Military Review

One and a half billion dollars for Central Asia

84
One and a half billion dollars is the sum of the following components: 1,1 billion dollars, which Russia will spend on reequipping the Kyrgyz army; 0,2 billion, which it will issue to the needs of the armed forces of Tajikistan; 0,2 billion more - in the form of benefits to Tajiks for the supply of petroleum products. This is done in response to US attempts to oust the Russian Federation in Central Asia.

The other day, the chairman of the State Committee on National Security of Tajikistan, Saymumin Yatimov, during the transfer of two border outposts in the Khatlon region in the south of the country call US "a friend and a strategic partner."

The basis for statements about the "friendship" was the fact that the US government has invested more than 4 million dollars in the construction and modernization of military facilities in Tajikistan bordering Afghanistan. The chairman of the State Committee for National Security of Tajikistan said:

"Measures such as the construction of outposts provide security not only on the Tajik-Afghan border, but also are of great importance for regional security, including Russia and our European partners."


Therefore, it's time to give an answer. However, experts already warnedthat for Moscow it is a “risky step with difficultly predictable consequences.”

Two hundred million dollars in Tajikistan will be spent on the modernization of the republic’s air defense, as well as on the repair of military equipment. During the recent visit of Vladimir Putin to Dushanbe, an agreement was reached to extend the lease of the 201 Russian military base for 30 years without new payments. As Kommersant found out, another agreement was reached: on providing benefits to Tajikistan for the supply of Russian oil products. The Russian Federation will not charge Tajikistan with fees in an amount that is close to that which Dushanbe requested for the base - about $ 200 million per year.

As for Kyrgyzstan, the source of “Kommersant” in the General Staff of the Russian Federation says that the Russian Defense Ministry by March 2013 of the year should agree with Bishkek on the product range that will be covered by the program. And the first batches of Russian weapons It supposed to be sent to Kyrgyzstan in the summer of 2013 years.

Kyrgyz Army like пишет Almazbek Dzhumashev, is in that condition, which can be briefly said - life “by notions”:

“Any army is a mirror of society. Everything that happens in society, takes place in the army. Corruption, bribery, nationalism, lawlessness, recently swept over Kyrgyzstan, as reflected in the army. It is hard to imagine, but in our army they live not by the rules, but by the rules. Each commander tries to "make money" using his official position. Persons of non-titular nationality under various pretexts are dismissed from subdivisions, in the wording “unreliable”.

Against this background, there is an acute shortage of personnel officers in the units of the Armed Forces. Young people do not want to be officers because of low wages and the lack of prospects for the future. ”


The analyst talks about the deplorable situation of the Kyrgyz army: its unpreparedness for hostilities; about levies, which are engaged in the staff of the special department, pressing the commanders of the military units to which they are assigned; about the negative impression of service in the army, firmly fixed in the minds of all future draftees; about nationalism.

“It’s hard to call this gathering an army, living by the principle -“ war is nonsense, the main maneuvers, ”concludes Almazbek Dzhumashev.


Как recognized President Atambayev, only the 25 brigade of the special forces "Scorpion" (in the preparation of which NATO participated) meets the modern requirements in Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyz gunners, for example, are still using 122- and 152-mm howitzers M-30 and D-1 of the 1938 and 1943 model. The Kyrgyz army noticeably lags behind its neighbors in the region.

To say that the Tajik army is armed with the latest military science and technology, is also impossible. In addition, it is not a secret to anyone that, unlike other former Central Asian republics, Tajikistan did not “inherit” Soviet weapons. The Russian Ministry of Defense instead took control of the very 201 motorized rifle division. Throughout 1990, the Tajik army had low discipline; desertion, massive draft evasion became the norm.

At present, the armed forces of Tajikistan are a fairly efficient structure, composed from the ground forces, mobile troops, air defense forces, and the air force (in 2005, the air defense forces and the air force were combined into one branch of the military). The army is equipped mainly with Soviet armaments and military equipment. Therefore, the armed forces of Tajikistan are now experiencing the need to equip units with modern models of weapons and military equipment, creating the necessary material and technical base.

The source of the newspaper "Kommersant" in the Russian government claimsthat, investing in the modernization of the Kyrgyz and Tajik armies, Moscow intends to "strengthen the CSTO potential, taking into account the threats that may arise after the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in 2014 year", and at the same time load the enterprises of the Russian defense industry. Along with this, the publication's interlocutor acknowledges that Russia hopes to prevent the United States from gaining ground in Central Asia.

Alexei Malashenko of the Carnegie Moscow Center, считаетthat, investing huge sums in the rearmament of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, “the Russian Federation goes for broke”:

"It's a risky move with unpredictable consequences. The Russian Federation is not only signing under the support of not the most stable regimes in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, but also makes a gesture that will complicate its already problematic relations with Uzbekistan. ”


According to Analysts at Central Asian news services ”, one and a half Moscow billion - this is a contribution to the geopolitical struggle for influence in the region:

"A generous offer is intended to be a convincing argument for abandoning NATO weapons, which members of the organization plan to leave in Central Asian countries after the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan."


Indeed, in May of this year, Kyrgyzstan signed an agreement with NATO in Chicago on the transit of non-military and military cargo through its territory by air and ground. The “model” treaties were signed by the Alliance with Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. It was also about assistance to the countries of Central Asia in the form of military equipment: the last coalition plans to leave the national armies.

As a result, this situation may arise: the region will be divided into two groups - the first will be Uzbekistan, which will receive NATO equipment and money for the transit of goods, and the second will be Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan (they will receive Russian equipment and will refuse NATO).

The fire of the arms race adds fuel to the conflict over water. After all, Russia in the territory of Kyrgyzstan will be building hydropower plants, analysts say, who will have to defend against countries located downstream. But for this and need a Russian military base and new weapons.

Together with Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan will probably enter the arms race:

“Supplies of Russian weapons for such a significant amount will force Uzbekistan to arm as well. Naturally, it will be followed by Kazakhstan, which also considers itself the main country in the region. They will prove this by quantifying the money spent, for example, that their military budget was 2 more than all the military budgets in the region combined. ”


Head of the Department of Central Asia and Kazakhstan at the Institute of CIS Countries Andrei Grozin saysthat when deciding to invest in the armies of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, "the Americans were the last thing to think about." According to the expert, such a decision in general had to be made "at least a couple of years ago." Grozin explained this opinion with the imminent deterioration of security in the region:

“In 2014 and 2013, the situation in Central Asia in terms of security will only worsen. The Americans, regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans win, will pursue a policy of gradually reducing their contingent in Afghanistan, and this in turn will cause an increase in instability in this country, because a variety of extremist organizations and movements will come to the place of the Western presence ".


The analyst notes that the chaos that we will observe in Afghanistan will not be restrained by the borders of this state. It will splash out - and first of all to the north, because Central Asia is a region with fairly weak regimes, which are easy to loosen.

