Central Asian States of America
New U.S. military strategy implies Washington’s domination in the post-Soviet sphere
The United States of America sees the post-Soviet states and surrounding area as a zone of important military interests. This conclusion stems from yesterday’s publication of the U.S. National Military Strategy (NMS). In this case, it appears that Washington and Kabul are negotiating the establishment of long-term American military bases in Afghanistan. A group of U.S. Senate Republicans is waiting on the Pentagon for an answer to their recent suggestion that radar anti-ballistic missile defense systems be placed, not in Turkey, but instead in Georgia.
Senators John Kyl, James Risch, Mark Kirk and James Inhofe have signed their names to this proposal. Minister Giorgi Baramidze, vice-prime minister of Georgia and state minister for Euro-Atlantic integration, has already welcomed the idea, and the American magazine, Foreign Policy, mentions that “the new Congress is prepared to ramp up its advocacy for restoring defense cooperation with Georgia, which slowed after the conflict between Tbilisi and Russia in August 2008.”* The publication notes the small likelihood that the U.S. will establish a long-term military presence in Georgia. On the other hand, no one doubts that such a thing is possible in Central Asia.
As Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai recently stated at a press conference in Kabul, the U.S. needs long-term military bases for the fight against the terrorist group, al-Qaida, and the radical Taliban movement. Underscoring the long-term nature of strategic relations with America, Karzai expressed hope that “they will bring safety and economic prosperity to Afghanistan.”** Recall that while visiting Bishkek in December 2010, American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke in a similar spirit about the fate of the American Transit Center at Manas in Kyrgyzstan. On this topic, the President of Kyrgyzstan Roza Otunbayeva nodded approvingly, assuring the visitor that the new Kyrgyz government will do everything possible for the unimpeded operations of the American center in her country.
Not long ago, Uzbek leader, Islam Karimov, spoke in Brussels about support for the U.S. and NATO. His approval of NATO’s efforts is manifested specifically in how the airport in the Uzbek city, Navoi, and the airdrome and railway station in Termez became key links in the northern supply chains for the Alliance and the U.S. in Afghanistan. The Ashgabat airport fulfills an analogous function in Turkmenistan, as does the transit infrastructure of Tajikistan. After Russia’s decision to allow U.S. planes to fly over the North Pole for the intense provision of coalition forces, Kazakhstan apparently joined in. This country was the first among Central Asian countries to send its military contingent to Afghanistan. The long duration of this position for Central Asian countries is not in doubt. As is well known, the success of NATO forces in Afghanistan is little more than modest, and it is unlikely that Washington will begin to withdraw its troops from the country in July 2011, as was planned by the American administration.
Commanding general of NATO forces in Afghanistan, David Petraeus, announced yesterday that, in taking advantage of the spring thaw, the Taliban probably will attempt to return to regions from which they were beaten back in the last few months by Afghan and international forces. The general estimates that the intensity of fighting in Afghanistan will increase in the spring. He also observed that fighting over the past year was more intense than it had been for 10 years.
However, it would be naïve to suppose that the goals of the U.S. and other NATO countries in Afghanistan are purely military and anti-terrorism, in nature. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake recently gave a speech at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, titled, “The Obama Administration's Priorities in South and Central Asia.”
The high-ranking official raised a question about the strategic role of Central Asia in the procurement and transportation of hydrocarbons. According to Blake, regarding the fortune of the largest and richest Central Asian country, Kazakhstan “will account for one of the largest increases in non-OPEC supply to the global market over the next 10 to 15 years, as its oil production doubles to reach 3 million barrels a day by 2020.” ***Blake is delegating an important role to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. He proposes the task of pumping oil and gas from Central Asia west to Europe through the South Caucasus, bypassing Russia in order to deprive the country of its role as the main supplier of energy resources to Europe. Americans welcome the project to construct the TAPI pipeline (Turkmenistan—Afghanistan—Pakistan—India), for which an agreement was concluded on Dec. 11, 2010.
“Washington’s vital interest in TAPI includes having an alternative route for Central Asian gas that will bypass the Russian pipelines’ network,” stated Blake.*** Immediately after the presidents of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Minister of Energy of India signed the agreement about construction of TAPI in Turkmenistan’s capital, Hamid Karzai’s administration announced that 7,000 Afghan soldiers will be involved in the protection of the pipeline.
Thus, U.S. ambitions closely intertwine with the geopolitical and economic interests of Russia, which Washington sees as a partner-country, while considering China an opponent. “We [the U.S.] seek to cooperate with Russia … and welcome its playing a more active role in preserving security and stability in Asia,” according to the 2011 National Military Strategy.
Such a position is seemingly positive toward Moscow; yet, if one looks more closely at U.S. politics in the post-Soviet sphere and in Afghanistan, it is clear that Washington’s geopolitical goals will bring nothing but losses to Moscow, in the long run.
