Border conflicts: Blood education

7
Border conflicts: Blood educationThe question of the earliest possible establishment of boundaries in undescribed areas, which are near 120 with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - and this is 719 kilometers - is being heard more and more sharply in Kyrgyzstan lately. The main cause of border disputes and conflicts is incomplete delimitation (from the Latin delimitatio - the establishment of borders), which in turn is caused by the lack of legal documents that would be recognized by both parties, as well as the position of the authorities of Uzbekistan, which inhibit the process.

Fergana spoke with the head of the Government delegation on the delimitation and demarcation of Kyrgyzstan with neighboring countries, the head of the Division for border delimitation and development of border areas of the Government Office Kurbanbay Iskandarov.

Kurbanbai Iskandarov: - The process of determining state borders consists of three stages. The first is the delimitation, at which the border commission is formed under the leadership of the Prime Minister, and the government delegation of Kyrgyzstan on the delimitation and demarcation of borders with neighboring states (it is under the report of the border commission) is also formed. This delegation consists of working groups: on legal issues, on land-construction works (topographers), on water use, on property issues, etc. The result of each meeting on the description of boundaries is considered by each party in the plenary sessions of government delegations. If the parties agree, then the boundaries are approved, otherwise the parties state the need for additional study of a particular site.

The length of the border with Tajikistan is 970 km, of which 567 km is described (around 60 sections), of which 519 km are approved at the level of government delegations. With Uzbekistan - 1378 km, described - 1062 km, approved - 1007 km.

However, these figures are not final, they will change after the end of the delimitation, as the boundaries change: some sections pass to us, some - to the neighboring state. The check digit will be signed in the final protocol on delimitation, then documents will be prepared for signing at the government level, this agreement will be signed and sent to parliament. After approval by the parliaments, the heads of state will exchange signatures - and the document will enter into force.

Then, on the basis of these documents, the second stage will begin - the demarcation process. The demarcation commissions will discuss the plots and begin to install posts on a parity basis. If there are inconsistencies, for example, the border will pass through the reservoir, the reconciliation process will begin again. At the end there will be the same signing procedure as in the delimitation.

Kurbanbai Iskandarov

After that, the third stage will begin - border mode. The checkpoints will be determined, their required number, what they will be (passenger or cargo). The parties will determine the mode of operation of the border in time: it will be a daily or round-the-clock point.

- While the delimitation process is not completed, the parties do not have the right to build fences? As far as I know, the Uzbek side is already installing them in some undescribed areas ...

- The decision on the need to install engineering structures with our neighbors must be made in concert. In particular, with Uzbekistan we have protocol No. XXUMX, which states that until the end of the delimitation, the parties undertake not to install any engineering structures.

However, after the so-called “Batken events” of 1999 of the year - attempts to penetrate the militants of the IMU (Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan), who from Afghanistan wanted to get to Uzbekistan through Kyrgyzstan - Tashkent unilaterally began to install barriers at the borders with all our southern regions: Osh, Jalal -Abad and Batken. We sent them a note, but they replied that they were protecting their territory from unwanted gangs. And so far Uzbekistan continues to install engineering structures, although at this time there is no threat.

Some examples of border conflicts are:

In 2005, a citizen of Kyrgyzstan, a resident of the village of Bozhoi, Batken district, who was walking out of the house with his wife towards Aidarken, was beaten by border guards of Uzbekistan at the Chachma control point (Sokh enclave). At the checkpoint, the border guards demanded 200 Kyrgyz soms for transporting two bags of rice. When he failed to comply, he was beaten.

On the territory of the village Sohment of the Batken district 1 of May 2005, border guards stopped two residents of the village of Khushyar and asked for documents. In response, they were rude, and between frontier guards and residents there was an incident that turned into a fight.

3 May 2005 on the day of the bazaar in the village of Charbak, an incident occurred between the inhabitants of Charbak, Sogment and Khushyar. Residents of Khushyar began to gather at the junction of the borders of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, shouting insults to the Kyrgyz. According to eyewitnesses, police officers and border guards of Uzbekistan tried to stop illegal actions, but more than 300 citizens of Uzbekistan broke through the cordon and threw stones at Charbak residents with stones.

5 May 2006 of the year in the village of Kyzyl-Kyshtak of the Kadamzhai district was to meet the governor of Batken and the Uzbek hokim (head of the local administration). The governor had to cross the border, but they did not let him through.


- Where do you see the main causes of border conflicts?