So, thinking about security in Central Asia, Russia is thinking about its own security. The expert adds to the above:

"We allocate money for re-equipment so that these states can defend their own security not only relying on the Russian military bases, but also on their own forces, as any normal states and any normal political regimes should do."


In addition, we are talking about Russia's allies - in the CIS and in the CSTO.

“I think,” says Grozin, “that the decision to extend the long-term presence of Russian military facilities on the territory of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan and on the territory of the Republic of Tajikistan in conjunction with the growth and strengthening of national armies is just a solution that is designed for the future, for many decades to come ... "


Political analyst Roman Larionov считаетthat strengthening the position of Russia in Central Asia is especially important in conditions when another important competitor has intensified in the region - China:

“Any financial assistance to these countries carries a certain risk. But in conditions when the competition between Russia, the USA and China for the Central Asian republics is seriously increasing, I think the risk can be, in principle, justified. But it is necessary to secure guarantees. It is necessary to conclude specific agreements with specific obligations. ”


Contracts, of course, will be. Money without contracts is not given.

Analyst Maria Solovyova sees in the gradual implementation of the Central Asian plans of the Kremlin the road to the Eurasian Union. She is считаетthat the part responsible for Asia is becoming more and more distinct.

“At one time, 10 years ago, Vladimir Putin went to meet George W. Bush, giving the go-ahead to the opening of American bases in Central Asia, now it looks like he is not going to repeat the old mistake, consistently insisting on closing the American base in Kyrgyzstan. Unfortunately, this issue has not yet been resolved with Uzbekistan, and it seems that the Kyrgyz have been able to reach an agreement. However, the time will come and Uzbekistan. ”


Meanwhile, Solovyov notes, the Russian president’s geopolitical ambitions are imputed to him by a part of the country's political elite: after all, you must first solve internal problems and then spend resources on supporting allies (not the most reliable).

“However, such speeches are given by otherworldly slyness: is it really possible to restore order in the house safely, if someone else’s armored equipment crawls with the tracks in the yard?”


Stanislav Ivanov, a well-known expert on the problems of the Near and Middle East, leading researcher at the Center for International Security of the IMEMO RAS, Ph.D. historical sciences, believesthat the main criterion in the actions of the Russian authorities in Central Asia is political calculation: not to give way in the field of military-trade cooperation to the post-Soviet space to competitors from the United States and NATO. But, the scientist wonders, how far-sighted and effective is this logic?

“... After all, one-time handouts and individual decisions to retain a monopoly on military and military-technical cooperation with the countries of Central Asia and to maintain their positions in other areas are unlikely.

The negative experience of such cooperation of the USSR with the countries of Africa, Asia, and the Near and Middle East has not been forgotten. Despite all the attempts of the Soviet leaders, we have lost almost all of our former partners in the MTC ... "


Will supplies of Russian military property help keep the Central Asian region in the zone of influence of Moscow? Wouldn't this weapon be used in civil wars? These questions are asked by the historian. And one more question, more precisely, speaking, a statement of fact: to compete with the United States in the field of weapons of Russia is becoming increasingly difficult.

After all, the GDP and scientific and technical potential of Russia are clearly losing the US, the expert believes. The science and industry of the Russian Federation cannot compete on equal terms with developed countries.

“... The Russian design bureaus often create samples of weapons and military equipment that have already been tested abroad and entered service. That is, we are behind for 3-5 years or more. No matter how puffed up our defense-industrial complex, it produces mainly obsolete moral products. Even representatives of the Russian Ministry of Defense were forced to look for weapons and individual components in the West (French Mistral, Italian all-terrain vehicles, drones, avionics, electronics, etc.). The four-day war with Georgia in August 2008, on the one hand, once again showed the whole world the valor of ordinary Russian soldiers, and on the other, it revealed many shortcomings and gaps in the equipment of the Russian army. In the era of electronic warfare, unmanned aircraft and precision weapons tank "armadas and millions of armies are ineffective, they only represent easy targets for the enemy."


S. Ivanov also notes the low standard of living of the local population (especially Tajikistan), as well as the high level of corruption, cronyism and venality of the authorities at all levels, mass unemployment, poor infrastructure, lack of schools, hospitals, etc., which radicalizes local societies, thereby creating prerequisites for internal armed conflicts.

Therefore, the historian believes, one bare striving to prevent the United States from establishing and developing military-technical cooperation with the post-Soviet states of Central Asia by all means is unproductive. We need an integrated approach based on long-term and mutually beneficial relations with these and other countries of Central Asia. This approach will help preserve and strengthen the position of Russia in the region.

However, let us say, an integrated approach is just being formed: an agreement has been concluded between Russia and Tajikistan to facilitate the migration regime, and Russia will probably participate in the construction of the Kambarata and Rogun hydropower stations. The last Tajiks alone can not be built: it takes three billion dollars.

True, many today equate the question of water in Central Asia with the question of war.

“Water resources can become a problem around which relations in the Central Asian region will worsen,” сказал two months ago Islam Karimov. “Everything can be aggravated so much that it can cause not just a religious confrontation, but war.”


And he said this in Kazakhstan, which also may have problems with water.

Head of Analytical Services of the Association for Cross-Border Cooperation Alexander Sobyanin explained:

“... it should be understood that Nursultan Nazarbayev quickly understood Karimov’s maneuver and nowhere did he support the clause that the question of water is a question of war. From the point of view of global interactions, this was, of course, not accidental. Related to this are 17 visits by American generals to Uzbekistan, who visited the Uzbek capital in October under the Capstone program, as well as visits by the head of the US Transportation Command, General William Fraser III, to Tashkent and Dushanbe, and Putin’s trip to Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. This is all much more important than, in fact, the seed that Uzbekistan and Tajikistan will fight seriously. The question of water really cannot lead to war. I, as a regional specialist, can speak firmly. The question of water is a question of political exaltation of inter-country contradictions. ”


According to the expert, there are two most important tasks in Russia today by several proxies of Comrade Putin.

The first is the upcoming merger of the Russian electric power industry in the person of RusHydro, Inter RAO UES and the network holding companies FGC and IDGC and the largest non-state producers of electricity: Irkutstkenergo, Eurosibenergo, Krasnoyarsk Hydroelectric Power Station and Boguchanskaya HPP.

"This is the first step for the addition of a giant international vertically integrated consortium that includes the most diverse generators of electricity - thermal, water, gas - which will grow and the electricity of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan."


And this is the second step. Thus, the expert concludes, Uzbekistan receives an economic challenge from Russia. The control of Moscow over the Kyrgyz and Tajik hydrogeneration will make the Uzbek pressure impossible both on the Rogun issue, on the Kambarata issue, and in general on the issue of water regulation. Karimov, according to Alexander Sobyanin, in response, is trying to prevent the realization of the Russian Eurasian integration economic super-tasks.