*The Russian translation of this quote is not true to the original English, which terms the conflict “the 2008 Russian invasion.” The original English quote can be found at the following link. (SEE HERE)
**This quote could not be verified.
***These quotes could not be verified.
The United States of America sees the post-Soviet states and surrounding area as a zone of important military interests. This conclusion stems from yesterday’s publication of the U.S. National Military Strategy (NMS). In this case, it appears that Washington and Kabul are negotiating the establishment of long-term American military bases in Afghanistan. A group of U.S. Senate Republicans is waiting on the Pentagon for an answer to their recent suggestion that radar anti-ballistic missile defense systems be placed, not in Turkey, but instead in Georgia.
Senators John Kyl, James Risch, Mark Kirk and James Inhofe have signed their names to this proposal. Minister Giorgi Baramidze, vice-prime minister of Georgia and state minister for Euro-Atlantic integration, has already welcomed the idea, and the American magazine, Foreign Policy, mentions that “the new Congress is prepared to ramp up its advocacy for restoring defense cooperation with Georgia, which slowed after the conflict between Tbilisi and Russia in August 2008.”* The publication notes the small likelihood that the U.S. will establish a long-term military presence in Georgia. On the other hand, no one doubts that such a thing is possible in Central Asia.
As Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai recently stated at a press conference in Kabul, the U.S. needs long-term military bases for the fight against the terrorist group, al-Qaida, and the radical Taliban movement. Underscoring the long-term nature of strategic relations with America, Karzai expressed hope that “they will bring safety and economic prosperity to Afghanistan.”** Recall that while visiting Bishkek in December 2010, American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke in a similar spirit about the fate of the American Transit Center at Manas in Kyrgyzstan. On this topic, the President of Kyrgyzstan Roza Otunbayeva nodded approvingly, assuring the visitor that the new Kyrgyz government will do everything possible for the unimpeded operations of the American center in her country.
Not long ago, Uzbek leader, Islam Karimov, spoke in Brussels about support for the U.S. and NATO. His approval of NATO’s efforts is manifested specifically in how the airport in the Uzbek city, Navoi, and the airdrome and railway station in Termez became key links in the northern supply chains for the Alliance and the U.S. in Afghanistan. The Ashgabat airport fulfills an analogous function in Turkmenistan, as does the transit infrastructure of Tajikistan. After Russia’s decision to allow U.S. planes to fly over the North Pole for the intense provision of coalition forces, Kazakhstan apparently joined in. This country was the first among Central Asian countries to send its military contingent to Afghanistan. The long duration of this position for Central Asian countries is not in doubt. As is well known, the success of NATO forces in Afghanistan is little more than modest, and it is unlikely that Washington will begin to withdraw its troops from the country in July 2011, as was planned by the American administration.
Commanding general of NATO forces in Afghanistan, David Petraeus, announced yesterday that, in taking advantage of the spring thaw, the Taliban probably will attempt to return to regions from which they were beaten back in the last few months by Afghan and international forces. The general estimates that the intensity of fighting in Afghanistan will increase in the spring. He also observed that fighting over the past year was more intense than it had been for 10 years.
However, it would be naïve to suppose that the goals of the U.S. and other NATO countries in Afghanistan are purely military and anti-terrorism, in nature. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake recently gave a speech at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, titled, “The Obama Administration's Priorities in South and Central Asia.”
The high-ranking official raised a question about the strategic role of Central Asia in the procurement and transportation of hydrocarbons. According to Blake, regarding the fortune of the largest and richest Central Asian country, Kazakhstan “will account for one of the largest increases in non-OPEC supply to the global market over the next 10 to 15 years, as its oil production doubles to reach 3 million barrels a day by 2020.” ***Blake is delegating an important role to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. He proposes the task of pumping oil and gas from Central Asia west to Europe through the South Caucasus, bypassing Russia in order to deprive the country of its role as the main supplier of energy resources to Europe. Americans welcome the project to construct the TAPI pipeline (Turkmenistan—Afghanistan—Pakistan—India), for which an agreement was concluded on Dec. 11, 2010.
“Washington’s vital interest in TAPI includes having an alternative route for Central Asian gas that will bypass the Russian pipelines’ network,” stated Blake.*** Immediately after the presidents of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Minister of Energy of India signed the agreement about construction of TAPI in Turkmenistan’s capital, Hamid Karzai’s administration announced that 7,000 Afghan soldiers will be involved in the protection of the pipeline.
Thus, U.S. ambitions closely intertwine with the geopolitical and economic interests of Russia, which Washington sees as a partner-country, while considering China an opponent. “We [the U.S.] seek to cooperate with Russia … and welcome its playing a more active role in preserving security and stability in Asia,” according to the 2011 National Military Strategy.
Such a position is seemingly positive toward Moscow; yet, if one looks more closely at U.S. politics in the post-Soviet sphere and in Afghanistan, it is clear that Washington’s geopolitical goals will bring nothing but losses to Moscow, in the long run.
*The Russian translation of this quote is not true to the original English, which terms the conflict “the 2008 Russian invasion.” The original English quote can be found at the following link. (SEE HERE)
**This quote could not be verified.
***These quotes could not be verified.