the pre-election period. On December 21 the local parliamentary elections are to be held, quickly followed by presidential elections next year. There’s little doubt that Karimov is firmly holding the reins of power, but this kind of Russian support that was showed by Putin’s visit, testified to the absence of controversy between Moscow and Tashkent. It’s also important to note that there’s a five million strong army of labor migrants from Uzbekistan, working in Russia today.

While discussing a wide range of matters in Tashkent, both local and global, the presidents touched upon bilateral relations and regional security issues. The official statement issued after the meeting says that the two leaders found mutual understanding on most of the items discussed. This can be exemplified by the fact that Russia has pardoned 865 million dollars debt incurred back in the 1990s when Uzbekistan left the ruble zone, but carried on importing Russian products. Now there’s “only” 25 millions left to be paid. In turn, Uzbekistan will be increasing the volume of agricultural products it is shipping to Russia – important in the context of recent Western sanctions – and seems to be an increasingly important trend. Additionally, the two states have agreed to expand their military cooperation efforts, giving way to Russian weapon exports to Uzbekistan. In the energy sector Lukoil seems to be preparing for a long stay in Uzbekistan, ready to invest up to 5 billion dollars until 2039 in local exploration and development. The decisions that were announced at the press-conference once all the deals were signed and the ease with which Russia has pardoned the considerably hefty debt must have puzzled those circles in the West. To compromise, Uzbekistan is willing to limit its cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union (EEC) by establishing a free trade zone.

According to Andrew Kazantsev, the director of a MGIMO analytical center: “The puzzle of Uzbekistan’s inclusion in the EEC is unsolvable by its nature.” ” Islam Karimov has always been putting true independence above all other concerns in the country’s internal and external affairs. It would be naive to assume that Karimov would be willing to betray his own ways,”- said Kazantsev. However, the topic is not closed – modern history knows a handful of examples of abrupt changes in foreign policy that a country is following.

It would be hard to imagine the negotiations between Putin and Karimov without them discussing regional and security issues in light of threats coming from Afghanistan. Russia has certain obligations to Central Asian countries that are preparing for accession to the EEC. Therefore, Putin and Karimov discussed gas security in southern Kyrgyzstan – that is dependent today upon the Uzbek gas supplies, so a certain agreement was reached. Another painful subject is the harsh contradiction Tajikistan has with Uzbekistan over water resources in the region. Russia has an obligation to ensure the safety of Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty it has signed. So it is a puzzling task to find a way out of the “water crisis”, at one point of which the Uzbek President had even said that there could be a possible escalation of the conflict. Dushanbe in its turn has been complaining for a long time about the transport blockade, which had been permanently induced by Tashkent. It seems that President Putin will be have to find a way around the rough edges to ensure the security of the region, and these first steps, it seems, have already been made.

An expert on Central Asia and the Middle East, Alexander Knyazev, has called the meeting Putin held with Karimov fruitful. He believes that the negotiations they held can lead to a better understanding of the threats that Afghanistan can potentially present to the Russian Federation and Uzbekistan. Among others the two leaders highlighted terrorism and drug trafficking. Islam Karimov has even said he fears that Iraq can go down the road that Afghanistan had once taken. Obviously, he meant the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State. In this context, the presidents have stressed the extremist groups in Afghanistan are linked with those in Iraq and Syria which means that a joint effort will be imperative for effectively fighting them. It’s no coincidence that both have been mentioning the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s anti-terrorist center that is located in Tashkent.”- says Knyazev.

Putin’s visit to Uzbekistan and India, according to experts, falls into the pattern of Russia’s turn to the East, provoked by an increasing number of attempts to isolate Russia. In India, Vladimir Putin was discussing Eurasian topics. There’s little doubt that India will never become a member of EEC but it can work in cooperation with it through the Customs Union. The new Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, seems to be focused on establishing a multi-vector policy for the country, therefore he refused to support the anti-Russian stance taken by the US and the EU.

“Russia is the closest friend of India and preferred strategic partner,” – said Modi during his conversation with Putin. So India’s willingness to sign a free trade agreement with the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, along with a number of profitable contracts may come as no surprise. After the meeting Vladimir Putin said to the members of the international press that Russia and India will “opt for the use of national currencies in bilateral trade.”

Additionally, Moscow and New Delhi have agreed that Rosatom will be building a total of 12 reactors in India. The head of Rosatom, Sergey Kiriyenko, said that “there’s going to be a difficult timetable to beat.” This Russian company has been building two blocks of nuclear power plant (NPP) Kudankulam which, according to Russia’s President, “is the sole nuclear power plant in the world that meets all post-Fukushima safety requirements”, To the delight of the local government, Moscow has decided to allow Indian companies in the exploration and production of hydrocarbons in the Arctic and in Eastern Siberia.

There seems to be little to no contradictions between Moscow and New Delhi as far as international affairs are concerned. Both India and Russia are in favor of cooperation in order to resolve the situation in Syria and Iraq. “We are willing to work together in order to resolve the situation around Syria and Iraq, along with the stabilization of the situation in Afghanistan – said Vladimir Putin. – Russia’s and India’s approaches to the resolution of key global and regional problems are basically the same or very close … India and Russia advocate the creation of a new structure of security and cooperation in the Asian region. “

In regard to the results of Putin’s visit to Uzbekistan and India a question can be asked – has Russia made too many concessions to their partners?

Indeed, the deals seem to be asymmetrical since they are strongly favoring Russia’s partners and their interests. But such is the balance on the world stage – should some partners choose the path of confrontation and sanctions in relations with Russia, the benefits of cooperation then are granted to others.

