On 19 October 2022, the Defence Minister of Kyrgyzstan, Baktybek Bekbolotov proposed a plan for resolving border disputes with Tajikistan. Bekbolotov suggested the deployment of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) forces to the Kyrgyz-Tajik border. Before Bekbolotov’s statement, the President of Kyrgyzstan, Sadyr Japarov, refused to attend the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) summit held in St Petersburg. In addition, the Bishkek administration canceled the CSTO exercise in Kyrgyzstan and announced that it will not take part in military exercises in Tajikistan.
In this context, Ankara Center for Crisis and Political Research (ANKASAM) presents the views of Middle East Expert Mars Sariev to evaluate the reasons behind Kyrgyzstan’s decision to reconsider its relations with Russia and the CSTO, as well as Moscow’s political response to Bishkek’s position.
- Kyrgyzstan did not participate in the CSTO exercise held in Tajikistan and canceled the planned exercise in Kyrgyzstan. Can you explain the reason behind this position in Bishkek?
The truth is that Kyrgyzstan believes that Russia supports Tajikistan. This belief derives from the Order of Merit given to the President of Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon, during his visit to Moscow. Although it was claimed that the merit was given due to Tajikistan’s contribution to regional security, the merit symbolizes unity.
As it will be remembered, there were conflict situations during the 2021 Dushanbe Summit. This year, while the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit was being held in Samarkand, Tajikistan violated the ceasefire. Russia did not show any reaction to this violation. Therefore, it can be said that Kyrgyzstan was right to act up.
The visit of the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev’s visit to Kyrgyzstan, Japarov’s visit to Türkiye in line with close relations between Kyrgyzstan-Türkiye, has drawn Moscow’s reaction. This is because Kyrgyzstan has begun to show that it may quit the CSTO. In this context, it has been revealed that he has partners such as Türkiye and Azerbaijan. It can even be argued that this decision of Bishkek was implicitly supported by the Presidents of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
It should be emphasized that Moscow is afraid that Kyrgyzstan, one of the key countries in Russia locates its military bases, will get closer to Türkiye, which is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Moreover, the situation with Armenia is quite complicated. The Yerevan administration is about to leave the CSTO as well. Furthermore, Kazakhstan had not participated in the CSTO exercises in the past. For this reason, Bishkek’s political maneuver was successful, and Moscow offered to hold a meeting in Astana between three countries (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Russia).
Russia has proposed to open archive maps in Astana and mediate the issue impartially. I think this will benefit Kyrgyzstan. Because, if Russia provides these maps from its archives, Kyrgyzstan will be the winner. According to the Declaration of Alma-Ata and the UN Charter, Kyrgyzstan’s stance has been consistent since what happened in 1991. For this reason, President Rahman’s speech in Astana was chaotic and emotional, and there could be concerns over Tajikistan’s neutral stance towards Russia. This is because Tajikistan’s actions are unwarranted, and Kyrgyzstan’s position is being strengthened.
I think that President Rahman’s speech is mainly directed toward public opinion in Tajikistan. His remarks such as “Russia follows the Soviet Union policy, etc.” seems to be an external attack on Russia, however, these certainly do not disturb the Russian public opinion or other countries. This is an emotional speech. President Rahman managed to improve his image as an independent politician in Tajikistan. Therefore, the target was mainly the illiterate part of Tajikistan’s population. President Rahman’s speech is a reaction coming after the Dushanbe administration recognized that Moscow has left the pro-Tajikistan position.
During the recent border conflicts, almost the entire Russian media took a pro-Tajikistan position. This alone shows that Russia is on the side of Tajikistan and implicitly supports its position. Russia is concerned that Türkiye will consolidate Central Asian countries, and that all Turkic countries in Central Asia will turn to Türkiye. For this reason, Moscow felt the need to have an impartial stance. Of course, this development is in favor of Kyrgyzstan. I think this is a very successful maneuver for the Bishkek administration.
Russia will no longer take a pro-Tajikistan stance. Strangely, the group of eleven soldiers in Russia was executed by two Tajik soldiers during the recruitment. This could be Russia’s special operation to discredit Tajikistan and the pro-Tajikistan approach. Thus, this was a really strange case, as though the public opinion is being led on purpose.
- Is Kyrgyzstan looking for new partners to strengthen national security?
For sure. I think that close relations are being established with Türkiye as well as with Azerbaijan. I believe that these relations will become stronger. In addition, their cooperation with China will be strengthened. Indeed, if Kyrgyzstan does not have new partners, Bishkek’s room for maneuver will be restricted; the country will have to comply with the rules imposed by Russia, and the Kremlin will not treat Kyrgyzstan with enough respect. In other words, Kyrgyzstan is on the rise as a sophisticated actor in the game. We can say that this situation is a diplomatic gain for Kyrgyzstan. Of course, approximately one million Kyrgyzstan citizens working in Russia have a part to play in this. On the other hand, because of this situation, Kyrgyzstan is economically linked to Russia. Therefore, Kyrgyzstan does not have the luxury to engage in impulsive acts. Regardless, such political maneuvers bring Kyrgyzstan to a winning position. I think there will not be a sharp turn towards Türkiye and Azerbaijan. In short, a balanced policy like that of Russia will be implemented. In this way, the Kremlin will take Kyrgyzstan into account from now on.
- What does Bishkek think about Russia’s policy towards Kyrgyzstan?
Of course, Bishkek sees that Russia does not pursue a forward-thinking policy regarding post-Soviet countries. Russia has already lost Ukraine altogether. After the events of 2008, Russia lost Georgia effectively. It is now losing the South Caucasus as well. Russia may lose its influence in Central Asia too, and the weak link here may be Kyrgyzstan, which did not participate in the CSTO exercises. Bishkek has taken two critical steps in this regard. The first is President Japarov’s refusal to attend Vladimir Putin’s 70th birthday celebrations in Moscow. The second is its opposition regarding military exercises. These steps have triggered the Kremlin. In other words, Bishkek also has realized that Russia has lost its significance in foreign policy and acts accordingly. In the current conjuncture, Kyrgyzstan is about to sign an agreement with the United States. However, I think the agreement with the United States will be postponed, as the border disputes will be resolved through mediation. This will be a measure to not provoke Russia. To summarize, President Rahman’s attitude shows that Tajikistan has lost Moscow, which has been a one-sided and tolerant partner. The American military exercises in Tajikistan and close contacts with Britain strike the attention. In this case, it can be argued that Kyrgyzstan will not turn to Türkiye and will not sign an agreement with the US. Because it is necessary to solve the dispute over the Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan border first.
Mars Sariev
Mars Sariev served as Second Secretary at the Embassy of the Kyrgyz Republic in Turkmenistan between the years 1995-1997. He held the position of First Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic’s CIS Countries Office. Sariev, who was a columnist for the “Liberal Newspaper” between the years 2000-2001, has numerous analyses published on social and political events in Central Asia. Sariev has been working as an expert at the Institute for Public Policy Research since 2009.
