New democratic Kirgizia wants withdrawal of American forces

[takeo]

Kyrgyzstan currently hosts both an American and a Russian military base.

Russia and China are keen to limit America's military presence in Central Asia, and have called for discussions on a withdrawal date for American troops. Mr Bakiev has now echoed this call.

The situation in Afghanistan is stabilising, he said, "so the time has come to reconsider the question of why American forces are here. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4674571.stm

[Reffo]

Wow.....!!!! How happy does this make you????????????? :D

[takeo]

It shows US-presence in the former Soviet-Union is temporary, Russia is regaining influence in the region.

[nuttie]

It shows US-presence in the former Soviet-Union is temporary, Russia is regaining influence in the region.Is that a good thing in your view? and why?

[Mediocrates]

Sounds like blackmail given the billions the US poured into Uzbekistan to maintain American airbases there. Kyrgyz is a very poor country.

[Cellis]

Russia loses wings nearest him and it makes me more happy. USA is moving to asia now... im hoping same things for other Turkic countries too. e.g. azerbaijan, turkmenisten, ozbekistan and so on... thus tukic countries may unite and give bases to usa and other allies, russia could be pushed away.. king regards and thanks to usa

[Mil]

It shows US-presence in the former Soviet-Union is temporary, Russia is regaining influence in the region.

Russia f**up in Georgia and Ukraine. Influence my b****tte

[KettleWhistle]

Who cares? The U.S. doesn't need bases in Kyrgizstan, and it's not any loss of influence, just demagoguery. I know several Kyrgizs, and other people from that region. They want Russia's influence as much as they want plague, and understandably so.

[Mil]

Mama Asia.

[Reffo]

It shows US-presence in the former Soviet-Union is temporary, Russia is regaining influence in the region.You mean peace loving, non imperialist, benevolent Mother Russia ? :rolleyes:

[takeo]

Is that a good thing in your view? and why?

Yes, because of the historical and economic ties with Russia, this is a country which belongs to the Russian "near-abraod", US-influence in this region is destabilising, I'm sure you wouldn't want Russian or Chinese military bases in Mexico either.

[takeo]

Sounds like blackmail given the billions the US poured into Uzbekistan to maintain American airbases there. Kyrgyz is a very poor country.

maybe they didn't pay enough, but in any case they made clear the US-bases or not for granted and Kirgizistan will not become a US-puppet.

[takeo]

Russia loses wings nearest him and it makes me more happy. USA is moving to asia now... im hoping same things for other Turkic countries too. e.g. azerbaijan, turkmenisten, ozbekistan and so on... thus tukic countries may unite and give bases to usa and other allies, russia could be pushed away.. king regards and thanks to usa

Well, unfortunately for you, it's not going to happen. Instead of looking towards Central Asia, why not start with Armenia, your neighbour...

[takeo]

It shows US-presence in the former Soviet-Union is temporary, Russia is regaining influence in the region.

Russia f**up in Georgia and Ukraine. Influence my b****tte

Yes, but it is regaining influence in Central-Asia instead. Also Ukrain and Georgia will not relinquish Russia too much, Russians have the key to solving the separatist conflicts in Georgia as well as to finally defreezing georgia's economy. The new regime in Georgia couldn't revive Georgia's economy nor restore territorial integrity, its days are numbered. While Yukashenko knows very well he needs Russia for stability in Russianspeaking eastern Ukrain as well as for the Ukrainian economy. Yukashenko seems like a reasonable guy, and while he pleaded for EU-membership of Ukrain he didn't embrace the US, his first foreign visit was to Moscow and his second to Iran, furthermore, he wants Ukrainian troops to leave Iraq.

[takeo]

Who cares? The U.S. doesn't need bases in Kyrgizstan, and it's not any loss of influence, just demagoguery. I know several Kyrgizs, and other people from that region. They want Russia's influence as much as they want plague, and understandably so.

You apparently have never visited kirgizistan. Kirgiz adore Russia, they also love Lenin and all other Soviet-symbols, since their life standards dropped faster than the titanic since independance.

[takeo]

You mean peace loving, non imperialist, benevolent Mother Russia ? :rolleyes:

I didn't say so, but clearly they prefere the imperialists they already know above new alien ones.(see an interesting BBC-documentory about Kirgizistan, very informative)

[Reffo]

LOL, you mean "better the devil you know....." and all that jazz? Yes, I can understand that but why are you so gleeful about it? You mean you too know the Russians better than the Americans?