Viktoria Panfilova is a columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta and the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

A few days ago, Brussels served notice that NATO refuses to cooperate with Russia on Afghanistan. Furthermore, the alliance is shunting aside any opportunity to return to the level of cooperation with Russia that it had before.

The causes are obvious. The deep divisions concerning the matters of Syria and Ukraine have brought about a freeze. Regardless of that, however, the NATO demarche is not promoting regional stability. On the contrary, it fits with the view of many experts that NATO is deliberately trying to surround Russia’s southern flank in an arc of instability.

The United States has decided to begin a new war on international terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. At the NATO summit in Wales, the American plan received the full support of the alliance. The primary enemy in this war is the terrorist group called the Islamic State. Incidentally, they’re the rebels Washington nurtured, the ones who got military aid and were trained by American instructors in Turkey and the Gulf countries. Having firmly established their presence, they are now freewheeling independent operators marching to the beat of their own drum. Now Washington is fighting against them.

“The United States underestimated the religious motivations of the rebels,” Alexander Sobianin, the director of strategic planning at the Association for Cross-Border Cooperation, said in an interview with the author. “The special forces of the Gulf states, which invested far less in these groups than the United States did, could have redirected their objectives very quickly. The outcome left even cynical American intelligence services in a state of shock: videotaped beheadings of dozens of Americans and Europeans, the mass rape of women and children… The actions of Islamists in the broader Middle East, including Afghanistan, have become a direct threat to the strategic interests of the United States.”

But characteristic is the fact that when Syrian President Bashar Assad consented to the bombing of the “caliphate’s” positions in Syria, Turkey, which had previously taken great pains to distance itself from its NATO allies and their anti-terrorism operations, sprang back to life instantaneously. Taking advantage of the extremely complex Kurdish refugee situation, Ankara needed little time to decide that Turkish troops could be inserted into Syria. Turkey was acting on the Syrian Kurds’ request for help and safety in response to the Islamists’ capture of the tomb of Shah Suleyman, who was the grandfather of Osman I, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This Syrian exclave is considered Turkish soil. Damascus, naturally, is dead-set against the Turkish course of action. It is becoming clear to everyone that the so-called “anti-terrorist operation” is just another attempt to overthrow the Assad government.

Meanwhile, the arc of instability is spreading to new areas. The frustrations are about to spill over into Lebanon, Jordan and Afghanistan. In early September, Taliban militants announced that they were switching to the Islamic State side. On 26 September, the leader of another extremist group, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Usmon Goziy, declared that the IMU is joining the Islamic State group. The impending danger it brings to Central Asia is obvious. Experts are not ruling out the possibility that what is happening will provide an excuse for the United States to try to gain a foothold on Russia’s southern frontier in Central Asia, with the U.S. saying that it is standing up to the caliphate. That is to say, the Americans will use an aspect of the struggle against the Islamists as Turkey is doing now — to carry out very specific geopolitical objectives.

Signs pointing to preparations for the establishment of American or NATO bases in the region are not yet visible. But those conversations might begin in the near future. A further goal is to hinder the development of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU),” Sobianin said. “That can be done only if Central Asia and Kazakhstan are destabilized, borders are blown up, and armed groups start migrating to the area along with an influx of people. In some places, the militants will be home-grown, while in others, external intelligence agencies will bring them in from somewhere else.”

He explained why the threat to Central Asia and Kazakhstan is more imminent than in the Caucasus, for example. “Russia has spent 20 years building a sturdy apparatus in the South Caucasus that can handle any major regional flare-ups, from a possible war in Nagorno-Karabakh to a possible war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, to an unlikely attempt by Georgia to recover lost territory. The Caucasus is well-defended. Central Asia, on the other hand, can’t be reinforced ahead of time. The problem is not just the extensive border with Kazakhstan (the Russian-Kazakh border runs for 7,500 kilometers). The peoples who inhabit this area are united by their shared Muslim, Soviet and Russian culture. Central Asia’s Islamism has tight mutual bonds and mutual reach with the Islamism of the Volga, the Urals and Western Siberia. It is here that the armed groups seek religious radicals. Besides traditional extremist groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Central Asian nationals could very well be fighting for the anti-Assad forces in the Syrian conflict. According to official data alone, there are more than 4,000 such people. Once they return home, they can pose a serious threat to the governments there because with the exception of Tajikistan, those countries’ armed forces haven’t seen real combat. Western intelligence agencies have experience sending militants from the Middle East to CIS countries. Pro-Russian fighters in Ukraine’s civil war have repeatedly reported encountering mercenaries from Syria who opposed them in battle.

In light of this, the establishment of American bases in Central Asian countries appears plausible. The United States is known to be scouting Karshi-Khanabad and Termez in Uzbekistan, and it’s not counting out Kazakhstan either. “The odds of American military facilities cropping up in these countries are low, but it is possible,” Sobianin said.

Since losing its air base in Kyrgyzstan, the United States has started negotiating with the authorities in Uzbekistan. Despite the fact that the country is legally prohibited from hosting such facilities, the American military presence could be drawn up as a logistics center or rapid response hub that transitions into an actual military base over time. Gen. Lloyd J. Austin, the leader of U.S. Central Command, visited Tashkent in early September. He held a series of meetings with Uzbek officials and was received by President Islam Karimov. Information about U.S.-led talks about deployment of American troops to Uzbekistan was leaked to Uzbek opposition media outlets.

