“The ongoing persecution and human rights violations against the Pamiri minority in Tajikistan reached an alarming scale years ago. But there is almost no one to ring the alarm bell. The Tajikistani authorities stifle virtually all information from the region, while the international community has largely overlooked this serious human rights crisis. It demands immediate attention and action from the international community to safeguard the rights and dignity of the Pamiri people,” said Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. 

The ongoing persecution and human rights violations against the Pamiri minority in Tajikistan reached an alarming scale years ago. But there is almost no one to ring the alarm bell

Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Tajikistan: Reprisals against Pamiri minority, suppression of local identity, clampdown on all dissent highlights the violations of economic, social and cultural rights resulting from: the crackdown on Pamiri languages, cultural practices, and identities; the heavy presence of security forces from other regions of Tajikistan; violent repression of protest and widespread arbitrary detention; and socioeconomic marginalization faced by the Pamiri Ismaili community in Gorno-Badakhshan. 

Discrimination and securitization 

The central authorities have promoted a culture of prejudice against Pamiris. A state-sponsored narrative depicts them negatively, particularly Ismailis, leading to widespread discrimination. This policy manifests in repressive practices, including suppressing the use of Pamiri languages in media, education, and public life, excluding Pamiris from influential positions within the state administration and security apparatus, and extortion and destruction of local employment opportunities and Pamiri businesses. 

The heavy presence of security forces from other parts of Tajikistan reflects the authorities’ contempt for the Gorno-Badakhshan population. “The word ‘Pamiri’ [for the security forces] means […] separatist, oppositionist, main enemy,” said one of the interviewees. 

The presence of security agencies, including the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) and the State Committee for National Security (SCNS), has significantly increased in GBAO. Security forces have set up armed cordons on roads and in city squares, including the capital city of GBAO, Khorugh, patrolled by heavily armed police and military. “The security forces in Khorugh behave like wolves looking after sheep. ‘You should not walk like this; you should not laugh!’” said one of the interviewees. 

Security operations in GBAO include surveillance, intimidation, and the excessive use of force — often justified as combating terrorism and organized crime — accompanied by arbitrary arrests and prosecutions of local informal leaders and ordinary Pamiris, despite a lack of credible evidence.  

“The heavy-handed securitization in Gorno-Badakhshan is beyond any scrutiny. The local population is perceived as hostile by the central government, and people are harassed and discriminated against on a daily basis,” said Marie Struthers. 

The heavy-handed securitization in Gorno-Badakhshan is beyond any scrutiny. The local population is perceived as hostile by the central government, and people are harassed and discriminated against on a daily basis

Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia

2021-2022 crackdown and its aftermath 

Mounting tensions erupted after the killing of prominent Pamiri figure Gulbiddin Ziyobekov in November 2021. Officially described as the result of a shootout with law enforcement, evidence points to an unlawful killing of an unarmed man, which may amount to an extrajudicial execution. In response to a four-day protest in Khorugh, security forces used firearms against a crowd that had been peaceful until that point, killing two protesters and allegedly injuring around a dozen.  

“We escorted the women away […] to a safer location. At that time, a bullet hit me. They were shooting from the entrance of the building, wearing uniforms. Some of them were standing directly in the entrance, some of them were on the second or third floor,” said one protester, describing the indiscriminate use of lethal force by law enforcement officials. 

After false promises to effectively investigate, the authorities instead persecuted informal community leaders, harassed civil society, and intimidated and prosecuted ordinary Pamiris.  

A second outbreak of violence occurred in May 2022 when authorities violently dispersed peaceful protests in Khorugh and Rushan, resulting in the deaths of dozens of Pamiris, including informal leader Mamadbokir Mamadbokirov, shot by unidentified gunmen in a pickup — a likely extrajudicial execution. According to independent reports, 24 civilians died, some during the crackdown and some in alleged retaliatory unlawful killings.  

A subsequent crackdown on civil society followed with the arbitrary detention of more than 200 human rights defenders, dissenters, and influential figures such as journalist and activist Ulfatkhonim Mamadshoeva and lawyers Faromuz Irgashev and Manuchehr Kholiknazarov. In December 2023, they received 21, 29 and 15-year sentences respectively, in secret trials, with the details of the charges made public only six months later.  

Arbitrary detentions and torture 

The Tajikistani authorities routinely arbitrarily detain, allegedly torture, and engage in other ill-treatment of Pamiris, with reports of coerced confessions and fabricated charges of crimes against “public safety,” “fundamentals of the constitutional order” or “order of administration.” Legal proceedings lack transparency and due process, with many trials lasting only a few days. During the 2021-2022 crackdown, reports of torture and other ill-treatment were common.  

One of the detainees in the aftermath of the May 2022 protests said he was deprived of sleep for two days, beaten with fists and batons and hit on the head with a thick book. 

“When they asked and I did not answer, they wrapped wet tissues around my fingers, then [fixed it with] tape. They put clips and switched something on. The [electric] current was strong. They did it with different fingers. They did it twice every day, four times in all,” he said. 

The international community must urgently raise concerns about the human rights violations faced by Pamiris with the Tajikistani authorities

Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia

“After the 2021-2022 protests in Gorno-Badakhshan, the systemic discrimination against the Pamiri community has become ever more entrenched, resulting in fear, harassment and violation of human rights. The international community must urgently raise concerns about the human rights violations faced by Pamiris with the Tajikistani authorities, in all possible fora not the least international fora, stand in solidarity with the Pamiri people, give protection to those who seek it abroad, and take decisive action to oppose this vicious system in Tajikistan,” said Marie Struthers. 

Source

The post Tajikistan: Pamiri minority facing systemic discrimination in ‘overlooked human rights crisis’ appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Once more Tajikistan comes on the radar screen. Who will be the next president of Tajikistan? How is the ban on the hijab helping the deradicalization of Tajik society? What is the role of the Chinese and Russian influence? And how is the relationship with the European Union coming along? 

Every year we face a plethora of Tajik issues, for example corruption and drug usage involving officials, now the ban on face veils, or the newest version a ban on black clothes. The desecration of the grave of one of leaders and the promotions of killer squad of the ministry of interiors. 

Despite the ICC dispatches a fact-finding mission on Tajikistan and reports back we need to ask the question what has changed, if anything? So far very little, to near nothing. Observers of the Tajik issue reports an uptick of Chinese involvement, or Russian press gang related issues to force Tajiks to army service in the Ukraine. 

The German foreign ministry is surprisingly mum about the situation in Tajikistan. The trust level is always low. Maybe the new “Iron Lady” will bring changes to the foreign relations debacle with Tajikistan. It’s about time. 