So, some analysts see the demarcation of Uzbekistan and Russia, passing parallel to the interests of Washington and Moscow, others point out that, where they say, Uzbekistan will disappear in the framework of the new strategic scenario of the Kremlin. Some experts believe that the Moscow project in Central Asia will not only secure Russia after the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan, but will also give new impetus to cooperation between Russia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, others doubt the success of Russia's military-technical cooperation with the countries of Central Asia, believing that it will be as unsuccessful as the military cooperation of the USSR, for example, with African countries. But no doubt: the Kremlin’s project has both an economic background (funding for the two armies implies simultaneous loading of the Russian military-industrial complex) and a political one: strengthening in the region. The latter is important - both to achieve security goals and to prevent the United States from turning around in the Central Asian “underbelly”.

Observed Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
84 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. bazilio
    bazilio 9 November 2012 08: 34
    +5
    The Russian Federation has intensified in the region, already good.
    But it seems to me that all this money will be successfully "cut and utilized" and a maximum of 50% of these funds will reach the final goal.
    The main thing is that the funds and the facilities for which they are allocated go into a peaceful channel, and not become an instrument for resolving "good neighborly" disputes
    1. Kasym
      Kasym 9 November 2012 17: 49
      +5
      I think that the funds will primarily be used to re-equip the base in Kant (which was agreed in the summer, when the question was about the long-term lease of this airfield), up to the construction of housing by the military. And also to create a base in Osh. As well as equipping weapons of the ground forces of Kyrgyzstan. I remember when the radicals invaded Kyrgyzstan, the Kyrgyz army didn’t even have mortars - I had to drag it from Kazakhstan. So I do not think that Kyrgyzstan will see the money alive.
      Also with Tajikistan. So there’s nothing special to saw.
      1. Mujahiddin777
        Mujahiddin777 9 November 2012 20: 41
        0
        These "radicals" or as amers like to call "terrorists" appear when they remind the United States of the expiration of the base in Manas. The shorter the term, the more active the terrorists wink No brainer
  2. nokki
    nokki 9 November 2012 08: 54
    +4
    Oleg for a great review +! As for Uzbekistan, there are levers of pressure on it. Guest workers are of secondary importance. After the US withdraws from Afghanistan, the Taliban will naturally rush to the North (there is the weakest point on the post-Soviet Central Asian border). The ethnic Uzbeks driven out of the north of Afghanistan, of course, will flee to flee and assert themselves in Uzbekistan. Karimov simply has no idea what kind of "bloodbath" will begin there! And that's what the Americans need!
    1. bazilio
      bazilio 9 November 2012 09: 28
      +2
      Knocky. You can believe that there will be no serious slaughter, there will be cross-border clashes. The border section is not so large, it will not be difficult to keep it. successfully fought back during the 90s and now we can handle it.
    2. aksakal
      aksakal 9 November 2012 09: 29
      +7
      Quote: nokki
      Oleg for a great review +! As for Uzbekistan, there are levers of pressure on it. Guest workers are of secondary importance. After the US withdraws from Afghanistan, the Taliban will naturally rush to the North (there is the weakest point on the post-Soviet Central Asian border). The ethnic Uzbeks driven out of the north of Afghanistan, of course, will flee to flee and assert themselves in Uzbekistan. Karimov simply has no idea what kind of "bloodbath" will begin there! And that's what the Americans need!

      - a different situation will be superimposed on it - and I can clearly see it. In Kazakhstan, difficulties begin with terrorists, more precisely, these difficulties already exist, but so far the whole world of terrorists in Kazakhstan calls them terrorists, but then the vector, RRAZ, changes, Kazakhstani terrorists, with a light movement of their information hand, turn into noble rebels, and Karimov begins becomes a kind of Erdogan here, making statements about the need to overthrow the "bloody neighbor-dictator" (we will keep silent about who Karimov is now, and we will keep silent about the Andijan events, anyway, in the eyes of the world community he will be a noble fighter against bloody dictatorships "-)) )))) with all the appropriate policy - the provision of bases on the territory of Uzbekistan to these "rebels", etc.
      Just let the Uzbeks remember - there are forum users who vehemently defend Karimov’s policy - Kazakhstan is not indecisive Syria, and Uzbekistan is far from Turkey in absolutely all respects, with such curved movements there will then be no one to send to Russia as guest workers for their well-known reasons - they just won't be. I advise you to think ten times and send the amers to the tenth time where the devil himself did not send them. Moreover, there is already experience - once the Uzbeks sent amers, than they earned approval in our countries, always do this.
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 10: 15
        -3
        Along the way, did you overheat, sitting at the monitor?
        Who were you given to? What, someone was going to organize a march to Astana? What the hell? And with what hangover? Maybe even Uzbekistan is growing your terrorists? Can you tell me where these bases are?
        1. hommer
          hommer 9 November 2012 10: 41
          +2
          “Water resources can become a problem around which relations in the Central Asian region will aggravate,” Islam Karimov said two months ago. “Everything can be aggravated so much that it can cause not just religious confrontation, but war.”
          Karimov said this in Astana about plans to build the Kambarata and Rogun hydropower plants.

          And here is the answer that followed to these maxims:

          On October 30, 2012, a working meeting was held between representatives of Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Kazakhstan on the implementation of the Kambarata HPS-1 project, the website of the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation reports. Uzbekistan was also invited to participate in the project, but its representatives did not come to the meeting.
          All participants regretted that there were no representatives of Uzbekistan. It was decided to “invite Kambarata Hydroelectric Power Station-1 CJSC to send the draft terms of reference prepared by him to develop a feasibility study for the construction of the Kambarata Hydroelectric Power Station-1 for consideration by the Uzbek side,” and the parties expect Tashkent to take a “constructive approach to this issue”

          Source: www.fergananews.com/news/19721

          So Aksakal does not extrapolate the situation from scratch.
          1. The gentleman
            The gentleman 9 November 2012 13: 38
            +1
            please and I beg you, well, do not link to this site. do you think that what is written on this site corresponds to reality ???
          2. Mujahiddin777
            Mujahiddin777 9 November 2012 20: 49
            0
            This is an opposition site, so write anything
      2. UzRus
        UzRus 9 November 2012 10: 42
        +5
        Just let the Uzbeks remember - there are forum users who vehemently defend Karimov’s policy - Kazakhstan is not indecisive Syria, and Uzbekistan is far from Turkey in absolutely all respects, with such curved movements there will then be no one to send to Russia as guest workers for their well-known reasons - they just won't be. I advise you to think ten times - Wow, how cool! good First, show me a forum member from Uzbekistan, who Yaro defends Karimov’s policy. Such people are not only here on the forum, but in Uzbekistan you are unlikely to find fire in the afternoon. The second - nobody sends migrant workers to Russia, people, and ordinary people, go on their own to feed their families. Third - think about ten times - well, think do not think, the people decide little. In general, as long as the leaders of the Central Asian countries do not set each other up and treat each other appropriately, it will be bad only for neighboring nations, ordinary people - Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Tajiks, Kazakhs ...
      3. bazilio
        bazilio 9 November 2012 11: 15
        +1
        I advise you to think ten times
        Aksakal, did you think before writing such nonsense? Explain why Uzbekistan, which has afghan from the south, also kindle a fire from the north? Either give logical arguments to your words, or take them back.
        1. aksakal
          aksakal 9 November 2012 13: 59
          +3
          Quote: bazilio
          Aksakal, did you think before writing such nonsense? Explain why Uzbekistan, which has afghan from the south, also kindle a fire from the north? Either give logical arguments to your words, or take them back