Sobianin thinks Central Asia is being primed for a huge explosion. He doesn’t think it will happen now, though, but rather next year. He is convinced that the Americans need to be on hand pitting the populations against one another and provoking war, and to direct the situation they will need to be in that spot. “Until Russia decides to take it upon itself to return to Central Asia – and that decision has not been made – there is no way it can even give substantive help to the Uzbek and Tajik armed forces in the fight against Islamist groups,” Sobianin said. “Russia can only supply weapons, and it has done that. We’re doing that in Ukraine, too. We did not start this war. But we are willing to help. We are prepared for everything in the course of a war. We understand that this plan is being hatched by the Americans, so at this time we don’t have any say in their preparations for breaking apart Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The destabilization of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan could result in the collapse of the entire regional structure. The United States’ main goal is to divert Russia’s attention by creating new problems for Russia along the already fragile and vulnerable southern borders.”

For his part, Konstantin Syroezhkin, the lead researcher at the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies, is convinced that the United States is clearly outplaying Russia, and Moscow still doesn’t seem to be trying to develop a coherent policy on the CIS in general and Central Asia in particular. “Russia is playing it by ear, and unfortunately, that doesn’t always work,” he said. As for the United States’ overtures to Uzbekistan, he sees them as “a purely tactical move, lasting only until the withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan.” He is sure that down the road, the United States will have recollections about Uzbekistan’s human rights record, etc. However, the main purpose of the flirtation between Washington and Tashkent is “to influence the foreign policy positions of neighboring Kazakhstan, especially pertaining to the curtailment of Kazakhstan’s participation in Russian and Chinese integration projects.” Moreover, the United States would, of course, like to see Astana take a more “loyal” stance regarding Syria and Iran, he concluded.

Viktoria Panfilova is a columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta and the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Even the primary analysis of the EBRD’s short-term forecast shows that its main goal is to prepare warnings to Central Asian countries on the undesirability of integration with Russia.

However, every coin has two sides, and in this case one should speak not only about the negative, but also the positive effects of anti-Russian Western sanctions on the economies of the Central Asian region.

In the published EBRD’s report it is said that the weakening of the Russian economy will primarily hit the Central Asian countries. According to experts of the Bank, in the first quarter of 2014 the volume of money transfers from Russia to the countries of Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Caucasus has declined markedly. “Any further weakening of the economy in Russia as a result of the imposition of sanctions will be reflected by an economic slowdown in the Central Asian region”, says the EBRD report. Right now it is mainly a question of workers’ remittances to relatives and friends. As an example, the EBRD report specifies that up to 4 billion dollars flows to Tajikistan from Russia, but according to unofficial data it is much more. For instance, the deputy director for science at the Institute of Market Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nabi Ziyadullaev noted in conversation with the author that up to 10 billion dollars are sent from Russia to Tajikistan annually. “This fact is recognized by Tajik specialists. They say that the country practically lives on remittances,” said Nabi Ziyadullaev.

Apparently, the Tajik authorities are not interested in boasting statistics about either remittances or the number of people who have left the country to work. According to official data, Russia and Kazakhstan employ about 900,000 Tajiks, but according to another source, the real number is twice as much. According to experts, this is due to the general economic situation and the depletion of sources of economic grants from external factors. “Therefore, there are various reasons not to disclose this information fully, to keep the public calm and preserve the authority of the republic’s leadership in the international arena – political ratings, status, and so on,” said the head of the Economics Department of the Institute of CIS countries Aza Mihranyan.

Another negative factor is the depreciation of the national currency. “In Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, as well as in Russia, there has been a depreciation of the local currency against the dollar of up to 30%. But in regard to the ruble, on the contrary, several national currencies have strengthened. However, in any case, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan now have no other choice but to join the Customs Union (CU) and the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC). Russia will not receive special dividends in the next 5-10 years from the expansion of the EAEC, it will receive only geopolitical ones.” said Nabi Ziyadullaev.

Now the positives. In Tajikistan, it is estimated that the country’s budget by the end of the year will be short of several billion dollars, and migrant laborers will return home having lost their jobs in Russia. Such a prospect would force the authorities to engage seriously in the economy, at least in order to avoid a social explosion. First Deputy Minister of Finance of Tajikistan Jamoliddin Nuraliev recently said that the government is already taking action to create jobs within the country. “It is expected that in the future, Tajikistan will earn about 300 new medium and small businesses, which will provide work to a certain part of the population,” said the official.

Another positive factor for the Central Asian states arising against the background of the relations between Russia and the West is the ability to increase the supply of agricultural products to the Russian market. Especially since for the countries of the Free Trade Area, which includes the subjects of the Central Asian region, an advanced and privileged access to the Russian market is provided.

“The policy of import substitution provides exporters and producers of the Customs Union and the Member States of the CIS free trade zone opportunities, such as the expansion of sales of its products in the Russian market. This applies, of course, first and foremost, to food producers. And it is necessary to take into account that if there is growth in supply, it will inevitably cause a growth of services and transport turnover. Thus, we obtain an increase in trade and economic turnover between Russia and the CIS. In addition to food, access may be extended to textile producers. Accordingly, unless Russian counter-sanctions are implemented to ban western textile products, the CIS countries will obtain yet another bonus. These are examples of positive consequences,” says Alexander Karavaev, Researcher at the Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Uzbekistan was the first to declare its readiness to increase the delivery of vegetables and fruits to the RF. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan could also deliver their products, but they are still not in a hurry to take on the vacant niche of western products. As noted by Elena Kuzmina, Chief of the Economic Development of the post-Soviet countries, the Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences on the one hand this is due to regional differences on transit issues. On the other hand it is due to monitoring issues: fruit and vegetable products from these countries do not always meet the phytosanitary regulations of the Customs Union. But as everyone knows, the devil is in the details. The EBRD’s report, according to Elena Kuzmina, can be seen as a veiled warning to Central Asian countries not to strengthen cooperation with Russia, and vice versa. Not to give Russia access to their markets – and this is mainly engineering products, and not to deliver their own products to the Russian market.