The post Tajikistan: Has anything changed? appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Meet Allan J. Lichtman, a historian with a seemingly magical Midas touch who has been calling US Presidential Elections with eerie accuracy since 1984. 

While most political pundits and pollsters scramble to keep up with the tides of public opinion, Lichtman calmly unveils the future, his predictions as steady as a seasoned fortune teller’s gaze into a crystal ball. But how does he do it? Is he a modern-day Nostradamus, gifted with supernatural foresight, or is something deeper at play here?

Lichtman’s method

Lichtman’s method, often shrouded in mystery, is not based on mere guesswork or gut feeling. His secret weapon? A system he devised called ‘The Keys to the White House’. This isn’t your run-of-the-mill analysis but a framework built on 13 true-or-false statements, each designed to capture the underlying currents of a presidential race. 

These ‘keys’ range from the economy’s performance to social unrest and from incumbency advantages to the absence of scandal. If six or more of these keys turn against the party in power, Lichtman predicts it will lose the presidency. This model, grounded in historical data rather than transient public sentiment, has turned Lichtman into a political seer whose predictions cut through the noise of modern-day electioneering. 

Imagine being able to foresee the outcome of elections while others falter, blinded by polling missteps and media frenzy. In a world where digital misinformation has become the norm and where climate change can even skew weather patterns, how can one man stand firm in his ability to forecast something as volatile as American politics? Lichtman’s system doesn’t just defy the odds; it redefines them, offering a clarity that seems almost otherworldly in a time when certainty is a rare commodity.

Lichtman predicted the following elections since 1984 well ahead, publicly using mainstream and credible media.

1984: ‘How to Bet in ’84’

1988: ‘How to Bet in November’ 

1992: ‘The Keys to the White House’

1996: ‘Who Will Be the Next President’

2000: ‘The Keys to Election 2000’

2004: ‘The Keys to the White House’

2008: ‘Forecast for 2008’

2012: ‘Preliminary Forecast for 2012’

2016: ‘Trump is Headed for a Win’

2020: ‘He Predicted Trump’s Win in 2016, Now He’s Ready to Call 2020’

Except for a couple of predictions of the popular vote, he predicted all others with remarkable accuracy. I have met pollsters who could predict an election just a week ahead of the election day. This is easy for experienced and masterful pollsters, campaigners, and political leaders. However, Lichtman, the 13 keys, and the statistical model predict before anyone can comprehend an election campaign. 

High stakes ahead

As Lichtman, at 77 years of age, prepares to unveil his prediction for the 2024 showdown, the stakes are higher than ever. The contest between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is set to be one of the most polarising in history, with a nation deeply divided and the world watching closely. Will Lichtman’s keys guide him to yet another correct prediction? And if so, what does that say about the nature of power, politics, and the very fabric of American democracy?

This Harvard-educated Professor, who was an expert witness in over 100 civil and voting rights cases and authored 11 books, remains a towering figure in geopolitical discourse. His predictions capture the public’s imagination and influence how we understand the dynamics of elections. While others chase trends, Lichtman leans on a well-honed system that has weathered the storms of political upheaval. 

In a world where even the seasons and weather patterns seem to change unpredictably, Lichtman is a Mozart of political predictions, reminding us that, sometimes, the most profound insights come not from the noise of the moment but from a deeper understanding of history’s patterns, human psychology, leadership decision-making, behaviour, and the sentiments of the public at large. 

So, as we get closer to the next big election, one question looms: will Lichtman get it right again? And if he does, what else might he see that the rest of us are missing? The answers may lie not just in the future but in the very methods Lichtman has perfected over decades – techniques that have turned him into an almost mythical figure in political prediction.

Lichtman’s keys in South Asia

With all due respect to Lichtman’s 13 keys, which have cracked the code of American Presidential Elections for decades, one might wonder how this framework would fare in South Asia’s complex, diverse political landscape. In this region, elections are far from straightforward. 

Think about India, where the election process is a Herculean task, spanning weeks and involving 900 million voters, one million polling booths, all from various backgrounds. How can a system designed to predict outcomes in a political environment like the US handle the wild diversity of South Asia? Here, the influence of religion, the deep roots of caste, the vast stretches of land, poverty, the growing middle class, unemployment, and the varying definitions of charisma and leadership play a role that would challenge even the most sophisticated models.

Yet, for me, despite these challenges, Lichtman’s 13 keys offer more than just a prediction tool – they provide a fascinating lens through which we can analyse elections and the broader dynamics of governance and political strategy in South Asia. 

In a region where the very definition of being a leader can differ from village to village, Lichtman’s approach could offer a structured way to think about the elements that truly matter in shaping public opinion. Imagine applying this framework not just to foresee electoral outcomes but to understand how governments can maintain stability, enforce checks and balances, and craft political campaigns to resonate across such a vast and varied population.

Lichtman’s keys were more than just a prediction tool – they became the foundation for something I had been working on for seven years. What works in a political campaign? How do you craft a theory that sounds good on paper and delivers results when it matters most? This is no small feat in South Asia, where the stakes are always high and the playing field constantly shifts. Lichtman’s framework, focusing on the fundamental forces that drive political change, offered a way to approach these questions systematically.

Moreover, it challenged me to think about strategy in a way that goes beyond the usual clichés. What works in shaping public opinion? Is it the message, the messenger, or something deeper, something more structural? 

As I reflected on these questions, I realised that while the 13 keys might not be directly applicable to every aspect of South Asian politics, they offer a starting point – a way to begin dissecting the complexities of this region’s political landscape. 

They encourage us to look beyond the surface, ask what drives political change, and recognise that in politics, as in life, the unseen forces often have the most power. With this framework in mind, I embarked on a journey to explore what works in South Asia and build a strategy to navigate its challenges and tap into its unique opportunities. The journey is far from over, but with Lichtman’s keys in hand, the path forward is a bit clearer.

A universal framework 

Seven years ago, a close friend of mine – a political campaign veteran with 40 years of experience who quietly influenced the rise of many leaders – and I embarked on an ambitious journey. 

We set out to craft a theory tailored explicitly to the complexities of South Asian politics, fully aware that what worked in one part of the world might not necessarily apply elsewhere. Our approach was as unassuming as we were, yet it was profound. Through countless hours of discussion, debate, disagreements, and analysis, we shaped a concept that would eventually transform how we viewed political campaigning. 

We were not looking to rewrite the rules; instead, we sought to distil the essence of what drives human behaviour in politics. Our insights became the foundation of what I now believe is a universal framework that can transcend borders and cultures: the interplay of hope, fear, and jealousy.