- There are several. The first is the human factor. 70 years we lived in one country called the USSR. Freely traveled to Frunze, Tashkent, Kokand. And getting into another city, people, roughly speaking, did not know that it was a foreign country. Now it is very difficult to change the mind, especially in the elderly. For example, the aksakals, who even have no idea about the border. “How can you not miss me, because my son lives there?” They say to border guards. So they are trying to cross the border where it is impossible, where border guards are not standing. And by law, violators apply weapon: three shots in the air, then to kill. After such cases, people begin to understand something, carry a passport.

- That is, roughly speaking, do people learn from blood?

- Yes.

- Why has the number of border incidents dramatically increased lately?

- I do not quite agree with you. When the borders were just established, people almost died every day. There was a time when mines were laid around Sokh.

The second reason for border conflicts is low education of border guards working at checkpoints. They are from the provinces, they are called after graduation, there is no education, they don’t know about the borders. They are instructed, receive weapons - and are served. And there should also be knowledge of psychology, the ability to work with people. The third reason is corruption at borders, when people, goods are passed for a fee. Therefore, we should rather complete the process of establishing interstate borders.

- What is the main difficulty in determining the boundaries, why this procedure takes so long?

- The main problem is that we cannot find a single solution on legal issues. As a person has a passport, so along the borders there must be legal documents that will be recognized by both parties. Now Tajikistan is appealing to some documents, Uzbekistan - to others, we - to third. Before that, not finding a common legal document, we began to describe the boundaries of coinciding positions. But there it was easier. For example, the border runs along the ridge, which over the years does not change at all, the border does not change either. And when you descend into the valley, where people for seventy years of life in the USSR, when there were no such boundaries, were built, exchanged parts, you understand that the boundaries have changed. Under the Union, the collective farm chairmen exchanged land plots, for example, for 50 years: one received five hectares of land for cultivation, the other - 50 hectares of grazing land. Someone was more profitable to graze cattle, and someone - to cultivate the land. So they exchanged land, but did not legally formalize it. So the years went by, the generations changed, and when the boundaries were clarified, they just say to us: “How is this someone else's? This is our land, my grandfather is buried here. " And according to the documents - it belongs to the other side. And no one wants to change back 50 ha to 5. So there are difficulties.

The Uzbek side adheres to the 1924-27 legal materials of the National-Territorial delimitation in the republics of Central Asia, there was the goal of dividing the land on a national basis: where Kyrgyz live, give to Kyrgyz, where Tajiks are Tajik, etc. But this did not work, because the commissions came mainly in the summer, and in the summer the Kirghiz came on pastures, the Uzbeks in the fields. Kyrgyz gave the land to the Uzbeks for processing, while they themselves went to the mountains with cattle, although this is Kyrgyz land. A member of the commission comes, for example, to where the Kyrgyz cattle graze. He asks where he lives - he shows, but in reality it is a part of Uzbekistan, and vice versa. These are the freakish boundaries then appeared. The Kyrgyz side began to resent why its territory was given to Uzbekistan. In Moscow, a regular commission was created, which began to re-revise the borders. Then, for example, the question arose why Sulukta was given to Uzbekistan, Kyrgyz live there, just in the summer they went to the mountains. As a result, Sulukta was returned back.

There were a lot of such commissions, land disputes continued until the 1955 year. In 1955, a parity commission of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan was created, the border lines were clarified and agreed. They were approved by the Council of Ministers of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Kyrgyzstan reviewed and approved, but the Uzbek Supreme Council did not. Therefore, Uzbeks do not recognize the documents of this year.

After the collapse of the USSR, new documents appeared that could also determine the boundaries. The first "On the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States". The CIS formed Belarus, Ukraine and Russia on December 8 1991. The article 5 says there: “The high contracting parties recognize and respect the territorial integrity of each other and the inviolability of existing borders within the framework of the community”. What is a "community"? This is the USSR. This means that the actually passing borders are recognized by the parties as interstate. Article 11 states: "Since the signing of this agreement in the territories of the signatories it is not allowed to use the rules of third states, including former members of the Union of the USSR." That is, the documents of the USSR are not recognized - the documents of 1927-1955's, but the actual borders that were formed at the time of the collapse of the USSR are recognized. That is, how people live, how the border goes - this is recognized. Shushkevich signed for Belarus, Kravchuk for Ukraine, Yeltsin for Russia, the document was ratified, that is, it has legal force.