“The countries of Central Asia are a diverse bunch. There are agrarian Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, hydrocarbon-exporting Turkmenistan, and the more harmoniously developed Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Western sanctions against Russia will affect these countries in different ways, depending on their degree of integration with the Russian economy, and, as it turns out, also depending on their perception of the Bank’s warning.” said Kuzmina.

According to her, there is much more to say about how Western sanctions may somewhat reduce the investment opportunities in Russia. “The main Russian investments are directed at the energy sector in Central Asia. Primarily in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and to a lesser extent in Turkmenistan. However, it should be taken into account that the main flow of oil and gas in all oil-producing countries in Central Asia, and now also in Russia, are new contracts directed to China. So we can say that the damage caused by Western sanctions in general has been minimized. In any case, the effects of the sanctions have been significantly reduced,” said Elena Kuzmina.

Viktoria Panfilova is a columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta and the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

According to the head of the Center for Public Affairs of the Ministry of National Security of Azerbaijan Arif Babaev, it has been established that some Azerbaijani citizens were involved in the war in the Middle East a few years ago. First they were sent to Pakistan, and after training were thrown into a combat zone in Iraq and Syria. The Azerbaijani authorities are concerned that the religious extremists who have gone through war in the ranks of the IS may continue the jihad to free like-minded fanatics not only in Azerbaijan, but also in the North Caucasus and even in Central Asia. Especially because the ranks of ISIL’s combat units include not only Azerbaijanis and people from the North Caucasus, but also Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Tajiks, and Tatars.

“The countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia must treat the threat posed by the Islamic State as seriously as possible,” believes Professor Alexei Malashenko, Expert of the Carnegie Moscow Center. “Many people are fighting, up to 30 thousand. They come from 80 different countries. There is even a man from Mexico. This is serious. Tensions have been ratcheted up. This is a consequence of the “Arab Spring”. If the process is not stopped, then it will go on. Stopping it will not be simple either, since the IS is just the tip of the iceberg of radical Islam. Echoes of what is happening can be heard around the world – in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc. This threat should definitely be confronted. But the processes that are taking place in Azerbaijan and Central Asia cannot be associated with this opposition. In these states it is usually difficult to figure out exactly what is settled, and it is not uncommon for a simple clearing of the political field under the pretext of the fight against Islamic radicalism.” said Alexey Malashenko in an interview with the author.

According to Malashenko the “Arab Spring”, which began in 2011, sparked euphoria and false opinions that democratic processes would finally take hold in the region. “This was not the case, but things got a lot worse. There was a period of instability, of which the Islamic radicals immediately took advantage. Today they are creating military infrastructure, capturing territory. As a result, they have control of a third of Syria, and a third of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds are leaving their homes… The question is – who is supporting the Islamic radicals?” said Malashenko. According to him, the fact is that these militants, in addition to external support, to a large extent rely on their own money, experience, and strength. They are already selling oil from the captured fields. “They have shown their capabilities, and even if their camp is bombed, they will go underground and make themselves known again.” says Alexey Malashenko.

Georgia has joined the battle with the IS. Tbilisi suggested that the United States establish on its territory a training camp to train Syrian rebels to fight IS militants. This was reported by the American publication Foreign Policy, with reference to the Georgian ambassador to the United States Archil Gegeshidze. Georgia thus supposedly supports the United States in the fight against the Islamic caliphate. The publication stated that the offer was made to the Minister of Defense Chuck Hagel during his visit to Tbilisi in early September. It was then that the document was signed, according to which Georgia became the first party outside the “core” coalition (Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Italy, Poland, and Denmark) against the terrorism of ISIS (The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). Georgia is already involved in NATO operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Tbilisi’s current proposal is accepted, Georgia will contribute to the fight against the Islamic State. In Washington, according to Foreign Policy, there is a plan to train 5000 rebels in camps in Saudi Arabia, to assist next year in the fight against extremism in Syria and Iraq. According to Archil Gegeshidze Tbilisi’s proposal is being considered by Washington. The diplomat specified that the discussion is on the creation of a regional center for the fight against terrorism, which can benefit both neighboring countries, as well as “overseas partners”.

According to Alexey Malashenko, Tbilisi is making the right move. “Georgia should prove its loyalty to the West. There is a certain symbolic moment: Abu Omar Shishani, who was a symbol of the Caucasian presence in Syria, hails from the Pankisi Gorge in Georgia. This blemish must be washed off.” said Malashenko.

Meanwhile, the Council of National Security and Crisis Management under the Prime Minister of Georgia issued a special statement in which he denied the possibility of housing training camps for Syrian rebels in its territory. Meanwhile, some other Georgian institutions confirmed the existence of a plan to create a regional anti-terrorism center or base.

Concerning the danger for the Caucasus and Central Asia posed by the Islamic State, the Kazakh political analyst Dosym Satpayev said that it all began with the common threats to the Caucasus and Central Asia as a whole. “The main efforts of the IS are currently focused on capturing the territories of Syria and Iraq. The bulk of its fighters are a motley crowd from all over the world, which helps to create the same ‘caliphate’ precisely in these areas. But at the same time there is information that some of the so-called ‘mujahideen’, having received the necessary combat experience, are returning to their countries. In particular, reports of this have come from the UK, France, and Germany. And when we talk about the possible risks for Azerbaijan, or, for example, Kazakhstan, due to the involvement of the citizens of these countries in the fighting on the side of the IS or the Taliban, the emphasis is on the fact that their return may to some extent change the balance of forces in the radical underground.” Dosym Satpayev said to the author.