As I watched elections unfold across the globe – from Taiwan to Pakistan, Bangladesh to the UK, Russia to South Africa, India, and most recently Sri Lanka – I saw patterns emerge. These were not just random electoral outcomes but manifestations of more profound, primal emotions. It became clear that hope, fear, and jealousy were not just abstract concepts but powerful forces that could be harnessed to influence political outcomes. 

Hope drives people to believe in a better future and rally behind a leader who promises change. On the other hand, fear can be a potent motivator, pushing people to act in defence of what they have in order to avoid a perceived threat. Jealousy, often overlooked, stirs up resentment and the desire to level the playing field, whether in economic terms or social status. Together, these emotions create a dynamic that can be both predictable and volatile. 

All above elections I covered extensively for public consumption and some private coverage helped key decision-makers, both in politics and business, with meaningful discourses which led to action. After all, politics shakes business and business shapes politics. When I reflect upon all elections, the hope, fear, and jealousy was universal. 

When leaders tap into hope, they inspire; they offer a vision of what could be, often galvanising those who feel disenfranchised. Leaders like Lee Kuan Yew, Nelson Mandela, and John F. Kennedy instilled hope. In the great Lee Kuan Yew, I saw a leader who was both feared and loved, a rare combination for a leader, and I called it the epitome of leadership. 

The danger of promising hope in a campaign is the credibility of the message of hope. Can a leader honour the commitment of hope? This is a critical question in developing a presidential campaign. In 2016, Donald Trump hit the nail on the head with ‘Make America Great Again’. If he had delivered, would Joe Biden have won the election in 2020? 

When invoked, fear can unify people against a common enemy or perceived danger, whether it’s economic instability, cultural erosion, or an external threat. Meanwhile, jealousy is the undercurrent that can turn the tide unexpectedly. It can lead to movements that demand equality, reject the status quo, or push back against perceived elitism. 

A fear psychosis was at play in the Indian election. There were slogans against Premier Narendra Modi, calling him a dictator, pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim, and a failure, whilst his opponent Rahul Gandhi was projected as a product of nepotism, a danger to the economic and political stability of India. Closer to election day, narratives were about vote counting malpractices to changing election results, and the fear not only crashed the hopes of people but also crashed the stock market. 

But post-election, I witnessed that most of the stories had disappeared. People are getting on with their lives. Why were Indians angry, jealous, and some praying for hope only at election time? Why not in the aftermath? 

When Sheikh Hasina won the election in Bangladesh this year, she lasted only a few months in her seat as the people’s fear broke the threshold, and once peaceful street protests turned violent after the Government forces killed hundreds of student protesters. 

Understanding the human condition 

In the coming years, as we see more elections unfold and more leaders rise and fall, this framework will prove itself time and time again. It’s not about manipulating people; it’s about understanding the fundamental drivers of human behaviour and how they intersect with the political landscape. 

As we delve deeper into how hope, fear, and jealousy work in real life, we can unlock the secrets to winning elections and understanding the complex and often contradictory nature of our societies. The journey of political strategy is as much about understanding human nature as it is about understanding politics, and this is a path worth exploring.

Gautama Buddha’s teachings remind us of something fundamentally human: the presence of anger, jealousy, and delusion within us all. These emotions are not just fleeting feelings but deep-rooted forces that shape how we see the world and, crucially, our leaders. 

Who among us hasn’t felt a pang of jealousy, a surge of anger, or the fog of delusion? These emotions are personal and collective, influencing the masses and steering the direction of entire societies. But how exactly do these primal instincts manifest in the modern world, particularly politics and leadership?

Consider how people lined up for days to buy the latest iPhone in the early days or digital conversations when someone’s views clash with another’s. It’s not just about the product or the opinion – it’s about what lies beneath. Anger fuels those heated online debates, jealousy drives the obsession with having the latest gadget that others flaunt, and delusion clouds the judgement of those who believe that ownership equates to status. This is the human condition and is a powerful force in shaping public opinion.

Harnessing emotions in the political arena 

Now, let’s take this into the political arena. Creating hope is not just possible – it’s a strategy. 

Look at Modi’s campaign in India. Modi didn’t just run for office; he tapped into a deep well of hope within the Indian electorate, offering a vision of stability and prosperity that resonated across the country. His opponent Gandhi too offered a similar narrative, but in politics the campaign does not end with communications, it goes well beyond to alliances, partnerships, and allies, including geopolitical actors. 

Hope can be manufactured, moulded, and directed, and when done effectively, it can lead to sweeping electoral victories. 

But what about anger? That, too, can be stoked and channelled. Think back to the mass protests in Sri Lanka in 2022 or Bangladesh in 2024. In both instances, anger over economic mismanagement, corruption, anti-democratic moves, and a lack of accountability led to regime changes, with leaders fleeing the country. Anger isn’t just an emotion; it’s a catalyst for change, and when it reaches a tipping point, it can be unstoppable.

Fear is another tool that can be wielded with precision. In Taiwan, the fear of geopolitical uncertainty has driven voters and leaders alike to act in ways that protect what they hold dear. The spectre of conflict, losing sovereignty, or economic collapse can create an atmosphere where fear dictates decisions, both in the voting booth and in the corridors of power.

And then there’s jealousy. Can you create jealousy? Absolutely. It’s perhaps the most subtle yet potent of all. When political campaigns highlight the successes of some to contrast the struggles of others, they stir up feelings of envy. Jealousy brews when leaders flaunt their achievements or when governments spotlight the disparities between regions or classes. This quiet but simmering emotion can lead to unrest, demands for equality, and, in some cases, upheaval.

In the end, the emotions that the Buddha spoke of are not just inner battles; they are the very forces that drive political movements, consumer behaviour, and social change. Understanding how to harness these emotions – whether to inspire hope, ignite anger, instil fear, or provoke jealousy – is critical to understanding how the world operates today. It’s not just about predicting outcomes; it’s about shaping them.

The key to a successful political campaign 

Too much fear paralyses a movement. It creates a culture of anxiety and distrust, where people are so overwhelmed by what could go wrong that they lose sight of what could go right. Campaigns that lean too heavily into fear may drive voters to the polls, but they risk alienating them in the long run, creating a legacy of dread rather than progress.

Similarly, an overabundance of hope can lead to disillusionment. Leaders who promise the moon and stars without acknowledging the hurdles set themselves up for failure. Hope, when unchecked, can become a double-edged sword, leading to impossible expectations that, when unmet, turn the very optimism that once energised a campaign into a source of bitter disappointment.