          - Basilio, I won't take it, because the pro-American deflection of Turkey has turned into a problem for its neighbor Syria, and now I see a clear pro-American deflection of Uzbekistan. Either he enters the CSTO when the amers got embarrassed by the Andijan events, then he leaves the CSTO when the amers got over their embarrassment. And if the amers stop being embarrassed at all and say - "Uzbekistan, of course, is a hooligan, but he is my hooligan in Central Asia because he is always right!" It's funny that they gladly jumped even under the prospect of leaving military equipment in favor of Uzbekistan, withdrawn from Afgan. Amers to drag it back is more expensive for itself, so they give you, nailed by the bullets of the Taliban, so you have already blushed and flashed with a bright blush of happiness. And they are ready to send everyone. What does the Russian one do not like? Within the framework of the CSTO at preferential prices and a new one, not shot by bullets.
          I warned you how you want. I really hope that the way I described will not. But if there is - do not blame me! am
          And what about geopolitics - what for you, Kazakhs, do you need? Kazakhstan is right next to it, in the soft underbelly of Russia and the soft ass of China - the place for Amers is to put their bases there. But if the current leadership of Kazakhstan gets into a mess - and it gets messed up, because no one in their mind will post such annoying two big powers factors. Well then, you need to put the leaders out of your mind, with the habit of chewing ties, etc. How to do this? Plus - again, oil in Kazakhstan, this is the Caspian. Basilio, you know this technology, it is now a little stalled in Syria, but overall it is effective. But it will stall in Kazakhstan if Uzbekistan does not help. But I look at your policy and look at how Karimov does not tolerate our leader, vague doubts gnaw at me. So the warning is valid.
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 16: 27
            -1
            Some deflections are pure in your sore imagination! I advise you just to oversleep, and not to carry some feverish nonsense ...
            There will be no help for your nedomujahideen from Uzbekistan - Uzbekistan does not need such a headache!
          2. bazilio
            bazilio 9 November 2012 16: 38
            0
            You know, dear, let's not talk about deflections. Or do you say that Kazakhstan, both under the USA and under the Russian Federation, did not bend? Yes, also China. And from which side did you compare Turkey with Uzbekistan? Turkey has been a NATO member for a long time, and they have their own interests in relation to Syria, somewhat different from the US ones. In addition, according to your logic, do all countries cooperating with states bend under them? So almost the whole world bent under them. Regarding membership in the CSTO, each participant has the right to secede from the organization. And if the participant wants to but can’t get out, because the big brother did not allow it, then you yourself understand who this participant is. Regarding technology, you already broke out in a bright blush with envy that you and Kotsan’s equipment didn’t get and therefore are ready to send all the Uzbeks.
            Keep your warning to yourself. I really hope you get hysterical.
          3. de_monSher
            de_monSher 10 November 2012 00: 21
            0
            It seems that the initiative of Kazakhstan is pan-Turkism? Together with the Turks they are promoting ... Have you seen Uzbekistan in this row? Have you seen or heard about the flirting of Uzbekistan on this subject?
      4. The gentleman
        The gentleman 9 November 2012 13: 37
        0
        wow, how loud and how beautiful !!! I must listen to your words, I’m looking at you a kind of indicator of what needs to be done. Thank you, we don’t have our own brains, let me think for us how Russia is for you ...
        1. aksakal
          aksakal 9 November 2012 14: 46
          +3
          Quote: Gentleman
          wow, how loud and how beautiful !!! I must listen to your words, I’m looking at you a kind of indicator of what needs to be done. Thank you, we don’t have our own brains, let me think for us how Russia is for you ...

          - and the matter is not in you, but in your unpredictable leader, already directly hinting at all kinds of wars. And this fighting spirit is passed on to your border guards, otherwise why do they behave like that on the Uzbek-Kazakh border? They either shoot a Kazakh citizen for anything, or rob them on the Kazakh road, then they drag Kamaz closer to the border, they tried to violate the border, then they generally try to catch a song, they grab children from the TERRITORY of KAZAKHSTAN and drag him to Uzbekistan, allegedly making a statement about violating the border. Really already anger both Karimov with bellicose statements, and your border guards with no less stupid behavior. Or are your border guards really starving? And why did they get the idea that they were living in Kazakhstan and could be robbed a little? Or maybe it's time to explain otherwise? Using a bullet in the forehead?
          As for us, Russia thinks - well, look what you "thought of with your own head" - problems with all neighbors -))))))))). The analogy with Turkey is straightforward - there are also zero problems with neighbors! With Tajikistan at knives, with Kyrgyzstan at knives, with Afgan at knives, with Kazakhstan only thanks to the humility and peacefulness of the Kazakhs, not at knives, but the tension is palpable. Is this a smart policy invented by your own head? Or is it not with your head? Well, well, have some fun ...
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 16: 24
            -3
            Uzbek border guards are innocent lambs compared to Kazakhs! Personally, I have not met big thugs ...
            1. de_monSher
              de_monSher 9 November 2012 20: 27
              0
              Brother Sarych

              I agree with you completely. The Kazakh brothers may be offended or not - but it is. There was a mark from 2006 - a moron in uniform, slashed a bayonet with a knife on his shoulder, in a completely calm environment. True, then the ogreb to the fullest, and went off, but nonetheless.
              1. marshes
                marshes 9 November 2012 21: 53
                +1
                Oh, you’re a brave man, if you write now, you’ve managed to sit in a correctional institution in Kazakhstan, otherwise you wouldn’t write. If a soldier had a bayonet with him, he was on duty and described your actions as an attack on an outfit, state of emergency. the moment you would plant a forest, in some places they saw it.
                1. de_monSher
                  de_monSher 9 November 2012 23: 26
                  0
                  Swamps ...

                  Kazakhstan is as dear to me as Uzbekistan is ... I have a lot of relatives there. Dude rocked me, albeit in uniform, but in a slightly informal setting. He had nothing but a bayonet-knife. He was also a little drunk - besides. Ogreb came to his senses, then listened to a little explanation about life, about this and that, etc. and agreed that he was wrong. If he was in the execution and with weapons - you must admit, I would not have a chance ... *) But, nevertheless ... this is an indicator of ... behavior ... understand?
          2. UzRus
            UzRus 9 November 2012 16: 41
            -1
            - and it’s not in you, but in your unpredictable leader - Ugh, thank God! I was already scared ...
            1. aksakal
              aksakal 9 November 2012 18: 17
              +2
              Quote: UzRus
              and it’s not in you, but in your unpredictable leader - Phew, thank God! I was already scared ...