The political scientist noted that the return home of people with military experience may lead to the creation of new forms of associations of the various factions of radical Islam and intensify terrorist activities in general.

Viktoria Panfilova is a columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta and the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Uzbek President Islam Karimov is dead-set on

Uzbekistan occupies a strategically advantageous location in the region but also has tremendous economic potential, thanks to a rapidly growing population. Its sovereignty has been threatened ever since the country achieved independence. A burst of national consciousness was accompanied by a religious awakening. Several religious-based groups and movements took hold in Uzbekistan: Akromiya, an organization named after its founder, Mullah Akrom; Adolat (Justice); Islam lashkarlari (Soldiers of Islam), Tabligh (Society for the spread of the faith ), Tovba (Penance); and Nur (Light). All have been active mainly in the Fergana Valley.

The main goal of these differently named but essentially similar groups is the eventual creation of a theocratic Islamic state. At the core of the founding of these Islamic movements was Tahir Yuldashev. Representatives of these various groups quickly joined forces to form so-called Islamic militia units. People convicted of theft and other petty crimes were punished according to the dictates of Sharia law. Often they were publicly beaten with sticks. One of the commanders of the Islamist militias was a former Soviet serviceman having fought in Afghanistan named Juma Namangani.

From 1990 to 1992, these groups held meetings, rallies and marches, forcing citizens to abide by Sharia behavioral norms. They were sustained largely by members’ donations and money sent from abroad by relatives, similar organizations and Islamic foundations. At the heart of these religious groups was the idea to create an Islamic state. In late 1991, Adolat conducted a series of mass demonstrations in Namangan. The situation threatened to spiral out of control. Karimov arrived in Namangan and personally met with the protesters. Witnesses tell a story that has already become a legend. Unaccompanied by his security detail, Karimov walked alone into the building where Adolat’s supporters were meeting. He began debating with them and grabbed the microphone from the future leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Tahir Yuldashev. Authorities managed to establish control over the country and force the Islamists underground.

The Islamists, who were members of underground groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Akromiya and a number of smaller groups, tried their luck a second time in May 2005 by starting an uprising in Andijan. They took advantage of the rather tense socio-economic situation in the region and were able to portray the revolt as a mass protest by ordinary people against the Karimov regime.

An identical problem exists today, the difference being that all the extremist organizations have found refuge in Afghanistan.

At present, Afghanistan is unstable, its future uncertain. The outcome of the presidential election held on 5 April has not been announced. That is a testament to the security problems in the country as well as the obvious rift among Afghanistan’s political elite. Nobody can say for certain how the split will be resolved. “The major external threats to Uzbekistan come from Afghanistan,” said Alexander Knyazev, an expert on Central Asia and the Middle East. “Furthermore, the fundamental driver that kicks into action groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Global Islamic Jihad, the various Salafi and Takfiri groups, is the degree of loyalty the leadership of a given country has to the United States that heads the list of sponsors of terrorist groups based in Afghanistan. The Americans’ desire to put military facilities in Uzbekistan boils down to a “wall of misunderstanding.” And that raises the stakes for Tashkent. The likelihood of a direct invasion is small, but radical Islamists from the southern regions of Kyrgyzstan have traditionally been a springboard for destabilizing Uzbekistan, and they can wreak havoc. That’s especially true if the American influence on the bigshots in Kyrgyzstan is factored into the mix.”

The instability in Iraq cannot be discounted either. “Despite Uzbekistan’s distance from Iraq, the situation there is worrisome for Islam Karimov, said analyst Adzhar Kurtov, a senior research fellow at the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies. “The fact is that from Iraq, the Islamic State is pushing outward with its concept of Islamic revolution, which is drawing radical Muslims to its lands. It has been successful in recruiting from post-Soviet Central Asian countries. And that has Karimov worried.” He believes that Karimov has ample reason to fear, not just for his own safety but also for that of the country as well.

With Uzbekistan’s presidential election scheduled to take place in December of next year, the political situation there has already begun to heat up even before the start of campaign season. Karimov is 74, and because of his age, he may not run for another term as president. From all indications, Uzbekistan will not attempt Operation Successor, especially after the scandal that embroiled the president’s oldest daughter, Gulnara Karimova.

The battle for the presidency will most likely include the leaders of the major clans. There are several influential clans, including those from Samarkand (Samarkand-Bukhara), Tashkent, Fergana, Karakalpakstan, Khorezm and Surkash (includes the Surkhandarya and Kashkadarya regions). The clans from Tashkent and Samarkand are in the strongest position by far.

Prime Minister Shavkat Mirziyoyev is a leading member of the Samarkand clan, and has been the head of the government since February 2003. The Tashkent clan is represented by First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Rustam Azimov, who oversees the finance and economic ministries. As of now, the Tashkent clan’s standing appears weaker than that of the Samarkand clan. But that could change dramatically if the Tashkent faction wins over one of the most powerful men in the country, the head of the National Security Service, Colonel-General Rustam Inoyatov. However, his clan affiliation is not yet clear. According to some, he is aligned with the Tashkent clan. Others say he prefers to position himself as being above clan politics – which, incidentally, has been Karimov’s modus operandi – by alternating between the Tashkent and the Samarkand clans.