Jealousy, too, is a dangerous emotion when left unchecked. If a campaign stirs up too much envy, it can breed resentment, dividing communities rather than uniting them. A strategy that overplays jealousy may spark initial engagement but also risks creating deep societal rifts that are difficult to heal, ultimately leading to instability rather than solidarity.

This realisation led me to an important conclusion: the key to a successful political campaign isn’t found in the extremes of hope, fear, or jealousy but in their balance. It’s about finding that delicate equilibrium where these emotions intersect, creating an aspirational narrative grounded in reality. A leader who can navigate this intersection – who can inspire hope while acknowledging legitimate fears and subtly addressing the undercurrents of jealousy – has the potential to craft campaigns that resonate deeply with the electorate.

Imagine a campaign that instils hope by offering a realistic vision of the future, acknowledging the challenges ahead but assuring the public that together, they can overcome them. This same campaign would recognise and address the people’s fears, not by amplifying them but by providing concrete solutions and a sense of security. And when it comes to jealousy, the campaign would highlight fairness and equality, ensuring that everyone feels they have a stake in the promised future.

This is the balance every successful campaign strives for. It’s not about manipulating emotions but about understanding and respecting them, and weaving them into a powerful and sustainable narrative. Leaders who master this balance won’t just win elections – they’ll earn the trust and loyalty of the people, creating a foundation for lasting change.

Sri Lanka’s critical moment 

Sri Lanka is on the brink of a pivotal moment in its history as it heads toward the Presidential Election on 21 September to choose its ninth executive president. The atmosphere is charged and the campaigns are steeped in the classic trio of political emotions: hope, fear, and jealousy. Yet, despite the enthusiasm, none of the candidates seems to grasp the critical balance among these forces – a balance that could determine not just victory but the nation’s very future.

I shared this column with Prof. Lichtman for his guidance and a man of wisdom could bring more clarity to the above thought process. 

The 22 million Sri Lankans are yearning for a leader who can steer the country through the next five years and offer clarity amidst the current confusion of party lines, geopolitical sensitivities, and the overwhelming field of 39 presidential candidates. At least six stand out as serious contenders, each trying to outmanoeuvre the other in a race that has become a cauldron of fear-mongering, lofty promises, and envy-stoking.

As the campaign intensifies over the next five weeks, it’s clear that fear is playing a dominant role in the strategies of most prominent candidates. Whether it’s fear of economic collapse, fear of social unrest, or fear of losing national identity, these narratives are being pushed hard, creating a sense of urgency and anxiety among the electorate. But is this the path to victory or a more profound division?

On 21 September, Sri Lankans will not just choose a president; they will select the emotion that will define their future. Will it be a future built on fear, hope, or jealousy – or will one candidate finally strike that elusive middle path, offering a vision that resonates with the full spectrum of human experience? The next few weeks will be critical in determining which of these forces will reign supreme and shape the destiny of this beautiful island nation that I call paradise and my home.

Saliya Weerakoon

The post Hope, Fear and Jealousy appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

After a tip-off by U.S. intelligence officials and only a few hours left Austrian police made swift arrests. The plot seems too bizarre not to be true. Abul Baraa, aka Ahmad Armih, the German based hate-preacher in Berlin radicalized via Tik-tok or Istagram a 19-year Beran A. to swear the oath of alliance to the Islamic State. 

U.S. officials have confirmed their role in identifying a suspected terrorist plot planned for a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna this weekend. During a Friday briefing, White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby said the U.S. provided information to Austrian authorities, who have made several arrests in relation to the alleged foiled attack.

The plan was to take a car, pack it full of explosives and drive it to the Vienna venue of the Ernst Happel stadium at the time packed with 65,000 “Swifties” and detonate the car bomb causing mass casualties. Bomb-making instructions and machetes were also found.

The Heeresnachrichtenamt got the tip-off and passing it on to the newly reconstituted Directorate of State Security and Intelligence (DNS) who swung into action. The DNS who are still fighting the ghosts of scandals took over from the foreign intelligence service. 

Breaking the whatsapp application police worked out the communication traffic, and Beran A. and Luca were arrested in Ternitz, a small village in the south of Vienna. Three other suspects were detained. Beran A., who lived still in the residence of his parents was partly assembling the bomb in the garage of his parents’ residence when police moved in. 

The shock of the planned attack was felt by the “Swifties”, the countless fans of the American pop legend. On the back of the pro-Islamic demonstrations German agitation is manifested. Although current media coverage does not bring the undercurrent of Germany laws will be replaced by Sharia law into the debate terror experts foresee a radicalization of youth. “We will wait and see”, says one expert contacted. “Dissatisfaction is expressed by knowing what we don’t want but being unclear what we want”, says another expert. Roughly 200,000 people were scheduled to attend the sold-out Vienna shows. 

The Alpen republic struggles with online monitoring since the laws of the country do not permit surveillance. Political parties argue that the laws of the country must be changed. 

The post Islamic State does not like Taylor Swift. Austrian police arrests plotters appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Speculations over what American foreign policy under the potential leadership of Kamala Devi Harris might look like have begun in earnest, now that US president Joe Biden – who announced recently that he would not be seeking re-election – has officially endorsed his vice president as his heir apparent in the race for the presidency. Although many Democratic Party leaders and supporters have joined the president in coalescing behind Harris, the official nominee of the Democrats will only be chosen at their party’s national convention in Chicago next month.

Should Kamala Harris, if confirmed as the Democrats’ standard bearer, triumph over Donald Trump when Americans take to the ballot box this November, what can we expect from the foreign policy of a Harris administration towards the Indo-Pacific region? Would she prove a “weak” leader – as Beijing’s state-backed news outlet Global Times has insisted – whose presidency is unlikely to pose a threat to China?

Shaky Start

Having carved a niche as the state of California’s top law enforcement official and subsequently its junior senator, Harris stepped into the vice presidency with little foreign policy experience. Her initial foray into US diplomacy began with a stumble: her proposal to work with Central American nations to address the root causes of illegal immigration into the United States was quickly lumped with the related issue of the security of America’s southern border, which she – as in the case of a clumsy interview with the US news outlet NBC News – tried unsuccessfully to avoid. Nor did the initial turmoil among her staff do her reputation any favours.

However, things have markedly improved since those rough beginnings, with seasoned Washington operators like Philip Gordon and Rebecca Lissner being enlisted to advise the vice president on foreign policy and national security matters. According to US congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Harris’s performance at this year’s Munich Security Conference making a case for America’s role in Ukraine and NATO indicates that she has been “stress-tested” and found credible.

