Were Russia to have a major military base in Central America, Washington would not be pleased. The Bush White House was quietly annoyed even by Russian naval vessels training with the Venezuelan Navy last year. Therefore Russian disquiet at the Americans having their major Afghan logistical support base at Manas, just outside Kyrgyzstan’s capital Bishkek, is understandable. Established in 2001, since the Americans quit their main facility in Kyrgyzstan’s neighbor Uzbekistan in 2005, Manas has played a key role as a troop transit and aircraft refueling point for US air and ground operations in Afghanistan.
Despite Moscow’s denials, it is clear that the decision of the Kyrgyz government to terminate Washington’s use of the base is a significant diplomatic coup for the Russians. Bishkek announced the move within hours of signing a $2 billion aid deal with the Kremlin. Washington’s reaction has appeared slightly muddled. Even as the end of the agreement was announced, US sources were still suggesting a new deal was still on the cards and pointing to the fact that the Kyrgyz Parliament still needed to vote on the issue later this month. Meanwhile, it was also being suggested that talks with the Uzbek authorities for a return to the old American base at Karshi-Khanabad were at an advanced stage. If true, this would be surprising, since it was US criticism of human rights abuses by Uzbek strongman President Islam Abduganiyevich Karimov that led to the previous ejection of the US military presence. Nothing would seem to have changed in Uzbekistan. However, in Barack Obama, America now has a president who would surely feel uncomfortable cutting deals with such a regime.
The problem facing Washington is that thanks to increased Taleban attacks, the military land supply route from Pakistan is no longer secure. It needs a more secure staging post outside of Afghanistan. The Russians, however, have offered to assist the US and NATO by providing corridors for nonlethal supplies into Afghanistan. Since Russia no longer has a border with that country, both air and ground corridors are likely to have to also pass across Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan and for any land route, certainly through Kazakhstan to the north. The Kremlin would, doubtless, be happy to broker such routes in return for US agreement to abandon the idea of Central European bases on what used to be Russian territory. Russia might also seek a deal on the US presence in Georgia, no doubt in return for a continued free hand against the Chechen fighters. It might even be that as part of a rerun of the 19th century “Great Game” they played with British in India, the Russians are seeking to wreck American involvement in Afghanistan, in revenge for US support of those who defeated Moscow’s own in 1979. This may all be entertaining for geopoliticians. However, at stake while Moscow and Washington wrangle is the fate of the Afghan people, largely betrayed by international donors and now mired in new violence because the West failed to capitalize immediately on the Taleban’s ouster.