“Karimov’s posture and behavoir are determined not by clan affiliation but by the fact that he originally sought to position himself as a national leader,” said Alexey Malashenko, an expert at the Carnegie Moscow Center. “Karimov had to constantly prove his leadership skills by maintaining power, a legacy he inherited from the Soviet era. And in the 2000s, Karimov finally managed to secure his position as a national leader. Talk of what clan he belongs to has lost all significance for the most part. The clan factor is growing less and less relevant in Russia, the United States and China, which no longer assign any significance to the lineage of Uzbek politicians and are not particularly concerned about what clan the next president of Uzbekistan comes from.”

As for the opposition presidential candidates, all of them have been living abroad, and according to the constitution, they do not have the right to participate in elections. Despite this, they openly declare their readiness to cooperate with the United States and the EU.

“The situation in the world is unstable, and Uzbekistan’s independence may be threatened due to the increasing tensions in the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as various rebellions under different flags,” Kurtov said. “By these latest threats, we mean the rise of radical Islam or, for example, the fight against a corrupt regime, such as in Ukraine. Such precedents may be contagious for those segments of Uzbek society that are unhappy with the existing system in Uzbekistan. Moreover, the Ukrainian scenario is something even more dangerous for Tashkent. If you recall the recent past, namely 23 years ago when the Soviet Union dissolved, Ukraine and Uzbekistan had very similar problems. But while the processes in Ukraine largely followed their own course, in Uzbekistan Karimov managed to stop them by force using the police apparatus. But embers remained, and they smolder. When you create the right conditions, including in foreign policy, they can ignite. So Karimov’s fears are not unfounded.”

Viktoria Panfilova is a columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta and the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The conflict between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, due to the Rogun Hydroelectric dam currently being constructed, is becoming more threatening and may soon reach a “breaking point”. The region may explode based on the verdict of the World Bank (WB), which for three years has reviewed the construction of the region’s largest hydroelectric facility. On August 15, the World Bank will officially announce the results of studies that, according to preliminary estimates, will be positive. In neighboring Uzbekistan, they consistently and categorically oppose the construction of the Rogun facility and expressed a lack of faith in the World Bank, accusing it of incompetence and calling for an independent review. Officially, Dushanbe has yet to respond to Tashkent. Experts do not exclude that tensions in the region are going to be aggravated externally.

“The World Bank is one of the instruments of American foreign policy. And on August 15, if there is a positive declaration for Tajikistan as a result of the review of the Rogun project, you may then confidently infer Washington’s desire to further exacerbate the situation in Central Asia to its maximum”, says an expert on Central Asia and the Middle East affairs, Alexander Knyazev.

The problem here centers on the fact that, Uzbekistan has been consistently and categorically opposed to the construction of hydroelectric facility. For two years ago, President Islam Karimov has warned that water problems can lead to armed conflict in the region. As it is well known, countries of the region have shared among themselves the resources of the two major rivers, the Amu Darya and Syr Darya; those resources conditionally subdivided with countries upstream, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and countries downstream such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. The first group experience problems from year to year in the energy sector, deciding who is going to build large hydroelectric facilities. In Tajikistan there is the Rogun project, while in Kyrgyzstan there is the Kambarata project.

Construction of the Rogun hydroelectric facility began in 1976 and has been twice delayed. Tajik intellectuals were opposed to the project during the period of glasnost and perestroika, as well as certain political parties of the time who perceived the project to be a symbol of the communist regime. The decision to proceed with the construction of Rogun was adopted at the XXIV Congress of the CPSU. However, once such person who was opposed to the construction of hydroelectric facilities was ​​famous poet, Gulrukhsor Safieva, more popularly known as the “Mother of the Nation”. Later in the 1990s there were several organizations who opposed it, in particular, the movement known as “Rostohez” (Revival), along with the Democratic Party of Tajikistan, which repeatedly forced a halt in construction of Rogun. Opponents to Rogun explained their position in the environmental impact such a project would have, destroying flood zones and the distinctive cultural heartland of Tajikistan. And indeed, the succeeded, in 1993 the project was shelved. It was revived once again in 2004 and in 2007 the Russian company, Rusal came on board as an investor. However, Uzbekistan protested. By means of pressure on the Russian company Tashkent sought to reduce the height of future hydroelectric dam from 335 meters to 300 meters. Dushanbe did not agree to these conditions and announced Rogun to be a national property, creating a group of companies to implement its construction. But investors, in stark contrast to the expectations of the Tajik leadership, did not line up. And then President Emomalii Rahmon decided to implement the project on its own. To carry this out, it was decided to allocate from the state budget 150 million dollars annually and another 186 million was still raised in the selling of shares in the future of the hydroelectric facility. These funds were insufficient to cover the costs of construction and as a result, construction was suspended.

Moreover, Uzbekistan has taken an inflexible position regarding the construction of Rogun, stating that the implantation of such hydroelectric stations would lead to a catastrophe: the creation of a reservoir of that volume threatens areas downstream, transboundary water shortages and generally, construction within an active seismic zone is very risky; not only will it be a man-made disaster, but would result in armed conflicts in the region. Tashkent was able to draw the world’s attention to the problem, and Dushanbe was forced to agree to an international review.

However, Tajikistan has assured its neighbors that, the construction of the project would be a benefit of the entire region and the creation of the reservoir will be guided by international standards and that they do not intend to block access to water to the neighboring countries. In Dushanbe they are convinced that the Rogan project meets all safety requirements and even an earthquake registering a 9 on the Richter scale would not damage the facility. For Tajikistan, not having sufficient reserves of oil and gas, the construction of hydroelectric stations is the only possible way to solve its energy crisis, and even replenish the state coffers by exporting Rogun electricity to third countries.

In Tashkent, they believe that energy problems can be solved through the construction of small and medium sized hydroelectric facilities. Uzbekistan insisted on international review of the Rogun project, hoping to once and for all put an end to this project. And to resolve this dispute between Tashkent and Dushanbe, it took the involvement of the World Bank.