Then the Protocol (also a legal document), ratified by the Supreme Councils of Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, joins this document. They also accede to the above Agreement. Therefore, the previous documents are not valid.

During the collapse of the USSR, all borders were designated, that is, as were the borders of the Kyrgyz USSR, so they should have remained. If Uzbekistan agrees to accept these documents as a basis, then we will have to work on them. Although there is still a difficult job.

- Which document is considered the most correct?

- Lawyers work for them and for us, but they interpret them differently. We say to our neighbors: let us, if you do not accept our documents, and we are yours, then we take the documents of the CIS as the legal basis. During the last meeting in 2012, we gave these documents to the CIS to the CIS to Uzbekistan, now we are waiting for a response.

I want to acquaint you with some more documents. There is an agreement on cooperation and friendship between the Republic of Kyrgyzstan and the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, signed on March 14 on March 1991 in Osh by Karimov and Akayev. Article 3 states: "The high contracting parties recognize and respect the territorial integrity of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan and the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, established within the USSR state borders between them, and pledge to strictly observe their inviolability." That is, this document repeats the Agreement. And the article 5: "High contracting parties recognize for each of them the right to independently determine the types and forms of ownership, to regulate property relations in its territory." That is, the objects built on our territory under the USSR remain with us. Article 10 states: "High contracting parties provide transit and transport traffic through air ports, rail and road networks, and highways located on their territory." Is Kyrgyz transport passing through Uzbekistan now? Do not miss. It turns out that Uzbekistan is violating its own agreement.

The Treaty of Eternal Friendship between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Uzbekistan, signed in Tashkent on December 24 1996 of the year and ratified by the Supreme Soviets, entered into force on November 30 of the year 1998. Article 8, again, repeats: “The high contracting parties confirm their determination to actively develop relations based on respect, independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of both states. To observe the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit. ”

The second reason for the delay is that our neighbors often change the leadership and composition of the border delegation. In particular, Uzbekistan. When the composition is stable on both sides, then it is easier to work. For Uzbeks, at one time the deputy foreign minister was the head of the delegation, then the director of one of the state agencies; now they have entrusted this question to the deputy prime minister. And those every time re-acquainted with the documents.

Our delegation does not change, despite our revolutions. A separate body has been created that deals only with delimitation and demarcation, that is, we do not deal with other work in parallel. Yes, the prime minister is changing, but the delegation is not changing, because it includes experienced cartographers, lawyers and other experts. We have worked out a concept for each site and there is a legal justification document. On the Uzbek side, the head of the delegation is the deputy minister or some other official, whose main job is different, and the borders are set to workload.

The third reason for such a long delimitation process is in the periodic suspension of this process. For the first time, Uzbekistan suspended negotiations in the 2008 year, justifying it by the fact that they have to reconsider all borders within themselves. On the initiative of our side in December 2009, we continued the process. Then there were the April and June events of 2010 of the year, and Uzbekistan said that until the election of the new government suspends the negotiation process. 2011 resumed in October. That is, in fact, the process is a little over a year, and this is a short time.

- Why is the Uzbek side in contact with the border issues so hard?

- We have a democratic country, they have - a little different. Our delegation is empowered to involve specialists in the field, if necessary, without asking the consent of the center. They have all the questions agreed with the center. At each meeting, we offer 3-4 solutions for one site, we transmit our proposals - and we await a response. Everything is delayed.

- There are examples when you have already determined the boundaries that pass through the most "sick" areas?

- Yes, there are many of them - for example, in the Ala-Buka district. Between the villages of the two countries, an asphalt road of the 3 category passes there, after defining the borders the poles with wire had to be installed right in the middle of the road, because that was the border.

Kyrgyzstan will never give up a single meter of its land, and Uzbekistan, I think, also. But since we are friendly neighbors, we must make mutual concessions.