Staying the Course

Given her inexperience as an international leader, it is highly likely that Harris, as US president, would continue the Biden administration’s foreign policy, at least until such time as she has a firmer grasp on world affairs. Under her leadership, the United States is likely to continue supporting Ukraine and NATO while adopting a firm line against Vladimir Putin and Russia. Given her strong stance against Israel’s handling of the Gaza conflict – which she has referred to as a humanitarian catastrophe for innocent civilians – it is possible that her Israel policy may prove less fixed and intransigent than Biden’s. Indeed, she is on record for having called for a “temporary ceasefire” to the Gaza conflict well before her boss publicly did.

But far as the Indo-Pacific goes, it is unlikely that Harris would stray from extant US policy. As noted, many Chinese seem to think that Harris would prove weaker than Biden in dealing with China. As a US senator, she co-sponsored a bill promoting human rights in Hong Kong and supported another on the rights of Uyghurs in Xinjiang; in both cases, the bills included sanctions against those deemed responsible for human rights abuses.

China

As vice president, Harris has underscored America’s support – “consistent with [the US’s] long-standing policy” – for Taiwan’s self-defence and decried Chinese intimidation and coercion against Philippine vessels in the waters surrounding the Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea.

In an interview with CBS News last year, Harris advocated a firm stance against China, calling for “de-risking” from Beijing – a policy that aims to reduce the extent to which the US and Western economies depend on China. “It’s not about pulling out [from China], but it is about ensuring that we are protecting American interests, and that we are a leader in terms of the rules of the road, as opposed to following others’ rules”, Harris explained in that interview.

Harris’s remarks on China strongly hint at the influence of Rebecca Lissner, who currently serves as deputy national security adviser to the vice president. In her 2020 book An Open World: How America Can Win the Contest for Twenty-First-Century Order (co-authored with Mira Rapp-Hooper), Lissner argues that China constitutes America’s “chief antagonist” to an open world through Beijing’s determined efforts at forming exclusive territorial and technological blocs. Against such opposition, Lissner advocates a new vision and approach for America, one that allows it to de-risk itself while working with like-minded allies and rebuilding what she considers outmoded international institutions to set rules that ensure and enhance global openness. Lissner is adamant that the United States and the West should not pursue regime change around the world, but counter authoritarian competitors by preventing the rise of closed spheres of influence and preserving open access to the global commons.

Such an openness strategy is also in line with Harris’s criticism of the Trump administration’s inconsequential efforts to engage North Korea and rein in its nuclear ambitions, which do not close Northeast Asia off as much as create undue uncertainty and apprehension in the region. This is not to imply that Lissner’s ideas would form the blueprint for foreign policy under a Harris administration. At the very least, it suggests that Beijing’s hopes of a weak and unfocused America under Harris may be premature, perhaps even unfounded.

ASEAN

Under Harris, the United States is also likely to stay the course taken by Biden in its ties with ASEAN and Southeast Asia, a region hotly contested by both Beijing and Washington. But whether Harris would do better than Biden at reassuring and improving the region’s perceptions of America remains to be seen. According to a 2024 annual survey conducted by the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute, when asked who they would prefer to align with in the ongoing China-US rivalry, slightly more Southeast Asian respondents reportedly sided with the Chinese (50.5%) than with the Americans (49.5%). That said, a Harris-led America would presumably play the kind of international leadership role ASEAN desires of the United States than a Trump-led one is likely to furnish. While ASEAN leaders would no doubt redouble their efforts to keep a mercurial and capricious Donald Trump happy and engaged (were he to return as US leader), a President Harris is more likely to show up for ASEAN meetings in person – the high-mark of ASEAN summitry success – than a President Trump ever did or would.

Southeast Asians have had a couple of opportunities to see Kamala Harris up close. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2021, Harris, in her capacity as US vice president, visited Singapore and Vietnam to strengthen her nation’s security partnerships and to expand economic cooperation with two of America’s critical Indo-Pacific partners. Attending the 2023 ASEAN summit held in Jakarta in Biden’s stead, Harris – in her fifth visit to the Southeast Asian region – engaged with leaders of the ASEAN member states as well as Australia, China, Japan and South Korea. Notably, as a senator, Harris was active in legislating against human rights abuses in Myanmar – a concern she has repeatedly raised during her visits to Southeast Asia. Welcomed or otherwise, ASEAN could expect a greater focus on Myanmar from a Harris administration than it ever did from the Biden – and, for that matter, the Trump – administrations.

Conclusion

Should a Harris foreign policy adopt the contours and course of a grand strategy akin to what Lissner has counselled, it would probably surprise no one if China – still designated as America’s chief antagonist – were to resume its age-old accusation against America over the latter’s ostensible “Cold War” fixation with alliances and partnerships aimed at (in Beijing’s view) encircling and counterbalancing China. In this regard, it is unclear whether Harris might tap into her part-Indian heritage – her late mother was from Tamil Nadu – to enlist India (as a member of the Quad) in checking an assertive China: she has come across as ambivalent towards India. All things considered, the prospect of a Harris presidency is not the worst thing that could happen for the Indo-Pacific region.

See Seng Tan is President and CEO of International Students Inc. (ISI) in the United States and concurrently Research Adviser at RSIS and Senior Associate at the Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS) at NTU.

See Seng Tan

The post What Might a Harris Foreign Policy Bring? appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

He noted that the “first and only time” NATO’s Article 5 was invoked was after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US. Article 5 sets out that an attack on one member of the NATO military alliance is an attack on all.

“NATO stood by us,” he says. “We’re going to stand by NATO”.

Looking forward, Austin said the US will “not be dragged into Putin’s war of choice”, although it will continue to stand by Ukraine and strengthen the NATO alliance.

“NATO is now larger than ever,” he adds. “Putin’s war is not the result of NATO enlargement. Putin’s war is the cause of NATO enlargement.”

The post Putin’s war is the cause of NATO enlargement appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Negotiations will begin for both countries on Tuesday in Luxembourg, the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union said on X.

The move comes at a critical time for both nations with Ukraine in the middle of an invasion by Russia and Moldova facing a Russian-led insurgence by a breakaway state.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky thanked the European Union for its “robust political will” to begin negotiations with his country despite the current Russian aggression.

“We look forward to next week,” Zelensky said on X. “We congratulate our Moldova friends on this significant step toward our shared European future. We will make the EU stronger together. I am grateful to everyone on our team who worked hard to make this historic step a reality.

“Millions of Ukrainians and indeed generations of our people are realizing their European dream. Ukraine is returning to Europe, where it has belonged for centuries, as a full-fledged member of the European community.”

Moldova President Maia Sandu confirmed on social media that she also signed a decree allowing accession negotiations with the European Union to move forward.