The conclusions of the experts who worked on the feasibility study of Rogun were disappointing for Tashkent. “It is technically possible and economically feasible to exploit the Rogun hydroelectric facility and all the Vakhsh power generated under existing agreements and practices regarding water resources management”, summarized POYRY ENERGY LTD, the company which conducted the review. Moreover, it recommended using a height of 335 meters for the Rogun dam.

The Deputy Prime Minister of Uzbekistan, Rustam Azimov, said that the review of the Rogun project was financed by the World Bank and does not comply with generally accepted international standards. He also said that Uzbekistan would never, under any circumstances, provide support for the Rogun project.

In Dushanbe they are convinced that the Rogan project meets all safety requirements and even an earthquake registering a 9 on the Richter scale would not damage the facility. For Tajikistan, not having sufficient reserves of oil and gas, the construction of hydroelectric stations is the only possible way to solve its energy crisis, and even replenish the state coffers by exporting Rogun electricity to third countries.

Earlier, in a conversation with the author and Member of Parliament of Tajikistan, Sukhrob Sharipov, he mentioned that Rogun would produce cheap electricity; electricity which Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and even China are prepared to purchase. “Uzbekistan is afraid of competition in the energy market. Net profit alone from the sale of electricity generated by Rogun will be 700 million dollars. Moreover, this is by today’s calculation; in the future we could be talking about billions”, said Sukhrob Sharipov, who believes the claims and concerns of Uzbekistan are contrived, unfounded and their arguments exaggerated.

“Mega projects of Rogun and Kambarata must be fundamentally rejected and the decision to seek solutions to our current energy problems must come from other areas. Giant hydroelectric facilities designed in the Soviet Union and under the control of Moscow, under the establishment of the appropriate national economic complexes. They are unnecessary for the current development of the region; all plans to export beyond the borders of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are myths, supported by Washington. New projects are needed, small and medium hydropower, renewable energy sources that do not cause conflict and that are without prejudice to the region in general solve problems each of each of the small republics”, said Alexander Knyazev.

The fact of the matter is, over the past few months, representatives of the State Department and the Pentagon are extremely actively seeking from Tashkent an agreement on the deployment of U.S. military facilities on the territory of Uzbekistan. “As far as I know, Tashkent has up to now resisted the pressure. An anti-Uzbek decision with regards to the Rogun project will have, in this case, serious and immediate consequences on several fronts. Tajikistan is a direct military ally of Russia and any use of force by Uzbekistan against the construction of Rogun would involve the question of military assistance of the Russian Federation in Tajikistan and correspondingly, would contribute to a deterioration of Russian-Uzbek relations. As a consequence of a final refusal by Uzbekistan with regards to the American request for deployment of U.S. bases, would be the activation of terrorist groups under the control of the U.S., which would be sent through the Tajik territory to Uzbekistan, just as recent history of the region shows us and everybody is already well aware. In other words, it can be perhaps another attempt to open a new front, after Ukraine and the Caucasus, a front of instability, which would draw Russia in,” says the expert. In this case, the construction of Rogun, such as it is, will not proceed; while there has been some work carried out already for a couple of years, in reality there hasn’t been any significant progress. The project currently doesn’t have an investor, nor is it likely to be one in the future. “The old idea regarding the ​​creation of an international water-energy consortium, which would include all the countries of the Aral basin and with connections to Russia, is currently unrealistic. The two projects, around which a consortium was supposed to be created a few years ago, Rogun in Tajikistan and the Kambarata in the Kyrgyz Republic are rapidly losing any relevance. And now, taking into account the anti-Russian climate from the West over the Ukrainian crisis and the sanctions imposed, Russia simply does not have the financial resources for such projects”, said Knyazev. According to him, it was clear even before the Ukrainian crisis erupted, Rogun from a Russian perspective, was rejected many years ago; and the Kambarata project was deliberately hampered by a reluctance on the part of RusHydro to invest in a non-market, unprofitable and purely political project”, said Alexander Knyazev.

The evaluation by World Bank experts (a positive verdict regarding the project was developed as much as 40 years ago during the Soviet era) can be seen as the West intending to destabilize the situation in Central Asia and to encircle Russia around a conflict zone, with the ultimate goal of dragging Russian into these conflicts: Ukraine, the acute instability in Nagorno-Karabakh, and now there is an attempt to further undermine the situation in Central Asia. In the event of war between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Russia may have a rather difficult to make, but it is more likely to be a mediator in any resolution to the Tajik-Uzbek conflict on water and energy issues. This policy of the West has only one objective, to weaken Russia, inflicting damage on its image; damage that is unavoidable when one is confronted by countries that are, to a greater or lesser extent, allies and partners within the geopolitical space and which Russia considers its sphere of interest, and hence responsibility.

Victoria Panfilova is a columnist for the Nezavisimaya Gazeta, and for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Representatives of the U.S. State Department and other American agencies have, over the course of the past little while, been visiting countries of Central Asia, where they are negotiating the use of certain military facilities.