The Uzbek enclave appeared in Kyrgyzstan in 1955 year. According to one of the legends, the Uzbek party leader won the territory from a Kyrgyz colleague in cards. According to another, the land was transferred to Uzbekistan due to the fact that the main roads from Sokh lead deep into Uzbekistan. Since independence in 1991, Uzbekistan has been seeking free access to the enclave on Kyrgyz roads. The situation worsened in 1999, when Kyrgyzstan became the victim of an attack by militants of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Fearing Islamists, Tashkent led troops into the enclave and mined the border. The Kyrgyz declared that minefields were wedged into their lands, and Uzbek soldiers were terrorizing the local population. Several Kyrgyz citizens were blown up by mines or were killed by the Uzbek military while trying to cross the enclave border. 25 January 2001 of the Year Uzbekistan stopped gas supplies to Kyrgyzstan under the pretext of an accident on a gas pipeline. In Kyrgyzstan, there is evidence that gas is now offered in exchange for transferring about 20 square meters to Uzbekistan. km along the road to the enclave of Sokh. Tashkent denied this, but stepped up negotiations. 26 February The 2001 of the year adopted a bilateral memorandum on the delimitation of the state border, which emphasized the “appropriateness” of connecting the Sokh enclave with Uzbekistan. In exchange, the Kyrgyz were offered equal territory of Uzbekistan. The agreement has not yet been implemented, since the land proposed for exchange turned out to be a lifeless mountain range and was rejected by Bishkek.

- How can you comment on the conflict in the village of Charbak?

- As for Charbak, there was no question of boundaries, just the area specified and described there. I personally consider what happened in Charbak as a pretext for fomenting a conflict. 98% of the inhabitants of Sokh, citizens of Uzbekistan, are ethnic Tajiks. Until December, when a new frontier post was installed, they quietly crossed the border, grazed livestock on our territory, and harvested firewood. An outpost appeared, the border was closed, and so there were difficulties. It is said that 58 lives in thousands of people in Sokh (no one knows the exact number), the population is growing every year, and they cannot expand the territory. What to do? And next to it is the unguarded Kyrgyz land, so they tried to go over to our side and settle down.

What six pillars are we talking about ?! If Uzbekistan on an uncoordinated site in the Nooken district established a high-voltage line in the territory of 58 ha. We sent notes, but they said that if delimitation shows that the pillars are on the territory of Kyrgyzstan, then they will remove them.

During the premiership of Bakiyev, he and his Uzbek counterpart signed a memorandum on the connection of the Sokh enclave with Uzbekistan. Not having studied the question deeply, the memorandum was signed (it was just an intention, not a legal document). In fact, it turned out that Uzbekistan promised to compensate this strategic piece of land with a territory with impassable mountains. They realized it in time - and did not transfer the plot intended for the corridor to the Uzbeks.

Now we are sending another note to Uzbekistan inviting us to discuss the issue of borders. And the delegation from Tajikistan, with which we are more or less undergoing the process of delimitation, already on January 21 come to the next meeting.

The fact that the border issues with the Tajik side are resolved more quickly and more clearly is indicated by the following fact. During the summer border press tour, residents of the village located at the junction with Tajikistan complained to the Ferghana correspondent that the Tajik side does not allow the construction of two bridges along the Kyrgyz Kozo-Bakyrgyn river flowing there and the Tajik canal departing from it. Due to the lack of bridges, residents of three rural governments of Leilek district (approximately 23-25 thousand people) had to make a huge detour to get to another part of the same Leilek district. According to Kurbanbai Iskandarov, in early December a protocol was signed by both sides in Khojent according to which two bridges will be built across the river, which will be used until the end of the delimitation.

* * *
One of the most controversial issues in border issues is the Batken region of Kyrgyzstan. Ferghana.Ru contacted Saitzhan Eratov, Deputy Plenipotentiary Representative of the Government in this area. In 1999-2000, he participated in the liquidation of international terrorist gangs in the Batken region, and also participated in the destruction of the terrorist group in the Kadamjay district of Batken region 12 in May 2006. From May 2010 to March 2011 S.Eratov - Head of the Main Operational Directorate, First Deputy Chief of the Main Staff of the Border Troops of the State Committee for National Security of the Kyrgyz Republic.

Answering the questions of “Fergana”, Eratov said that when he served as the head of the border detachment in Batken, exactly the same incidents occurred. The last such incident occurred in 2010 year, the character of which was, according to Eratov, “one to one, as in Charback”: “Then, too, negotiations were held between our parties. You see, this was enough for 2,5 of the year: in 2012, there was nothing, and this year the incident was provoked by the Uzbek side. Moreover, Uzbekistan did not react to our initiatives to hold working meetings. Since the beginning of last year, the governor appealed three times to the leadership of the Fergana region, we have not responded. They do not understand that problems need to be solved, Tashkent is in charge of everything, and our representatives have enough authority to solve such problems. ”

