After Kyrgyzstan announced the closure of Manas Air Base, many analysts speculated about Russia's role in the affair, particularly in light of the $2 billion financial assistance package Russia giftwrapped for its former republic.
Today, the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan officially voted to end the American military's eight-year lease on Manas. The New York Times reports that President Kurmanbek Bakiyev "is expected to send Washington an official notification requiring it to vacate the base within six months."
Today, the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan officially voted to end the American military's eight-year lease on Manas. The New York Times reports that President Kurmanbek Bakiyev "is expected to send Washington an official notification requiring it to vacate the base within six months."
"I think that the Russians are trying to have it both ways with respect to Afghanistan in terms of Manas," said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. "On one hand, you're making positive noises about working with us in Afghanistan, and on the other hand you're working against us in terms of that airfield which is clearly important to us."Meanwhile, UPI has one of the best, most concise summaries I've seen of the political dimensions to the affair. But don't call Russia's response contradictory, says this writer in The Moscow Times.
"There is so much talk about the "confusing signals" being sent by the Kremlin to the United States these days. Some are confrontational, while others are cooperative in equal proportions. And nowhere is the dissonance more pronounced than on the issue of Afghanistan. In the space of a week, the major U.S. supply point for its northern route -- the air base at Manas in Kyrgyzstan -- is being closed, while the Russian leadership proclaims its readiness to work more closely with Washington on this very question.
"But I don't see a contradiction. The Kremlin is simply putting Washington on notice: This isn't 2001 anymore.
"From Moscow's perspective, the initial decision to support the U.S. presence in Central Asia in 2001 was based on two assumptions. One proved to be correct: The U.S. military could accomplish in a matter of weeks what Russia (and Iran) had been unable to accomplish via the Northern Alliance -- the overthrow of the Taliban. The mistake, however, was to take at face value the assurances given in February 2002 by then-Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones: 'We don't want U.S. bases in Central Asia. ... Our goal with the Russians is to make sure that they understand we are not trying to compete with them in Central Asia, [that] we're not trying to take over Central Asia from them.'
"Instead, the Kremlin feels that in return for its support, it has received color revolutions in three former Soviet republics, NATO expansion in its backyard, renewed efforts to build energy pipelines that compete with Russian interests and plans to place missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. It is not surprising that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev might not want to repeat this experience with a new U.S. administration."
The " Great game " , also known as the "tournament of the shadows " continues .............
http://zebrastationpolaire.over-blog.com/article-27754779.html
There's a simple analysis that is always forgotten because it has nothing to do with " hopes" or " feelings " : Russia was unable to controle the flow of equipments which was dispatched to A-stan . By closing the Manas air base , sorry , by " suggesting " to K-stan to do do so , and allowing an air corridor to A-stan on their territory the Russians :
1- Control this shipping . Russia will be THE corridor for non military equipements as the Khyber pass is each day more dangerous .It gives Russia a strategic lever on the A-stan issue it never had .
2- monitor the shipping , or can have a better idea of the amount of this shipping without expensive intelligence . Just ask the tower control officer !
I guess that NATO will be obliged to give the nature of the shipments , so eg , by the amount of medical supplies you can have a good figure on how tough the situation is on the field ;0)
On the contrary if the shipments are Tv sets , sun filters and glasses .........
(3)- It gives Russia on the international arena the position of the " god guy " which is happy to help his .....Hummm - " allies " .......
NATO knows that of course but it has no other ways .
When i learned that Manas will be closed , i just waited for the Russian proposal for the aerial corridor .It happened in less than 48 hours .........
Machiaveli wasn't Italian ! He HAD true Russian Muscovite blood !
And an advice : Don't be too " intellectual "( " French " ) in analysies , be rather " pragmatic " ( Anglo-Saxon ) .
The main answer in " why Russia wants Manas air base to be closed ? " lies not in " feelings " , " hopes " , " but in pragmatism : How to control or monitor a situation on which i have no lever ?
The answer lies in basic strategic thinking and not in " political masturbation" !
Russians think strategic , a way of thinking that has disapeared in western countries .