After losing the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan, the center for U.S. military presence in the region may shift to Uzbekistan. And all this is despite the fact that, the U.S. has had a negative experience with regards to military cooperation with Tashkent. In 2001, the Americans were granted the Uzbek military airbase at Khanabad just outside of Karshi in order to conduct their anti-terrorists operation in Afghanistan. You will recall that, in 2001 after receiving permission for use of the airbase Khanabad, the Pentagon upgraded to fit its standards. The runway was renovated and the base was equipped with all the modern means of communication and air control. At that time at Khanabad almost all military aircraft designed for logistical support of U.S. troops in Afghanistan were deployed, including more than 30 military transport aircraft C-130 and C-17 in addition to F-15 fighters and F-16. Military service personnel stationed on the base numbered 1,300 U.S. soldiers, making Khanabad the largest U.S. base in Central Asia. However, in 2005, after the events in Andijan, the U.S. was expelled from the country “for supporting local radicals and international terrorism.” In response, Washington imposed a series of sanctions against Tashkent. However, after five years, the United States, realizing what they have lost, began to seek the restarting official cooperation with Tashkent.

“As far as I know in Uzbekistan, we are talking about the return of the American armed forces stationed at the airbase Khanabad, said the author an expert on Central Asia and the Middle East, Alexander Knyazev. According to him, the Americans want to be stationed along the Uzbek-Afghan border at the airbase in Termez, where Bundeswehr military personnel are stationed. It is assumed that, at the end of “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan, Germany will withdraw its troops; and moreover, the agreement on the lease of the Termez airbase ends at the end of this year.

As an alternative, the Americans can use Uzbek airport Navoi. A few years ago they were able to deliver non-military cargo through this civilian air hub.

Information on the on-going negotiations was leaked on a recent trip by the Senior Director for Russia and Eurasia on the National Security Council, Celeste Wallander. It was learned that during the meeting Wallander divulged authorization had been granted for some kind of U.S. military presence in Uzbekistan. A month earlier, the topic was discussed in Tashkent by the U.S. Undersecretary of State, William Burns. He, in particular, proposed the creation on the territory of Uzbekistan of aviation maintenance points for air traffic travelling to and from Afghanistan. He explained that the situation requires it, “The U.S. commitment to maintain peace and stability in Afghanistan and throughout the region will continue after 2014. Our commitment to this very important region of the world will be maintained. The U.S. is not going anywhere”. At a meeting with Uzbek journalists, Burns noted that alliance forces will perform another role, which included “training and consultations with Afghan military personnel”.

Uzbekistan was not selected by accident. In 2013, the country withdrew from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). And in May this year, in Tashkent NATO opened a representative office. NATO Special Representative to the Secretary General for the Caucasus and Central Asia, James Appathurai, at the opening of the headquarters of the North Atlantic Alliance promised that his organization would help Uzbekistan carry out needed military reform. And in the course of this plan, modernize the defense structure of the country and improve the system of military education.

In this context, a delegation visited Tashkent led by the United States Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabuse, to determine the specific needs of the Uzbek military with regards to equipment. The infamous “Mabuse list” appeared which included demining equipment, aerial scanning devices, night vision equipment, as well as eavesdropping and surveillance equipment, plus equipment that would allow control over the Internet and to hack social networks. All this equipment has a dual purpose. Given that in the foreseeable future Uzbekistan will likely not have to deal with the Taliban aggression, the expected equipment from the U.S. is needed primarily for the regime’s internal purposes and to fight not only against armed Islamic radicals, but also against any localized discontent and dissent. Finally, it can be used on the borders of Uzbekistan with its neighbors. In addition to that, it is also planned that the Republic will receive parts of the military equipment taken out of service in Afghanistan.

The political analyst, Edil Osmonbetov believes that, “the 13 year war in Afghanistan has shaped and formed the military and political presence of U.S. and NATO in Central Asia. It will only be strengthened. The key states in the region are Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. If the United States retains these points of presence, there will be a natural extension of military-technical cooperation between the West and our Republic.”

However, Alexander Knyazev believes it is too early to say that the U.S. will “enter Uzbekistan”. “As far as I know, this desire does not meet the particular readiness on the part of official Tashkent. Other countries are more willing to take such steps; countries such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan. Uzbekistan has adopted a more reserved position. There are presidential elections in the offing for Uzbekistan; and in Tashkent they are closely watching the crisis events in other post-Soviet countries. So I think that for now, the prospects for in the medium term, such as highlights of rapprochement with the West, should not be expected,” said the author and expert on Central Asia and the Middle East, Alexander Knyazev during a recent interview.

Moreover, Uzbekistan has no intention of severing relations with Russia. Islam Karimov managed to familiarize Moscow with the turns in their internal politics. The political scientist, Rafik Saifullin in a conversation with the author noted that, “the government of Uzbekistan is interested in cooperation with the military alliance of NATO to maintain stability in the region. The opening of a representative office was a logical continuation of this line.” According to him, the situation is clear and it is not necessary to build a conspiracy theory. The politics Uzbek leadership has always taken a balanced approach, so to say that the arrival of NATO in the country is, all of a sudden, on a changed course and geopolitical power will unfold in one direction or another, makes no sense. “Also, do not expect any political or economic dividends from the alliance,” said Saifullin.

Against this background is the relatively smooth development of Uzbek-Russian economic relations. According to the trade offices of both countries, trade between the two reached 28.86 billion dollars in 2013, of which 15.087 billion was for goods exported, while 13.798 billion was imported.

Uzbekistan supplies to Russian natural gas, automobiles and textiles. And Gazprom, Soyuzneftegaz, Lukoil and Transneftegaz are implementing their projects.

In Uzbekistan they are striving to cooperate with Russia solely on a bilateral basis and view the participation in international organizations created by Moscow as a threat to its sovereignty. There are no other obligations to which Uzbekistan wants to be tied. And if Tashkent’s relationship to the CIS is easy enough, considering it as an unavoidable and helpless vestige of the early stage of the post-Soviet era, then the CSTO as an organization of an emerging Eurasian economic union is perceived with suspicion.

Victoria Panfilova is a columnist the Independent Newspaper and for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.