[Cellis]

Well, unfortunately for you, it's not going to happen. Instead of looking towards Central Asia, why not start with Armenia, your neighbour... how jealous are you :D

[Mediocrates]

maybe they didn't pay enough, but in any case they made clear the US-bases or not for granted and Kirgizistan will not become a US-puppet.


yeah whatever, it's about money.

[Mediocrates]

Maybe the Uzbeks will find in the Russians someone more supportive than the US of their recent massacre of hundreds of protestors. Apparently the Uzbeks were officially outraged that the US was not publically appreciative of their attempts at crowd control. The Russians on the other hand are used to this sort of thing.

[takeo]

LOL, you mean "better the devil you know....." and all that jazz? Yes, I can understand that but why are you so gleeful about it? You mean you too know the Russians better than the Americans?

The Russians know kirgizistan much better, and all modern history of the nation is connected to Russia, besides this the Soviets did a remarcable job to modernise this central-Asian country while still many Russians reside in Kirgizistan. it's only natural for this country to belong to Russian sphere of influence instead of being opposed to Russia, still their largest economic and military partner. Also this country is a neighbour of China, I'm quite sure China doesn't fancy an American military base near its border and it wouldn't benefit economic relations with China.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:


The Russians know kirgizistan much better, and all modern history of the nation is connected to Russia, besides this the Soviets did a remarcable job to modernise this central-Asian country while still many Russians reside in Kirgizistan. it's only natural for this country to belong to Russian sphere of influence instead of being opposed to Russia, still their largest economic and military partner.

Yeah - Kirgizstant is definetly an economic and military giant!!!!


Also this country is a neighbour of China, I'm quite sure China doesn't fancy an American military base near its border and it wouldn't benefit economic relations with China.

There are US troops in Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, Afganistan - all much sloser to China then Kirgizstan.

[Illuminatus]

The US Airforce has about 1,000 troops stationed at Ganci air base housed in tents and semi-permanent traliers, which is located at Manas airport in Kyrgyzstan.

Just about all of the 11 nations that have special forces in Afghanistan have units that are supplied via the airbase or transported from Ganci which helps support the largest coalition ever in history. ( http://www.centcom.mil/Operations/Coalition/joint.htm)

It has been a pretty good logistics and support base. The Air Force also operates KC-135 refueling aircraft and C-130 cargo planes operate from Ganci.

Nice to have the all that attention from the Russians and Chinese but:

[..A decision on the future of the U.S. airbase in Kyrgyzstan will be made on a bilateral basis..]

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11337754

[takeo]

Yeah - Kirgizstant is definetly an economic and military giant!!!!

so?


There are US troops in Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, Afganistan - all much sloser to China then Kirgizstan.

As you said Kirgizistan is not an economic nor political giant and it is most kirgizistan who would benefit from more economical cooperation. They should try their best to please the Chinese. As in the case of Georgia it's not the faraway US nor Europe who is going to save their economy, it's their natural and longlasting tradepartner Russia.

[Illuminatus]

from the Chicago Tribune:

[.. U.S. troops can remain at Manas and Karshi-Khanabad only as long as the governments of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan allow them to stay.

After meeting with Rumsfeld on Tuesday in Bishkek, the Kyrgyz capital, Kyrgyz leaders said Rumsfeld convinced them that Afghanistan remains volatile, and that Manas is needed to provide logistical support for operations there.

"The base at Manas will stay as long as the situation in Afghanistan requires," acting Kyrgyz Defense Minister Ismail Isakov said during a news conference with Rumsfeld. "Once there is stabilization, there will be no need. But now I agree with [Rumsfeld], who said the situation in Afghanistan is far from stable." ..]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507270079jul27,1,5783234.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Looks like China, Russia and our resident forum Saddamite have lost yet another one. Sorry 'bout that : )

Time to lock this thread?

[KettleWhistle]

You apparently have never visited kirgizistan. Kirgiz adore Russia, they also love Lenin and all other Soviet-symbols, since their life standards dropped faster than the titanic since independance.
No, I've never visited it, and have not plans to do so. Most people I know are those with higher education, who are happy that they were able to get the hell out of FSU, and they understand the particulars of the situation. Likewise, majority of Kyrgizs with higher education aren't interested in demagoguery, and do not hate those countries whose people built a better, more prosperous lives for themselves.