              - Well, of course, I did not clearly express myself, all of the above applies exclusively to the Uzbek elite, in the person of Kariomv, whose behavior is very difficult to understand ... And the facts cited above are hard to deny. And for the Uzbeks - no questions, hardworking and kind, musically very gifted people who deserve a good standard of living for a long time.
              And if anything, our elite is also not an angel, I write about it too, on the branch with Wasserman I wrote that I did not like it. But in the general policy of our elite, at least there is predictability and there are no games for independence, because such small states cannot have this real independence. Evidence - yes, here it is - Georgia, as it were, is playing independence. Is she really independent? Starting the game of independence against the closest regional dominant, you will inevitably come to the need to seek help from the States and accordingly you will become dependent on these states. Is it really better? Well, the 90s, the fierce 90s have already shown us clearly what it is under the Amer’s heel. There is Internet, you can even see how the same Panama, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Colombia, etc. live under the Amer iron heel. These are the backyards of the States. Recall Batista and Duvalier - these bloody children are Amer’s favorites. The same Pinochet - true, he managed to raise Chile economically, but he also poured the country well and plentifully with the blood of his native people. For a hundred years I don’t need such a pet in Kazakhstan.
          3. The gentleman
            The gentleman 10 November 2012 09: 57
            -2
            aha, we know about your army and we know that your army is weaker than ours and much))) so don’t make yourself crazy. With your head, which one? can remind you again what is the main insult to the Uzbek? and about peace, please know how you feel about Uzbeks and don’t make people laugh
      5. de_monSher
        de_monSher 9 November 2012 20: 22
        +2
        Just let the Uzbeks remember - there are forum users who vehemently defend Karimov’s policy - Kazakhstan is not indecisive Syria


        Bullshit...

        aksakal

        If everything were as you are trying to imagine, then in June 2010, Uzbekistan would have already put Kyrgyzstan in the "G" position. And so, in response to the antics of the mountain rabble, Uzbekistan led more than balanced and wise. If it doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what it means to you ...
    3. Kasym
      Kasym 9 November 2012 17: 59
      +4
      Gennady (nokki), hello! The Taliban will go north if only someone, such as the United States or drug lords, either pays for such an action or equips with ammunition and weapons. Actions such as the Andijan events will cause a greater effect, since the internal situation causes great concern and alarm.
    4. de_monSher
      de_monSher 9 November 2012 20: 16
      +1
      The ethnic Uzbeks forced out from the north of Afghanistan, of course, will flee to save and assert themselves to Uzbekistan


      A bold statement ... *) The question is - who will let them go there, once? Well, two - where did you get the idea that they will run to Uzbekistan? Uzbekistan is the late USSR, a sample of a kind, 1979 - in the relationship "power-people". And, in fact, Afghans will think about 10 times to go - not to go to Uzbekistan, remembering that they were tidied up more than once or twice in the 90s and 2000s ...

      they will rush just to Russia or Kazakhstan.
    5. Mujahiddin777
      Mujahiddin777 9 November 2012 20: 45
      0
      You shouldn’t be so! Uzbekistan has good weapons, they can fight back, but there really will be a problem with Tajikistan if enemies try to break through from Afghanistan: the territory is large and there is no weapon, if not for the 201st Russian military base, I don’t know what would happen ... God forbid!
      And one more important detail: 5-6 large bridges were built linking Tajikistan and Afghanistan ... Almost all the funds came from the USA! Doesn’t resemble anything ???
  3. karimbaev
    karimbaev 9 November 2012 09: 43
    +2
    I’m afraid that Russia is investing in nowhere in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. First, in those countries they will solve the problem of unemployment and corruption. And so Moscow’s money will be squandered, and the arms supplied by Russia will end up in third countries.
    1. Joker
      Joker 9 November 2012 16: 15
      0
      Do you offer us something else to decide? Yes, we ourselves only started to get up on our feet, and then the hangers-on immediately flocked, give me money, give me money, give me money, from all sides. ... all of you and not money !!! am Learn to solve your problems yourself, and then come.
  4. Lavrik
    Lavrik 9 November 2012 09: 54
    +1
    Central Asia is a powder keg: border wars are possible (there are no state borders between the republics - there are administrative borders established at the dawn of the USSR - and they do not suit anyone), "water" wars (only 10% of the Aral Sea remains). Therefore, Russia, having created the Customs and Eurasian Unions on the basis of these republics, can prevent these wars. But you can only get interested in entering these unions by providing them with money. Therefore, I consider the decision of the Russian Federation on financial assistance to be correct.
    1. UzRus
      UzRus 9 November 2012 10: 45
      +3
      Almost nothing remained of the Aral in the territory of Uzbekistan (South Aral), the Kokaral dam was built on the territory of Kazakhstan, so the northern part of the Aral is slowly filling and reviving on their territory.
  5. UPStoyan
    UPStoyan 9 November 2012 09: 56
    +2
    We invest in the most useless republics in the region. If you cooperate, then with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, they even have an economy, and there is more to the order. In addition, Kazakhstan has a long border.
    1. Averias
      Averias 9 November 2012 10: 13
      +1
      Useless then they are useless. But they are the weak link, our analysts correctly calculated the possibility of scenarios, including those involving the Americans. Therefore, you need to tie them to yourself in spite of their "uselessness". And by binding them with financial obligations, we will have leverage. We must not allow the presence of the United States there, we must not. Backlog for the future, so to speak.
  6. tm70-71
    tm70-71 9 November 2012 10: 05
    +2
    The help of the Kyrgyz army is required, moreover, the help was needed yesterday. I don’t think that having invested $ 1,5 billion in the army of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Russia goes to the bank in Central Asia, nor is that money. Even if it’s in power tomorrow other forces in Kyrgyzstan will pass away, the outlined course of rapprochement with Russia will continue, Kyrgyzstan has no other way. As for Tajikistan, there are completely different pictures there, the mentality is completely different. As it turns out, God knows nothing.
  7. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 10: 11
    0
    Pure water adventure - the regimes in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan today are such, tomorrow they are completely different, the authorities as such are not there, and indeed, there have never been ...
    The lack of a common border adds adventure to such far-reaching plans - there is a rather serious laying in the form of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which are not particularly interested in implementing these projects!
    Uzbekistan of Russia is not an enemy and was not such, with the USA there is not some kind of friendship there, but economic cooperation, that's all - and the level of this cooperation by and large does not differ much from the cooperation of other CIS countries, including Russia itself
    1. UzRus
      UzRus 9 November 2012 10: 48
      +2
      Well, in Tajikistan, Rakhmon will be cooler than Atambayev in Kyrgyzstan. And what do you suggest? In general, spit Russia on them and wait for the weather by the sea?
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 16: 32
        +1
        Spit and forget - not the best approach in foreign policy! But deeply climbing into all sorts of adventures is also not right ...
        An analysis of the situation, an assessment of possible risks and a balanced approach - while in Russia now it seems that there are no experts who understand the situation in Central Asia, some self-appointed directors of unknown institutes are looming everywhere ...
    2. bazilio
      bazilio 9 November 2012 11: 21
      0
      Sarych aka, few people look at things soberly. Most are of the opinion that only the Russian Federation has the right to relations with the United States. Uzbekistan cooperates with the USA, but how dare they .... Arguments for their cheers are no slogans, they can’t have a constructive debate .... without comment
      1. UzRus
        UzRus 9 November 2012 11: 37
        0
        bazilio, Not certainly in that way. We are simply still considered backward, savages, who walk in skins and eat raw meat. And we are also ungrateful, because at one time we did so much to cultivate us, we built roads, schools. After all, we did not have Ulugbek, Al-Bukhari ...
        1. bazilio
          bazilio 9 November 2012 11: 54
          +1
          UzRus agrees. We are all not far from here. I won’t be surprised if those who were inspired in the comments on the article about the Arctic and the shelf start to put forward ideas that the Russians came to the SA before the Amers, therefore the Russian Federation has the right to the entire SA
          1. UPStoyan
            UPStoyan 9 November 2012 12: 32
            +1
            Guys can joke about the claims of Russia in the region as much as they like. But the USSR really pulled the republics of Central Asia out of the 16th century.
            1. The gentleman
              The gentleman 9 November 2012 13: 44
              0
              what is the 16th century? what was the difference? that the culture of the east is different from the west? what is custom and tradition higher than the law? is it bad in your opinion? or is it not culture? be so kind, do not confuse things, which you do not understand
    3. The gentleman
      The gentleman 9 November 2012 13: 41
      0
      especially about Kyrgyzstan))) everything changes every 5 years. and regarding cooperation, it’s hard to explain that this is just a business
  8. Kolyan 2
    Kolyan 2 9 November 2012 10: 32
    +1
    bazilio Today, 09:28 ↑ ↓ new 0
    Knocky. You can believe that there will be no serious slaughter, there will be cross-border clashes. The border section is not so large, it will not be difficult to keep it. during the 90s fought back successfully and now we can handle