Expressing his opinion on the causes of what happened in Sokh, Eratov said that “this incident occurred because our government in 2012 began to pay close attention to border security issues. And this issue affects the Uzbek side. We built a new frontier post in Charbak, prepared engineering structures, installed pillars and barbed wire, thereby preventing the Hushyar residents from freely residing in our area and pasturing livestock. According to our pasture legislation, citizens of neighboring countries are prohibited to graze livestock on our pastures - although they used to graze it before. As soon as the outpost was established, the residents of Soh had a pasture issue. The appearance of the new outpost did not suit the Uzbek side, and they began to push their people to various provocations. Yes, what happened on January 6 is a planned provocation. Exactly the same, up to every minute, was the incident in 2010. And the reason then was the same: we began to tighten the protection, it deprived the neighboring state of some benefits, and they provoked a conflict. Moreover, the fact that Uzbekistan is such a country that is able to control everything, there is discipline and order, and I don’t believe that people there just went out and went against us, says “for” the version of the planned action.

“Uzbekistan wants to be a leader in Central Asia and dictate its conditions in the region,” continued Eratov. - The causes of such conflicts should be sought more broadly, viewed in a strategic sense. It is no secret that the Uzbeks do not like that we will have the Kambarata hydropower station built. And the six pillars are just an excuse. Moreover, these poles did not pose any danger to Uzbekistan, and we promised to remove them. At the same time, their side places fences on undescribed parts of the border; they unilaterally want to dominate, not considering us, thinking that we are weaker. But this is not so, ”said Eratov.

The former border guard admitted that while the Kyrgyz side also has certain drawbacks: “Frankly speaking, we lack coordination in actions between the regional and district administrations, the police and the border guards. We must be united, only in this case we will be able to solve border problems correctly. Now we started working on it. Yes, and our border guards are also still “young”, the border troops were formed in 1999 year. Now we have better protected the borders, only this has become not to arrange our neighbors. "

“Only in the Batken region are 50-60 problem villages, where not only border issues are not resolved, but there are many other social issues: water, roads, medical care, education. Our area needs help at the government level. Because all criminal elements penetrate it. Recall 1999 year, 2000 and subsequent. And to solve these problems is necessary in a complex - because they affect the integrity of the state. And to solve only the problems of Charbak is not serious. In Charbak, the people made a demand, first one, then ten more added. It breaks out in another village - the demands are also put forward. We ourselves taught the people that we solve problems only when they are raised by the people. It is not right. To avoid this, it is necessary to approach comprehensively, take preventive measures, and not hit the tails. If I say that the situation in Sokh is stable, I will be wrong. It is manageable, but if you do not solve problems, it will be complicated. "

Eratov is sure that the authorities have enough funds to solve the problems of the border villages, only it is necessary to distribute the budget correctly: “It’s time to put the problem of borders at the head. The authorities are able to do this. It is only necessary to properly spend budget funds: to stop the travel of officials, to send this money here. Not to think about the fence around the White House, but to strengthen the borders, ”the government plenipotentiary in the Batken region said.

* * *

12 January 2013, the Prime Minister signed a decree according to which from January 1 2013, the salary of border guards rises by 25, or even by 50 percent. This is a good step, but everyone understands that this problem cannot be solved.

On January 16, work began on barbed wire fencing around an agreed border area near Charbak village. The length of the border between Sokh district of Uzbekistan and Baktinsky district is 136 kilometers, of which 100 kilometers are specified and agreed. While the wire will be fenced 10 km border. According to Saitzhan Eratov, deputy plenipotentiary representative of the government in the Batken region, “this work is supported by the government. All work is being done at agreed sites. ” Residents of Charbak also welcome the border management, believing that barbed wire will reduce the number of conflicts and help border guards to better guard the borders.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

7 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. SSR
    +2
    22 January 2013 12: 22
    Under the Union, collective farm chairmen exchanged plots of land, for example, for 50 years: one received five hectares of land for cultivation, the other - 50 hectares of land for grazing. It was more profitable for someone to graze cattle, and for someone - to cultivate the land. So they exchanged land, but did not legally issue it. So the years passed, the generations changed, and when clarifying the boundaries, they told us this: “How is it a stranger? This is our land, my grandfather is buried here. " And according to the documents - it belongs to the other side. And no one wants to change back 50 hectares to 5.