[Morava]

Speaking from Serbian point of wiew, situation is interesting.
First of all, "New democracies" are totaly ynstabile, and mostly runed by unimaginative, non-responsabile people. In serbia, in 2000. pres. Milosevic was overthrowned by democrates. Fall of national standard, unemployment quickly destabilised new- amateuristic run goverment, resultin in assasination of primeminister Djindjic. His party than lost elections and other people came to power. Now, even that goverent is unstabile, depression is depening, inflation is going up and somethin else brought rating of govrement on 7%. Some days ago foreighn minister Draskovic sighned a treati with NATO of stafe transport thrue Serbia-Montenegro of troops and equpment and using some millitary instalations. Now, I myself am trying to explain to some people taht Bush administration is not Anti-Serbic like Klinton (war 1999) was. But that treaty just made it all worst. Noone likes foreighn trops in his countri, so question is what will hapen when goverment falls? Will Serbia ask NATO to leave like Georgia did to Russian? USA, Russia, its all the same, foreighn troops are foreighn troops.
US presance in former USSR is uncertain. Costly and too small to have any millitary meaning.

[KettleWhistle]

It seems that the problem there is more that of people instituting a bad system. As for foreign troops, it really depends, and many people really don't care, while many others are happy to have clientelle for their businesses. In regards to USSR, the end of the Cold War should've helped, not hurt it. Has it been managed properly, it would've allowed the resources previously used for Cold War and the Afghanistan War to be used for general developement. It is pretty ridiculous to blame someone else for the results of Soviet and FSU governments' incompetency, as takeo likes to do.

As for most of the FSU countries, their biggest problem has been the dependence on Russia. Now, they are becoming more and more industrially and economically independent, so the econo-political situations there are expected to improve.

As for the issues pertaining to Central Europe, it isn't all uniform. Poland, Hungary, Chehia, and Slovakia are doing quite well. Countries of the former Yugoslavia went though over a decade of dramatic instability, so you can't really expect that things will instantly improve.

[Morava]

We miss a point here.

There are countries USA, Serbia, France and Kyrghistan. But not alll of them are nations.
Per example, you can proclaim any peace of teritory indipendent country, but that country is nation only if it is inhabited with people, nation with awareness of statehood and indipendence. USA, Serbia and France are nations. Can you imagine wellcoming to the Russian troops in their basess in USA by American people? No. France, That country is all but nation, liberated, given power and protection by USA. Serbia, established itself by war against Turks from 1804-1815, without any direct millitary help, so Serbia built itself. And major event of serbian way toward indipendence is withdrawal of Turkish garrisons in 1867. From 1867 up to 1999, Serbia never hade foreighn troops on its teritory except Austro-Hungarian, Third Reich, and NATO, all three concidered foe. Now, we may concider USA as not-enemy, maybe as partner, but NATO is concidered 4th Reich and enemy. Kirgystan, Bosnia and other small "nations" can be happy that their teritory is used by foreighn troops, but Serbs arn`t. If we are allies, maybe, but this one is different, and people think that our goverment did sighn a deal with NATO behind nations back. It will worsten situation. We just need time to cool-off.

[Morava]

As for the issues pertaining to Central Europe, it isn't all uniform. Poland, Hungary, Chehia, and Slovakia are doing quite well. Countries of the former Yugoslavia went though over a decade of dramatic instability, so you can't really expect that things will instantly improve.

Not realy.

Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Romania were Nazi znd Stalin`s allies, they are used to be allies to leading worlds power. Chehia and Polan were occupied by Nazis and Chehia and Hungary by Soviets. Under that occupation they never insurect or made any remarkabile uprising. You must look at the date of indipendence of those countries:

Chehia 1918 peacefully (from Austria-Hungary under ower 300 years)
Slovakia 1918-1941-1992 (from Austria-Hungary, Nazi puppet)
Hungary 1918 (From Austria, last significant national uprising 1848)
Bulgaria (1878 Turky, Nazi, Stalin`s allie)
Croatia 1941/1991 (Yugoslavia, Nazi allie, from A-Hungary entered yugoslavia)
Bosnia 1992-1995 (yugoslavia, from A-Hungary entered Yugoslavia)
Slovenia 1992 (from A-hungary entered Yugoslavia)
Poland 1918 (from Austria-Russia-Germani)
Serbia 1804-1815-1878 from turkish empire.

none of "New europe" members are known for large national uprising r for fighting on the right side except Serbia-Montenegro.

[Morava]

What I wanted to ay is
There is one nation in Europe that is prefering soverenity and complete indipendence over "well-going".
Name of that nation is Serbia.