“Becoming an EU member is our path to peace, prosperity and a better life for all citizens,” Sandu said on X. “Wishing our delegation every success as they officially launch negotiations in Luxembourg next week.”

The European Union announced earlier this month that Moldova and Ukraine both met the requirements to join the group. All 27 countries must agree to allow them in. Hungary and its President Viktor Orban are expected to be the main roadblock for both countries.

Orban, who has maintained a close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, had criticized Ukraine for its past corruption.

Source : UPI

The post European Union Sets Date for Start for Member Negotiations with Ukraine, Moldova appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Colonel Yuri Ivanov, the commanding officer of the Steel Wolves, surveyed his men with steely determination. These were the best of the best, handpicked for their courage, skill, and unwavering loyalty to Ukraine. They had been fighting tooth and nail to slow the Russian advance, launching daring raids and ambushes against overwhelming odds.

But despite their valiant efforts, the tide of the war seemed to be turning against them. Russian tanks rumbled through the streets, their tracks crushing everything in their path. Buildings lay in ruins, and the once-thriving city had been reduced to a ghost town.

“We can’t hold them off forever,” one of the soldiers muttered, his voice heavy with exhaustion and despair.

Colonel Ivanov’s jaw tightened, his gaze flickering with a fierce resolve. “We may not be able to win this war,” he said, his voice low but resolute. “But by God, we can make them pay for every inch of ground they take. We will fight on, even if it means sacrificing everything. We will give Putin’s troops hell.”

A murmur of agreement rippled through the ranks as the soldiers squared their shoulders, their eyes burning with defiance. They knew the risks they faced; the odds stacked against them. But they also knew that they were fighting for something greater than themselves—for their country, for their freedom, for the future of Ukraine.

As dawn broke over the horizon, casting a golden light across the ravaged landscape, the Steel Wolves prepared to once again venture into the heart of the battle. They were outnumbered, outgunned, but they refused to back down. For as long as they drew breath, they would continue to fight. And in that moment, amidst the chaos and destruction of war, they found a strength that transcended fear—a bond forged in the crucible of combat, a brotherhood that would endure until the end.

As the sun rose higher in the sky, casting long shadows over the war-torn landscape, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stood before a podium in the heart of the capital city. His voice was firm, his resolve unyielding, as he addressed the nation.

“My fellow Ukrainians,” he began, his words echoing through the streets, “we find ourselves in the midst of a struggle unlike any we have faced before. The forces of tyranny seek to crush our spirit, to extinguish the flame of freedom that burns within each one of us. But we will not cower in the face of oppression. We will stand tall, united in our defiance, and we will fight until our last breath.”

The crowd erupted into cheers, waving Ukrainian flags and chanting slogans of resistance. Among them stood the members of the Steel Wolves, their faces grim but determined.

President Zelensky’s gaze swept over the crowd, his eyes alight with determination. “I have deployed our fearsome special forces team, the Steel Wolves, to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies,” he declared. “They are trained to hunt down and eliminate the Russian invaders with ruthless efficiency. They will be our sword and shield in this dark hour, our beacon of hope in the midst of despair.”

A ripple of applause swept through the crowd as President Zelensky raised a clenched fist in defiance. “To those who seek to conquer us, I say this: you may have the might of an empire at your disposal, but you will never break the spirit of the Ukrainian people. We will fight on, even if the war is lost, to give Vladimir Putin’s troops hell!”

The cheers grew louder, echoing through the streets like a thunderous battle cry. The people of Ukraine had made their choice—to stand and fight, to resist tyranny with every fibre of their being. And as the Steel Wolves prepared to once again venture into the heart of the conflict, they knew that they carried with them the hopes and dreams of a nation.

For in the face of adversity, in the crucible of war, they had found a strength that could not be broken—a strength born of sacrifice, of courage, of an unbreakable bond between brothers-in-arms. And as they marched into the fray, they knew that they would do whatever it took to defend their homeland, to protect the values for which they stood, and to ensure that the flame of freedom continued to burn bright in the land of Ukraine.

The battle ahead would be long and arduous, filled with hardship and sacrifice. But if they stood together, if they fought with every ounce of strength in their bodies, they knew that victory was not only possible—it was inevitable. And so, with heads held high and hearts ablaze with determination, they marched forward into the unknown, ready to face whatever challenges lay ahead.

As the conflict raged on, the Ukrainian Special Operation Force (SOF) proved to be a formidable adversary to Vladimir Putin’s troops. With each passing day, their tactics grew more daring, their strikes more precise, as they inflicted heavy casualties on the advancing Russian forces.

Colonel Yuri Ivanov, the leader of the Steel Wolves, coordinated their operations with ruthless efficiency. Every move was calculated, every target carefully chosen to maximize the impact on the enemy. And as the Russian casualties mounted and their supply lines were stretched thin, the tide of the war began to turn in Ukraine’s favour.

But it was not just their military prowess that struck fear into the hearts of the Russian invaders—it was their unwavering determination, their refusal to back down in the face of overwhelming odds. Despite the grim reality of the situation, the members of the Steel Wolves fought on with a fierce resolve, fuelled by a sense of duty to their country and a desire to protect their loved ones from harm.

As the days turned into weeks and the weeks turned into months, the SOF launched a series of daring raids behind enemy lines, seizing vital strategic positions and disrupting Russian communications. They became ghosts in the night, striking swiftly and silently before melting back into the shadows, leaving chaos and confusion in their wake.

But as the war dragged on, the toll it took on the members of the Steel Wolves became increasingly apparent. They had endured sleepless nights, relentless combat, and the constant threat of death looming over them like a shadow. Yet still, they pressed on, drawing strength from the bonds of brotherhood that united them as one.

And amidst the chaos of war, amidst the smoke and the gunfire and the cries of the wounded, they found moments of camaraderie and solidarity that kept them going through the darkest of times. They laughed together, they cried together, they shared stories of home and family, clinging to the memories that reminded them of what they were fighting for.

But even as they celebrated their victories and mourned their losses, they knew that the war was far from over. The Russian army still loomed on the horizon, their thirst for conquest undiminished by their losses. And so, with hearts heavy but spirits unbroken, the members of the Steel Wolves prepared to face whatever challenges lay ahead, knowing that their fight was far from over.

For as long as they drew breath, they would continue to fight—to give Vladimir Putin’s troops hell and to defend their homeland to the last.

As the conflict escalated, the Ukrainian Special Operation Force (SOF) found themselves at the forefront of the battle, their efforts crucial in slowing down the Russian advance. With each passing day, the SOF’s effectiveness became increasingly evident as they inflicted heavy casualties on the invading Russian forces and seized control of vital strategic positions.

