Russia's policy-making elite is divided over how to respond to the sweeping geopolitical shift that has occurred in Central Asia - the region Russian strategists have portrayed since the end of the 19th century as the country's soft underbelly. The sudden arrival of US forces in Central Asia has prompted unprecedented criticism of the Russian government's handling of post-September 11 developments. President Vladimir Putin, however, provides no indication that he is feeling pressure to change Russian policy.
Several Russian media outlets portray the US presence in Central Asia as a significant threat to Russian national security. The establishment of US bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan "is comparable, in its geopolitical significance, with the unification of Germany," the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper said. Some Inside-the-Ring Road analysts in Moscow have accused the government of "losing" Central Asia. "In the result of the destruction of its old enemy [the Taliban in Afghanistan], Russia has lost its geopolitical bridgehead in Central Asia," one observer said.
All this criticism, notes Vyacheslav Nikonov, president of Politika Foundation, a Moscow-based think tank, "begins to create problems for President Putin, for it questions the rationale of his [foreign policy] course aimed at the support of the anti-terrorist operation and closer relations with the West in general, and the US in particular."
Publicly, Putin appears unaffected by the criticism. In a February 11 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Putin indicated that the domestic debate surrounding the anti-terrorism campaign was being blown out of proportion. The Russian president seems to believe that the benefits of deepened economic cooperation with the United States, driven by the two countries' anti-terrorism alliance, outweigh the loss of geopolitical stature in Central Asia.
"Decisions are taken on the basis of what we need in reality, not on the moon," Putin said in the interview. "If we were to view the U[nited] S[ates] as an enemy, even within the anti-terrorist coalition, then we would have to behave differently. But if we believe that we can be partners, and, in the more distant future, even allies, then our behavior
Editor's note:
Igor Torbakov is a freelance journalist who specializes in CIS political affairs. He holds an MA in History from Moscow State University and a PhD from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He was a Regional Exchange Scholar at the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC, 1995; Research Scholar at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1988-1997; and Kiev correspondent for the Paris-based weekly Russkaya mysl, 1998-2000.
