As protests continue in Kyrgyzstan, wider geopolitical implications have begun to emerge. Russia’s offer of assistance appears to have been warmly received, while the United States and China, both rivals to Moscow for influence in Central Asia, struggle to craft a diplomatic response to events. Though there is no concrete evidence of a Russian hand in the removal of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev’s government, it marks another step in the rollback of Western influence in the former Soviet sphere.
The Kyrgyz uprising has come to be regarded, whether true or not, as a pro-Russian action on the part of the protesters. And only months after the reversal of the 2005 Orange Revolution in Ukraine and Russia’s resurgence in the former Soviet country, the dethroning of the Tulip Revolution of Kyrgyzstan that brought Bakiyev into power (ironically also in 2005) is seen as another symbol of the reconstruction of Russian power in its near abroad.As the situation in Kyrgyzstan continues to play outfollowing the April 7 ouster of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev and the rise of the opposition government, some geopolitical ripple effects have begun to emerge.
Though the chaos in the streets continues, the transition of power (while not yet official) went smoothly, with an organized opposition government created quickly and standing ready to take the former government’s place. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was quick to endorse the new government and condemned Bakiyev for the nepotistic policies that contributed to his unpopularity.
Meanwhile, it is clear from reports on the ground that public opinion of the United States in Kyrgyzstan has not been favorable. As the protests escalated, U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said, “We work with that sitting government. We have — as we’ve outlined in various reports, including the Human Rights Report — we have concerns about issues, intimidation by the government, corruption within the government…but that said, there is a sitting government. We work closely with that government. We are allied with that government in terms of its support for international operations in Afghanistan.”
This contrasts sharply from the open offer of assistance from Putin to the new government. Other reports circulating in the Kyrgyz press appear to have taken Crowley’s words out of context to imply the United States was opposed to any attempted removal of Bakiyev. While no such comments were made, they have been widely disseminated in the Kyrgyz media.
There are also reports that Bakiyev’s son — who was appointed to a key economic post and is regarded by many as the epitome of Bakiyev’s nepotism — has fled to the United States after the collapse of his father’s government. There are far fewer people in the country who are criticizing the comments made by Putin, who urged both the opposition and government to show restraint, but particularly called out the latter.
It has been reported that the presence of Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents has been conspicuous in Kyrgyzstan over the last 24 hours. These reports cannot be confirmed, and if true, may not mean Moscow had any direct role in the April 7 coup — but they underscore the feeling among Kyrgyz citizens that Russia’s influence in the country is pervasive. The protests and riots led to looting and destruction of several government buildings and businesses; moreover, it appears that no U.S. or Russian infrastructure was directly targeted, although several Chinese markets were burned. These attacks are unverified, but they do track with a rising anger among the public in Kyrgyzstan and the wider Central Asia region over China. China has been quick to condemn the events in Kyrgyzstan, fearing that a government crumbling in a neighboring country threatens its own security situation, particularly one that borders the autonomy-minded Xinjiang province. If these rumors prove true, they will leave Beijing nervous about its Central Asia policy.
The Russians have been careful not to exploit the situation in Kyrgyzstan and have been measured in their response. Russia already has widespread influence and levers there, so there is no need for the Kremlin to overplay its hand. But as the United States and China struggle to craft their diplomatic response and cope with their interests in the country, the people in Kyrgyzstan seem to perceive their current stance unfavorably. And as the saying goes, perception is reality, and Moscow is the clear victor in this regard.