Colonel Yuri Ivanov, the seasoned leader of the SOF, orchestrated their operations with precision and cunning. His tactical brilliance, combined with the unwavering commitment of his men, proved to be a formidable force against the Russian aggressors. Every successful mission further bolstered the morale of the Ukrainian forces and struck fear into the hearts of their adversaries.

But it wasn’t just their military prowess that made the SOF stand out. It was their ingenuity and adaptability in the face of overwhelming odds. As more and more of Vladimir Putin’s weaponry fell into their hands, they quickly learned to repurpose and utilize it against their enemies. Russian tanks became Ukrainian barricades, enemy drones turned into reconnaissance assets, and captured ammunition became the lifeblood of their resistance.

Amid the chaos of war, the SOF became a symbol of hope for the Ukrainian people—a beacon of defiance against the forces of tyranny. Their bravery inspired others to join the fight, swelling the ranks of the resistance and strengthening their resolve to defend their homeland at all costs.

But as the conflict dragged on, the toll it took on the SOF became increasingly apparent. The constant stress of battle, the loss of comrades, and the never-ending cycle of violence weighed heavily on their shoulders. Yet still, they fought on, driven by a sense of duty to their country and a determination to protect their loved ones from harm.

And amidst the devastation of war, moments of camaraderie and solidarity emerged among the members of the SOF. They forged bonds that transcended rank and nationality, finding solace and strength in each other’s presence. In the darkest of times, it was these connections that kept them going, reminding them of what they were fighting for and giving them the courage to carry on.

As the conflict reached its climax, the SOF stood ready to face whatever challenges lay ahead. Theirs was a fight not just for territory or power, but for the very survival of their nation and the values it stood for. And though the road ahead would be fraught with danger and uncertainty, they knew that if they stood together, they could overcome any obstacle and emerge victorious in the end.

For the work of Ukraine’s Special Operation Force (SOF) could not be understated—it was the backbone of the resistance, the vanguard of freedom, and the hope of a nation determined to defy the odds and forge its own destiny.

The origins of the Ukrainian Special Operation Force (SOF) traced back to the dark days of Russian aggression in the Donbas region. Formed in 2015 as a direct response to escalating tensions, this elite unit quickly became a thorn in the side of Vladimir Putin’s ambitions.

Comprised of 2000 highly trained soldiers, the SOF was equipped with the latest weaponry and technology, courtesy of heavy investment from the United States. This support allowed them to stand toe-to-toe with the Russian invaders and defend their homeland with unmatched ferocity.

From the outset of the conflict, the SOF proved their worth on the battlefield. Their guerrilla tactics, ad-hoc counterattacks, and mobile defense strategies disrupted Russian advances and inflicted heavy casualties on their forces. They became a symbol of resistance, a beacon of hope for the Ukrainian people in their darkest hour.

But it wasn’t just on the battlefield where the SOF made their mark. They also waged a relentless campaign against Russian sleeper cells embedded throughout the country. Using their superior intelligence-gathering capabilities, they rooted out and neutralized these threats, striking fear into the hearts of their adversaries.

In an ironic twist of fate for Vladimir Putin, the success of the SOF was made possible by the very country he saw as his greatest adversary—the United States. Heavy investment from Washington provided the Ukrainian forces with the resources they needed to hold their own against the Russian military machine.

As the conflict raged on, the SOF continued to be a thorn in the side of the Russian forces. Their determination, skill, and unwavering commitment to their cause ensured that they would not be easily defeated. And though the road ahead was fraught with danger and uncertainty, they remained steadfast in their resolve to defend their homeland and protect the values for which they stood.

For the Ukrainian Special Operation Force (SOF) was more than just a military unit—it was a symbol of defiance against tyranny, a testament to the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people in the face of adversity.

The extent of US investment in Ukraine’s defense became increasingly apparent as the conflict unfolded. From 2015 to 2020, Ukraine saw a staggering increase in its defensive budget, bolstered by billions of dollars in aid from the US and the UK, according to reports from the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

But it wasn’t just financial support that Ukraine received. As part of the deal, the US went a step further, offering a CIA-led training program for Ukrainian forces. This program, shrouded in secrecy, aimed to transform the Ukrainian military into a formidable fighting force capable of repelling Russian aggression. According to one trainer involved in the program, the goal was clear: to train soldiers who were prepared to “kill Russians” in defense of their homeland.

The impact of this investment was profound. The Ukrainian military underwent a radical transformation, evolving from a struggling force into a well-equipped and highly trained fighting machine. At its helm stood the Ukrainian Special Operation Force (SOF), a fanatical and devoted group of soldiers who had pledged to fight on even if the war was lost.

In an interview with Vice News, a member of the SOF spoke candidly about their mission. He revealed that the group was prepared to unleash hell on the Russian invaders, using their training and expertise to wreak havoc behind enemy lines. But their mission went beyond just combat—it also involved rooting out Russian sleeper cells that had infiltrated Ukrainian territory before the war even began.

The existence of these sleeper cells added another layer of complexity to the conflict, as Ukrainian forces fought not only against the Russian army but also against clandestine operatives lurking in their midst. But the SOF was undeterred. With unwavering resolve and a relentless determination to defend their homeland, they continued to hunt down and neutralize these threats, striking fear into the hearts of their adversaries.

As the war raged on, the SOF remained a force to be reckoned with—a symbol of Ukrainian defiance against Russian aggression. And though the road ahead was fraught with danger and uncertainty, they stood ready to face whatever challenges lay ahead, knowing that if they drew breath, they would continue to fight for freedom, for justice, and for the future of their nation.

The post Ukraine’s special forces trained by US will fight on appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

The Washington Post’s report, based on interviews with commanders and newly deployed troops, reveals a concerning trend where units on the front lines must re-train soldiers arriving from rear positions. 

The testimony from Officer Schmidt of the 93rd Mechanized Brigade provides a firsthand account of the challenges faced by Ukrainian troops on the front lines. 

The 93rd Mechanized Brigade’s involvement in some of the war’s fiercest battles emphasizes the gravity of the issue. 

The account of the soldier, identified as Val from the 93rd Mechanized Brigade, underscores the urgency with which troops are being sent to the front lines. The short notice given to Val before his deployment exemplifies the intense demands placed on Ukrainian forces amid ongoing hostilities. 

The accounts provided by soldiers from the 42nd Mechanized Brigade in Kharkiv paint a stark picture of the challenges faced by Ukrainian troops and the inadequacies of their training facilities. 