    And this is necessary, there are no extra people. fool
    1. bazilio
      bazilio 9 November 2012 11: 24
      0
      Kolyan, explain your position, work hard, please
    2. de_monSher
      de_monSher 10 November 2012 00: 28
      0
      The border section is not so large, it will not be difficult to keep it. during the 90s fought back successfully and now we can handle

      In the 90s, we TOGETHER stood there, in Tajikistan - both Russia and Uzbekistan. A lot of guys from Uzbekistan, they died there. So it’s not very that you are there ... with I, I ... and I, it’s essentially a tail from a pig ...
      1. bazilio
        bazilio 10 November 2012 11: 27
        0
        So we are talking about the border of Afghanistan with Uzbekistan.
  9. Joker
    Joker 9 November 2012 12: 28
    -1
    Please forgive me, but I still express my opinion. How parasitic these countries are, they are most reminiscent of the hungry homeless mongrel who runs after those who feed her, she herself is not able to find food. Already tired of it all to the point of madness, it’s not clear what kind of money to throw out. We are arming Belarus, in line with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, what kind of nonsense? Let them arm themselves or give something in return.
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 16: 38
      -1
      Who showed you that these are parasitic countries and that Russia has done something for them? The Soviet Union did it - yes, but Russia did nothing for them, and it is not obliged to do it!
      If you personally haven’t broken off from cooperation with these countries, this does not mean that no one in Russia has received anything — there are beneficiaries and their word means much more than the squeak of forum chipmunk hamsters ...
    2. UzRus
      UzRus 9 November 2012 17: 13
      +1
      JokerForgive me, please, but you need to pursue a clear foreign policy in relation to those states where there are geopolitical interests. So far, only the Americans (unfortunately), after the withdrawal of NATO from Afghanistan, have promised Uzbekistan and assistance in strengthening the borders, and money, and even something there. True, I do not know whether they will keep the promise or not, as has happened more than once. Tell me: how do you think, does Russia have geopolitical interests in relation to Uzbekistan?
      1. Joker
        Joker 9 November 2012 21: 24
        0
        So far, only the Americans (unfortunately), after the withdrawal of NATO from Afghanistan, have promised Uzbekistan and assistance in strengthening the borders, and money, and even something there.

        Well, you yourself have confirmed my words laughing Where it's warm, there is our ass request And here I prove to you, I prove, but you took it and you yourself admitted.
        Does Russia have geopolitical interests in relation to Uzbekistan?

        Of course, they consist in the construction of bases, the construction of radars and the installation of air defense in your territory, these are the interests request Economic cooperation in the form in which your leadership wants us is not profitable, so that's the only way. BUT, personally, I wouldn’t give a dime for it, if you don’t want to do it yourself, you would make a visa entry and send all illegal migrants, strengthen the borders, it’s much more profitable than throwing money in a black hole, don’t throw it there, anyway it will not be enough, if you let it sit on your neck and wait for the next handout, such are the realities unfortunately. I would be happy if we switched to constructive, mutually beneficial cooperation, without any throwing from side to side, this is what I am for, and since this is a stupid waste of money, a union with money will not last long.
  10. DRY
    DRY 9 November 2012 12: 51
    0
    not how to separate from Russia, so we are heroes and don’t touch us, but how money for the defense industry is so "well". I am in favor of strengthening our borders, and to show the Americans the way home, it is better to let the intelligence personnel return to the ranks, what number they have announced. Yes, for this denigi, a scout or deversant can be so equipped that "agent 007" will smoke in the crowd. Al is not it?
    1. Joker
      Joker 9 November 2012 13: 33
      0
      So here I am about the same thing: it’s better to strengthen the borders, set up a radar, air defense, arm the troops well, put the T-90 forward, good luck crossing. 1.2 billion dollars is almost 40 billion rubles, the stool and then 4 billion were stolen all the time, it’s a lot of money, enough to keep the borders with these countries locked, and indeed it’s time to introduce visas for them and illegal migrants to their historical homeland send out. It’s good to throw money away, not billionaires, anyway the United States if it pays more, they will lick their ass.
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 16: 41
        0
        It's ridiculous to read such babble ...
    2. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 16: 40
      -1
      Nobody was going to separate from Russia - it was Russia that set everyone free to sail! Here, almost everyone was in favor of preserving the Soviet Union, and now does not mind ...
      1. Joker
        Joker 9 November 2012 17: 14
        0
        Did Yeltsin forcefully kick you out? He said, take as much as you want, and that’s your assault))) What Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan did not follow your example? After all, freedom was given to them. Why are Belarusians still not rushing from side to side with us?
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 22: 17
          0
          Are you talking about?
          Russia, Ukraine and Belarus dissolved the Soviet Union in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, sending the rest of the republics to hell, Yeltsin spoke about freedom to the subjects of the Russian Federation ...
          And who is so fumbling with the Belarusians, if not Russia? With milk, with something else ...
        2. de_monSher
          de_monSher 10 November 2012 00: 35
          0
          Did Yeltsin forcefully kick you out?


