Chirol discusses US military involvement in the Caspian region. Note that he mentions military aid to Kazakhstan, which is one of the things I was referring to when I said that Kazakhstan might drift some but not too much from the US.
What should we make of all of this? Watch for an increased US troop presence in Georgia in the name of the War on Terror. Expect to at least see more high profile pressure coming from the US, EU and GUAM in solving the aforementioned regional conflicts. GUAM seems to also be hinting at enlargement. Will we see any moves in the direction of Turkmenistan by the US?
I agree that GUAM will seek to enlarge and take a much more active and concerted role in pressuring Russia and its allies to settle the secessionist problems faced by Georgia and Moldova. I don’t, however, think that we should expect to see too many more US troops in Georgia. This could surely change, but the US has shown much more interest in training the Georgian military to hold its own (to the point that Russia has tried to negotiate deals that would prevent the possibility of its troops having to face US-trained Georgian troops). And I don’t see us making any overtures to Turkmenistan while Turkmenbashi is still running the show. He’s too unreliable. But after him? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 4 comments }
Glad to hear you chiming in. Turkmenistan was a thought. Considering Russia and Iran, who also share the Caspian, are out of US reach/influence, and Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are already coming our way, Turkmenistan would be the only other country to possibly be courted.
As for Georgia, we’ll have to see. I don’t see large numbers of actual combat troops going there in any case, but think regardless of which regional conflict they aim to work on first, that will bring more troops/aid/training to Georgia as they are involved in most of the issues.
The State Dept’s mention about Georgia being a transit point for terrorists is odd though as we’d rather want to bolster Georgian strength and security in the region not deal a blow to it by bad international press coverage that could have been avoided. In addition, it gives the Russians ammunition to use against Georgia. Therefore, I have to imagine that they released this story for a reason, such as to provide legitimate cover for more troops to go without irking Russia too much.
This is more what I had in mind.
At the same time, the mention may have been to add fuel to the fire to try to get outside border monitors back in. Georgia does have a hard time controlling sections of its border and Russia likes to exploit this when the rhetoric gets hot between the two. Without outside monitors, it’s easier to do so.
The mention of Georgia as a waypoint for terrorists is nothing new, and AFAIK is a reference to the Pankissi Gorge, where Russia accuses Chechen terrorists of hiding out.
I realise Georgian border security has long been a problem which led me to wonder why, after things had at least fallen off the news’ radar for awhile, that they would want to relese a report which they could just have well buried or left for later.
Comments on this entry are closed.