The reported deficiencies in Ukraine’s training centers, including shortages of basic ammunition like Soviet-caliber bullets and inadequate grenade training, highlight systemic issues within the military infrastructure. 

The absence of a proper training system, as lamented by the instructor, underscores the broader challenges facing Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense in ensuring the readiness and effectiveness of its armed forces. 

Why the world cares about Ukraine’s training

While Kyiv has begun receiving a long-awaited tranche of US military equipment and weaponry, the dwindling manpower poses a significant obstacle to maximizing the effectiveness of these resources.

In response to the manpower shortage, member states of NATO, including the Baltic States and France, are considering plans to deploy military trainers in Ukraine to assist in preparing new waves of troops. However, this proposal has drawn criticism from Russia and pro-Kremlin pundits, who view it as an escalation by NATO that crosses a red line.

Meanwhile, Russia has ramped up its military efforts, rapidly recruiting new troops and accelerating production in its defense manufacturing industry. Analysts suggest that Russia’s ability to resupply the battlefield with troops and equipment indicates its capacity to withstand heavy losses for an extended period.

These developments underscore the complex dynamics at play in the region, highlighting the delicate balance of power and the potential for further escalation in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. 

Ukraine’s struggle to recruit and train new personnel amid the threat of long-range Russian strikes highlights the precarious security situation facing the country. The vulnerability of Ukraine’s rear areas to such attacks further complicates efforts to conduct training effectively within the country.

Given these challenges, Kyiv may indeed face limited options and could increasingly turn to NATO states for assistance, particularly in training personnel to operate new Western-supplied equipment. Utilizing facilities and expertise in NATO member states may offer a safer and more conducive environment for training, mitigating the risks posed by potential Russian aggression.

Collaborating with NATO allies not only provides Ukraine with access to advanced training resources but also strengthens its interoperability with Western military forces. This cooperation enhances Ukraine’s defense capabilities and reinforces its strategic partnership with NATO, potentially deterring further aggression from Russia.

However, such reliance on external training facilities also underscores the urgency for Ukraine to bolster its domestic military infrastructure and develop safe training areas within its borders. This would reduce dependence on foreign assistance and enhance the country’s self-sufficiency in defense preparedness. 

Overall, Ukraine’s efforts to navigate these challenges reflect the complex geopolitical dynamics in the region and the imperative for strategic partnerships to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity against external threats.

The challenges faced by Ukraine in recruiting and training new personnel amidst the threat of long-range Russian strikes highlight the urgency of addressing the country’s security needs. With the vulnerability of Ukraine’s rear areas to potential Russian attacks, conducting training within the country becomes increasingly risky.

While Ukraine prioritizes training and skill development, Russia’s tactics have been characterized by a willingness to sacrifice inexperienced troops for strategic gains.

Kyiv may indeed be compelled to explore options such as sending personnel to NATO states for training, particularly when it comes to familiarizing Ukrainian operators with new Western-supplied equipment. 

The post Ukraine’s training: A challenge appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

The four suspected gunmen under arrest are all citizens of Tajikistan, a central Asian nation that was once part of the Soviet Union. Following the Crocus City attack, Russian police started rounding up and deporting workers who are originally from Tajikistan, as well as from Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The attack, which Russia has blamed on Ukraine, also sparked massive police raids, document checks of migrants as well as harassment towards central Asian immigrants . There are an estimated 10 million labour migrants from central Asia living in Russia, according to the Russian interior ministry. Central Asian migrants have seen Russia’s recent labour shortages, the result of of conscription and the Ukraine war, as an opportunity to find work.

What might change?

Russia’s war in Ukraine has also been an opportunity for these republics to choose a more independent political path, while Vladimir Putin’s attention was elsewhere. A complete break with Russia is unlikely due to geographical proximity and intertwined economies. But there have been some signs that central Asian nations are interested in making their own political decisions without constantly checking with Russia.

One was the refusal of Kazakhstan’s president, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, in June 2022 to recognise Russia’s annexation of the partially occupied Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk into the Russian Federation. Tokayev also said that Kazakhstan had no intention of helping Russia to circumvent western economic sanctions. The region also did not support Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008. But central Asia republics were more reluctant to condemn the annexation of Crimea in 2014, taking a more neutral position. Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine the region has been looking for opportunities to build its relationships with other nations without upsetting Russia.

Leaders of central Asian republics have also shown their disapproval of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in more subtle ways. Most of them, except Turkmenistan, opened their borders to accept thousands of Russian citizens looking for refuge and to escape conscription. This did not go unnoticed in Moscow, where measures to reverse immigration were introduced.

Meanwhile, at home these regional leaders find fewer people who speak Russian and are interested in Russian culture. Polls indicate that many people in central Asia (49% in Kyrgyzstan, 43% in Kazakhstan) blame their current economic problems on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There have been anti-war protests in Kazakhstan and some entertainment venues are refusing to host Russian stars. Central Asian media outlets have been blocked in Russia for trying to cover the war in Ukraine objectively.

However, at the United Nations general assembly, these states either abstain from voting to condemn Russia’s war in Ukraine or vote with Russia on resolutions, including one on violations of human rights in Crimea.

Historically, Moscow sees its role in the region as a security guarantor, and as a founding member of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) which aims to ensure peace and stability in the region. Russian paratroopers arrived in Kazakhstan after Tokayev had requested assistance from the CSTO with the protests that broke out in January 2022. The unprecedented unrest, known as Bloody January, started peacefully but quickly turned violent.

People took to the streets to protest a sharp increase in fuel prices, clashing with police and looting and attacking government property.

Despite the apparent need to restore order, the Kazakh public was disgruntled by such a blatant intervention in the country’s internal affairs. There was a general air of relief when Russian troops left.

Overall, central Asia is walking a fine line between pursuing more independence from Russia and not disturbing the regional balance of power.

One sign of change was a meeting in 2023 between regional presidents, including Sadyr Japarov of the Kyrgyz Republic and Tokayev, with US president Joe Biden in New York and with German chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin. It appears that while central Asian countries were not ready to talk about regional security, they were interested in discussing green energy, climate change, and stabilising Afghanistan.

What the west wants

The west will see this as an opportunity to build alliances and to offset Russian influence, given the area’s strategic importance and abundance of natural resources. By fostering these relationships, western countries can potentially secure energy supplies and promote stability in a region historically dominated by Russia. In return, central Asian republics might seek economic investment and technological development, and potentially support to strengthen their political independence.

As Russia prepares for a long war, there are likely to be further opportunities for central Asia to forge a new relationship with the west, but any shift is expected to be gradual.

Source: The Conversation

The post Ukraine War: Why Central Asian Countries want to Move Away from Russian Control appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.