US is Losing Footing in Central Asia
In the last decade Washington
has clearly demonstrated its intention to strengthen its presence in
Central Asia, creating a foothold in the region that quite easily can be
described as the “heart of Eurasia”. Should it have succeeded it would
have had a perfect opportunity to apply military pressure on Russia,
China, Iran and the entire Eurasian continent. In geopolitical terms,
the United States actively sought to connect Central Asia to South Asia –
Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, to “tear it away” from Russia and
prevent China from gaining access to its raw materials.
has clearly demonstrated its intention to strengthen its presence in
Central Asia, creating a foothold in the region that quite easily can be
described as the “heart of Eurasia”. Should it have succeeded it would
have had a perfect opportunity to apply military pressure on Russia,
China, Iran and the entire Eurasian continent. In geopolitical terms,
the United States actively sought to connect Central Asia to South Asia –
Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, to “tear it away” from Russia and
prevent China from gaining access to its raw materials.
Today
the region is a strategic corridor of utmost importance that stretches
between continental Europe and Asia, and it is somewhat critical for the
growth of Chinese markets. The United States was desperate to establish
control of this region in order to jeopardize the New Silk Road project
that tries to outflank the much discussed Pivot to Asia by building
land routes. In addition, the expansion of its military and political
presence in Central Asia, would have allowed it to counter Russia’s
strengthening influence.
the region is a strategic corridor of utmost importance that stretches
between continental Europe and Asia, and it is somewhat critical for the
growth of Chinese markets. The United States was desperate to establish
control of this region in order to jeopardize the New Silk Road project
that tries to outflank the much discussed Pivot to Asia by building
land routes. In addition, the expansion of its military and political
presence in Central Asia, would have allowed it to counter Russia’s
strengthening influence.
In the past, the United States preferred
to “negotiate” their terms with respective leaders of the countries
that were in the zones of its geopolitical interests, but in recent
decades this practice has been abandoned long ago. Instead, the White
House has adopted a new strategy of toppling unwanted governments, and
replacing them with semi-criminal, but somehow “legitimate” political
groups and states, or by simply creating failed states that cannot
control their own territory. This allows Washington to fulfill its
agenda faster and cheaper. Recent events in a number of Middle Eastern
and North African countries serve as a perfect example of this strategy.
to “negotiate” their terms with respective leaders of the countries
that were in the zones of its geopolitical interests, but in recent
decades this practice has been abandoned long ago. Instead, the White
House has adopted a new strategy of toppling unwanted governments, and
replacing them with semi-criminal, but somehow “legitimate” political
groups and states, or by simply creating failed states that cannot
control their own territory. This allows Washington to fulfill its
agenda faster and cheaper. Recent events in a number of Middle Eastern
and North African countries serve as a perfect example of this strategy.
This choice of modus operandi of the
White House is understandable: should a specific country be controlled
by a strong government, the US oligarchy cannot gain easy access to its
resources. Should American intelligence agencies succeed in provoking a
coup d’etat in a country, Washington will not simply get is hands on
desired resources, but will be able to use the rapid spread of violence
as a pretext to further increase US military presence across the region
in question.
White House is understandable: should a specific country be controlled
by a strong government, the US oligarchy cannot gain easy access to its
resources. Should American intelligence agencies succeed in provoking a
coup d’etat in a country, Washington will not simply get is hands on
desired resources, but will be able to use the rapid spread of violence
as a pretext to further increase US military presence across the region
in question.
That is why the US expansion in Central
Asia manifested itself in the form of an active military expansion.
America was happy to get involved in the construction of local military
bases, outposts, centers for training, and reconstruction of educational
institutions. Thus in Tajikistan alone US Central Command is carrying
at least 60 military drills a year. The US massively recruited people in
military circles, intelligence communities and government circles to
use them to overthrow a legitimate government, as has already been done
many times around the world. Moreover, against the background of ongoing
cuts in the US military budget, additional funds have been allocated to
operations in Central Asia.
Asia manifested itself in the form of an active military expansion.
America was happy to get involved in the construction of local military
bases, outposts, centers for training, and reconstruction of educational
institutions. Thus in Tajikistan alone US Central Command is carrying
at least 60 military drills a year. The US massively recruited people in
military circles, intelligence communities and government circles to
use them to overthrow a legitimate government, as has already been done
many times around the world. Moreover, against the background of ongoing
cuts in the US military budget, additional funds have been allocated to
operations in Central Asia.
However, the United States was not
patient enough in its expansion in Central Asia, which led to a critical
political mistake: the White House rushed the process of
“democratization” across the countries of Central Asia, while trying to
provoke unrest that would pave the way for a coup d’etat in a number of
states. But the course of events has clearly shown that the “color
revolution” tactics have fallen short. Ironically enough, the growing
influence of the White House in Central Asia has been stopped by the
Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan in March 2005 and the events in the Uzbek
city of Andijan in May of the same year.
patient enough in its expansion in Central Asia, which led to a critical
political mistake: the White House rushed the process of
“democratization” across the countries of Central Asia, while trying to
provoke unrest that would pave the way for a coup d’etat in a number of
states. But the course of events has clearly shown that the “color
revolution” tactics have fallen short. Ironically enough, the growing
influence of the White House in Central Asia has been stopped by the
Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan in March 2005 and the events in the Uzbek
city of Andijan in May of the same year.
US meddling in local affairs has
provoked a sharp rise of discontent among the regional leaders, which in
turn affected their relationship with the United States. There’s a
reason why one state after another started declaring their adherence to
the principles of cooperation with Russia and China. The Shanghai
Cooperation Organization has clearly played a vital role in
counterbalancing the US strategic advance in the region.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/31/us-is-losing-footing-in-central-asia/
provoked a sharp rise of discontent among the regional leaders, which in
turn affected their relationship with the United States. There’s a
reason why one state after another started declaring their adherence to
the principles of cooperation with Russia and China. The Shanghai
Cooperation Organization has clearly played a vital role in
counterbalancing the US strategic advance in the region.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/31/us-is-losing-footing-in-central-asia/