          Namely ... remember the story, man ... in the 90th years, Yeltsin rigidly suppressed any attempts by the CA countries to block with Russia. So - la-la, don’t please ... The problem of Russia, then, in the 90s, was precisely this freak drunk EBN. Now - the fact that the Russian elite is trying to promote technology without ideology: for what is it to unite? For the sake of the oligarchs? For the sake of squeezing money? So in Uzbekistan there are people of their own - do they think the dealers are collecting? Until there is a clear ideology, HUMAN, there will be no unification ...
  11. rennim
    rennim 9 November 2012 13: 17
    0
    I consider it pointless to use money to maintain the loyalty of the republics of Central Asia. History shows that you don’t feed like a wolf .... everything is looking into the forest. Weapons will undoubtedly be used for internal conflicts ... Recall Chechnya ... The Republic was stuffed with weapons.
    Maybe it was easier to do help in the construction of hospitals and schools? .. Creating jobs ... And now a wave of migrants from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan will flood us ... and they will all receive Russian passports ... Who needs such a policy? And if they can’t find leverage ... so here it is ... Ban on the entry of migrants ... and all these busurmans themselves will be asked to be part of the Russian Federation ... and the question itself will disappear ...
    1. Joker
      Joker 9 November 2012 13: 39
      -1
      We do not need anyone in the squad, enough of our own. It is necessary to make a visa entry and strengthen the borders, that’s all, but to warn all neighbors, the basurmans will climb to us, we will burn everything with poplars and hail. Stop clanking already, either you are with us, or against us.
      1. The gentleman
        The gentleman 9 November 2012 13: 50
        0
        right, to hell with everyone !!! why do we need it, let them know that Russia is not a toy. however, comrade, you forgot that it is without our people that you will be even worse, without our young specialists, whom Russia will take to their hundreds, which It is here, and not with you, that they receive education.
        1. Joker
          Joker 9 November 2012 15: 45
          0
          it is Russia that takes away hundreds

          Oh God, at least grab a piece of yourself laughing what did your super specialists develop? AK-12, T-90, do they make armata? Are UAVs being collected? It’s not necessary here, la la, the only benefit from you is that you can build a base and place a radar, but at the same time there are many more minuses, these are your migrants who take out money from the country every year, then whoever is more to you anytime you will pay and you will serve, because you always have some sort of disassembly, it’s not worth it. If we are friends, then on equal terms, we are you, you are us, but for now only we are you, and you also have funny faces there, they think where it is warmer. They poured money into the former republics, now they sit with the factories that we built and shout that we are to blame for the fact that they fell apart, do not put a finger in your mouth, you chop off your hand after it.
          without our people you will be even worse

          Oh, what irreplaceable we are, how did you help us? Probably sitting at the UN and supporting us? Do not tell, if it weren’t for the USSR, you would now have been without the generous funding of the RSFSR at the level of the banana republics, now everything is going out of habit as you start fumbling, wherever you find a richer richer. Am I wrong? What do you produce necessary for us? Not a damn thing, the only ones who are of interest to us now are Ukraine-Belarus, they have production and their own Slavs. When were you independent? In what centuries? Always walk under someone where we are warmer there. Am I not telling the truth? By no means do I touch your people, but eprst, why do your politicians change and the line is the same? Solid licking sad Are you yourself when you will at least imagine something, without an uncle who’s standing behind you and puts money in your pocket so that you go forward and do not go to sleep all the time? Why can’t we take a benchmark and develop the economy together with us, why can’t we make free bases, and would we provide you with all the necessary things at a discount? Why are you rushing from side to side constantly? It’s with us, then not with dreams, all of them have been blown away, let's look for sponsors, do you have a desire for something? You are still the most natural freeloaders, nothing more. Let's establish a MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL cooperation, we are you, you are to us, let's already decide faster how much you can push. These billions that they give you, the money of the inhabitants of Russia, how much more are you going to live at our expense?
          1. The gentleman
            The gentleman 9 November 2012 17: 46
            0
            so how did we talk? okay, but I’ll start with the fact that Basilio will not let us lie, that there is no uncle aunt behind her. this time. regarding mutually beneficial, so the first time I hear from you, as from a representative of the Russian Federation, you usually put yourself above others. Regarding independence, history helps you. Regarding people who got education here work in your research institute and others, it’s not even dare to deny. your education is only for laughs, and the level of your students generally leaves much to be desired. because we have the same politics and respect, you also have someone new every day, and a certain part of people rule your country, so let's we will not...These billions that they give you, the money of the inhabitants of Russia, how much more are you going to live at our expense? Well, yes, just why don’t you take them for yourself? Why don’t you want to work for yourself? ... in the end, let's not show up and build the very best, without our countries there would be no USSR that was very well sponsored in Moscow!
            1. Joker
              Joker 9 November 2012 21: 40
              -1
              usually you put yourself above others

              This is when it was then? When did the RSFR rebuild your industry for money?
              .Your education is just for fun

              in the USSR, the literacy rate in Uzbekistan rose from 4% (1897) to 99% (1977), during the Soviet period most of the country's universities were opened (including Tashkent University, with 1918), the Uzbek Academy of Sciences (1943), theaters ( including in the 1919 - the Uzbek Drama Theater, in 1939 - the Uzbek Opera and Ballet Theater). And you call our education funny? Yes, if it weren’t for you like the pygmies in Egypt, you would have cooked food on dry camel shit. There is no denying the fact that in conjunction with us you are at least something of yourself now.
              in the end, let's not throw and build the best of ourselves

              And whoever builds that, I provide you with facts request
              without our countries there would be no ussr that sponsored Moscow very well

              It wouldn’t be, I don’t argue, but then there was Stalin, who was holding everyone in black gloves, it’s worth squeaking and getting ready to move forward with your feet, now he is gone, so you demand money for your loyalty, although our interests coincide in many ways. If there were Stalin, they would all sit in silence. Ah, right Putin said that one who does not regret the collapse of the USSR does not have a heart, and one who wants to create it anew in its previous form does not have a mind. All now, the alliance is reduced to a squeak of money, so there can be no question of reconstructing the USSR, the maximum is a strong alliance between Ukraine-Belarus-Russia.
      2. yustas
        yustas 9 November 2012 13: 51
        0
        Quote: Joker
        We do not need anyone in the squad, enough of our own. It is necessary to make a visa entry and strengthen the borders, that’s all, but to warn all neighbors, the basurmans will climb to us, we will burn everything with poplars and hail. Stop clanking already, either you are with us, or against us.

