Only US airbase in central Asia to close

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by in_the_cheapseats, Feb 4, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Political posturing by the host nation or the US losing the ability to influence?

    It would seem to me that Russia may have made it a condition of the rather large cash injection in aid they are making to the country. $2bn is a lot of money to Kyrgyzstan and Russia is a lot closer to them than the US.

    Base to close

    Can any dressed in light blue tell us just how badly will this hinder current ops in the region?
  2. Russia has proposed to help with transportation of supplies. But of course NATO (including our American friends) would be more dependent on Kremlin.

    What are the stakes in this game:

    Russia writes off $180 debt, gives $150 help additionally and give a loan $2bln.

    The USA pays $150 annually for the base but only partially in cash. And local corruptioners prefer cash.

    Would the USA propose more attractive conditions than Russia? Technically it is possibble. For huge American economy it is rather a change. However, what if few years later the base would be closed anyway (by new pesident)? So it would be a risky investment.
  3. cant wait for putin to be back on top :x
  4. For my money, more like the host nation realising that the most reliable source of filthy lucre isn't an ocean away and up shit creek economically.
  5. It isn't the only US Airhead available in the region. Why is this news?
  6. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    If the US can handle the military side of this without detriment to capability, two good things come its way: not having to dish out dollars to this ghastly country, and not being blackmailed into keeping silent about its ghastly government. Let's see now if Obama speaks out about human rights abuses in Kyrgyzstan.
  7. ...Or did they?

    Kyrgyz say that it's final, looks like they are pulling the rug from under NATO's feet. Also denying the £2bn aid deal from Russia is in any way tied to their decision. If they've been bought out then it's a virtual steal.

    Russia, while it does permit "non-military" goods through it's own passes, isn't exactly bending over backwards to smooth transition, demanding pre-approval of any and all goods in transit. Due diligence they'd certainly testify, but for anyone who has experienced their "are your papers in order" you just know the "world leading paper trail" that is the Russian way is designed to obfuscate & delay.

    So while there are overtures recently to "stop drift" and Russia is looking to "increase cooperation" over Afghanistan, does this recent episode underline just how hollow that relationship is?

    Could not and should not Russia intervene on our behalf to try and turn Kyrgyz to a more positive outcome, or are they just pi$$ing about trying to play hardball and get a free run at things in Georgia, dropping Ukraine from NATO's agenda & shelving of plans for ABM in Poland?

    Not asking for a lot, are they? :roll:
  8. You present lots of questions - which may well be rhetorical.

    But try and answer this one. Why should Russia and/or Kyrgyzistan help NATO in Afghanistan just because you think they should?
  9. Try and answer this, are they or are they not full members of the international community with obligations to support the UN Charter and it's current ongoing UN mandated missions?
  10. well look on the bright side!

    at least they arnt giving the insurgents stinger anti-aircraft missiles ( or the russian equivalent).

  11. Russia has not cut off the supply route. In fact there are two others which Russia is very happy to see used, and which have been in limited use while this drawdown has been in progress. The other two will now be brought onstream.
  12. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is looking at expanding its influence in Afghanistan and it sees US/NATO presence in Central Asia as unwelcome.

    Also in the last few days Russia invigorated the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) (Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) by creating collective rapid reaction forces which are seen as a counterbalance to NATO.

    I don't think Russia is dead against NATO/US bases in Central Asia, but it might want to let the US know their presence there isn't permanent and depends on the relations with Russia.
  13. That's the point Domovoy, Russia is not dead against it. If it was , the NATO P4P Programme would be at the very least difficult to implement.

    Russia feels it can at least talk to the new US administration

    I can seriously see the SCO manifesting it's presence in Afghanistan this year, with an awful lot of troops. I don't know about unwelcome NATO presence, save that the NATO presence is at present , destabilising.
  14. I'll rephrase: from what I understand, SCO doesn't like US playing solo in Asia, while SCO countries have their own interests there.