        The question is not that, the question is that it’s like adults, but everyone can’t decide who to be with, I’m not a Nazi and I don’t care what nationality I’m, I want one if we are friends, then friends that today you’re sitting at my place, and tomorrow you’ll shame on my site.
        1. Joker
          Joker 9 November 2012 15: 51
          -1
          You look at their history, you will immediately understand that this throwing is already in their blood, where we are warmer. So they will billions to them, they will lick our ass, but we will always have to expect that someone will give them more and they will get over. And it would be better if they built a maternity hospital, hospitals, schools with this money and would give money to large families in Russia. Then, on our own technology, these hangers-on will trample on us.
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 16: 44
            0
            And where up to this point did the money disappear in Russia?
            Nobody has given anyone any money yet, and it is unlikely to give such an amount - all this is an empty chatter ...
            1. Joker
              Joker 9 November 2012 17: 08
              +1
              all this is empty idle talk ...

              Really
              Being a part of the USSR, Uzbekistan from a backward colonial region turned into an industrial-agrarian republic, with developed light and food industries, heavy industry grew tens of times. The largest thermal (Tashkent, with 1971, Syrdarya, with 1975, Navoi, Angren state district power plants) and hydroelectric power plants (Charvak, with 1972) were built, the development of gas (Gazli field, with 1961) and oil fields began, and completely new ones appeared for the republic machine-building industries (electrical, radio-electronic, instrument-making, aviation, etc.) New large cotton growing areas were created, Uzbekistan became a powerful cotton base of the USSR. The adoption of the first five-year plan in 1928 was the beginning of collectivization, which was preceded by the implementation of land-water reforms, which became widespread at the end of 1929; by the spring of 1932, three quarters of allotments in Uzbekistan were socialized and included in collective farms. The Uzbek script was translated from Arabic to the Slavic graphic basis; this was followed by a literacy campaign. The literacy rate increased from 4% (1897) to 99% (1977), during the Soviet period most of the country's universities were opened (including Tashkent University, with 1918), the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek USSR (1943) was founded, theaters (including in 1919) - Uzbek Drama Theater, in 1939 - Uzbek Opera and Ballet Theater).

              And where up to this point did the money disappear in Russia?

              otherwise you don’t know, they were stolen of course, but they were sent as gifts.
              Brother, well, admit already that you, as an independent unit, are not enough of what you are, and in conjunction with us you are already a formidable political and economic force, am I not right? Look, is it probably because of your traditions that everything was built? lol Your traditions are now very visible when you are separated about us, you were not visible. Not a reason to think? BUT? And don’t try to be offended, I don’t touch peoples, I’m talking about the development of the country as a whole, and not about who is cooler, Russian or Uzbek. For this, the minuses in each comment are stuck.
              1. UzRus
                UzRus 9 November 2012 18: 26
                +2
                New large areas of cotton growing were created, Uzbekistan became a powerful cotton base of the USSR. - Yeah, thanks to which they destroyed the Aral Sea and plunged a huge region (Karakalpakstan and part of Kazakhstan) into an environmental disaster. Thank you so much!
              2. Brother Sarych
                Brother Sarych 9 November 2012 22: 27
                +3
                Who is it with you? Do not overestimate - this is the USSR was one of the leaders of the world, and Russia, after the Union collapsed, turns into a state, and precisely because it ruined relations with everyone with whom it was possible! And now she is diligently pushing away her neighbors with her boorish attitude ...
                The Republic of Ingushetia laid the foundations of industry and modern agriculture, science, education and medicine in the SA, but never showed such a disregard for the local population, the USSR developed what was started and created a highly developed country consisting of equal peoples, modern Russia ... everything that she could, and continues to prosirovat, but at the same time inflated with a dull arrogance ...
          2. UzRus
            UzRus 9 November 2012 17: 03
            +2
            Joker, it’s just that you read the story. In the territory of modern Uzbekistan there were very self-sufficient states (Khiva Khanate, Kokand, Bukhara, etc.), which conducted their own policies. And under Temur they didn’t rush at all, but were engaged in the expansion of the territory, and there was a powerful state. And then - the PEOPLE will not lick anyone's ass for any money, it is not necessary to identify the people with the top authorities.
            1. Joker
              Joker 9 November 2012 21: 09
              0
              But especially for you, the last phrase was written in my comment.
              And don’t try to be offended, I don’t touch peoples, I’m talking about the development of the country as a whole, and not about who is cooler, Russian or Uzbek.
            2. The gentleman
              The gentleman 10 November 2012 10: 11
              +1
              but how do they know about history? if they consider themselves the most important. they don’t know the mentality, they don’t know the culture
  12. avega
    avega 9 November 2012 16: 37
    0
    “It’s hard to call this gathering an army, living by the principle -“ war is nonsense, the main maneuvers, ”concludes Almazbek Dzhumashev.

    Why was it necessary to give them money ???
    We would have allocated them with weapons, we have them in warehouses full))) let Yudashkin sew them a uniform at our expense))))
    1. Joker
      Joker 9 November 2012 17: 12
      0
      let Yudashkin sew the uniform for them at our expense

      At their own expense, or theirs, they have the money, they steal even a little less, and enough to rearm and change the whole army. Only MUTUALLY beneficial cooperation and no handouts.
      1. UzRus
        UzRus 9 November 2012 19: 10
        0
        Only MUTUALLY beneficial cooperation - Well done, plus!
  13. Zomanus
    Zomanus 10 November 2012 04: 22
    0
    The main thing is that our leadership needs to remember that at the slightest weakening of Russia, the Russians will be cut to zero again. Relations with the republics need to be built, clearly understanding the difference in mentality. Nations are all different. And our respect is more likely to be taken for weakness in most of the republics of Central Asia. And then they won’t even remember about money and weapons ...
    1. The gentleman
      The gentleman 10 November 2012 10: 13
      +1
      Listen, why do you think that Russians are being cut out from us? We have great respect for Russians, nobody pokes a finger at Russians.
      1. bazilio
        bazilio 10 November 2012 11: 41
        +2
        Zomanus- in vain you are so. I am Russian, I was born, raised and live in Tashkent. I did not meet any attacks against me on a national basis. Please do not make such false statements.
      2. Black
        Black 11 November 2012 01: 52
        0
        My neighbors didn’t leave; actually, they fled from Shevchenko. Russian girls in front of passengers were raped right in the city transport.
  14. Klibanophoros
    Klibanophoros 10 November 2012 20: 09
    0
    Who will explain to Putin that the St. Petersburg scheme "Loyalty in exchange for money" is a big mistake, full of shortsightedness. This applies to both Asians and Caucasians.
  15. Turkoman
    Turkoman 18 November 2012 17: 32
    +1
    we are all Turks, but we are all ready to cut our throats. Sadly my friends ... sadly