    There were a lot of such "blips" on the map.
  2. +2
    22 January 2013 12: 59
    It seems to be a necessary, topical topic, but the article is more like a school editorial in a wall newspaper, a lot of information, in principle useless, that is, a list of "blinders" and continuous approval of the administration's actions, where is the assessment of the 20-year-old problem? one proposal for its solution?, the girl just noted, as before the defense of the dissertation, there is a publication?, - yes, then everything is in order.
  3. avt
    +2
    22 January 2013 13: 40
    Empty article! And this is on the topic from which a mile away in blood!!? It would be better if I wrote about fitness and diets negative
  4. Krasnoyarsk
    -1
    22 January 2013 15: 07
    Let them fight among themselves, and Russia should not interfere in this.
    1. +1
      22 January 2013 18: 24
      I read your posts to all articles on Russian foreign policy and the thought comes that you need to stop INTERFERING in the discussion of articles. The leitmotif of everything that you write comes down to the expression "my house is on the edge." Thanks to people with thoughts like you, Russia lost its influence on the world community at one time, which ultimately allowed other countries to interfere in the domestic policy of the Russian Federation. Now Russia is trying with great efforts to regain the lost positions. And this takes a lot of effort, time and money.
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        0
        22 January 2013 22: 46
        In your opinion, should Russia act as a guarantor of peace in post-Soviet countries? Endlessly finance them and extinguish conflicts? Should it turn a blind eye to the atrocities of migrants and endless spitting in the face of the so-called allies? No! Enough! They themselves chose the fate of development outside the common space, they they themselves killed and drove the Russians out of their countries by the thousands, they themselves brought their state to a state of rotting garbage! The visa regime must be as strict as possible (more than half of the crimes are committed by migrants!) And stop the endless infusion into their economy and stop forgiving them debts.
        1. +1
          23 January 2013 19: 22
          Killed the Russians? Maybe. Spit in the direction of Russia? I do not know. Visa regime? I agree.
          This is in general terms.

          And now, in order:
          About the mass exodus of Russians from Central Asia: for the most part this is a stampede of Russians because of the fear of national extremism, which, for example, I never met in Kazakhstan, thank God.
          I didn’t hear that Russians would be killed on ethnic grounds. I know about the clashes between Kazakhs and Chechens, I heard something about the clashes between Kazakhs and Uzbeks. About clashes with the Russians on ethnic grounds somehow did not have to. Therefore, it is not worth talking about the mass genocide of the Russian population.
          Talk about the garbage condition, let's say Kazakhstan? I would advise you to look at the fence of your house or the central street of your city. You want a country in which you, apparently, have never been, and where much more is being done for the population than in Russia, believe me, I know this by hearsay.
          Yes, we have corruption, but believe me, for any Russian who came from Central Asia, who was robbed by corrupt officials from the titular nation in Central Asia, it is much more painful to see how he is robbed by the Russians - "brothers in blood".
          As for the crimes of migrants, it’s sorry for the flaw in your police. This is your law enforcement allowed it! This issue requires some rigidity.
          About pouring in into the countries of Central Asia - I'm just scared for your mental development (why, I will explain below).
          And now the most important question that you asked first, but I answer it last:
          Russia MUST act as a guarantor of peace in Central Asia. Russia SHOULD pursue a friendly policy towards Central Asia. Because peace in these countries is a guarantee of Russia's peace on its borders. This is the absence of militant bases and radical extremists in the border territories (remember Georgia), this is the work of identifying terrorists on the territory of Russia as a result of joint operations. This is a question about your intelligence. Hence the material, military and technical support of these countries. It is always easier to prevent a disease than to treat it.
          I think I have given enough arguments about the issue of the insolvency of your opinion (intellect) in this matter, so I just advise you to limit yourself to reading articles. Gather your mind, read more - here is your advice.
          Thank you.
          1. Krasnoyarsk
            0
            24 January 2013 13: 51
            We don’t owe anything to anyone
            1. 0
              31 January 2013 16: 08
              Do not disgrace Krasnoyarsk
  5. +1
    22 January 2013 15: 33
    What borders did they have? If not for Russia, they would never have had them, however, as well as national statehood.
    And everyone is trying to reproach Russia, both in historical and in relation to the present, imperial manners. Apparently from this there is nothing to remember about the national history, because they have it in common. Although their leaders, from time to time, remember history - the truth is not about historically existing nation states, but about all sorts of "conciliarities", such as the Turkic Kaganate, the Arab Caliphate, the Sassanid Empire. Moreover, each of them ascribes their existence to their own people. This is where the backlog of bloody redistribution lies.
    With the same success, we can talk about the borders of the Volga Bulgaria and Scythia, in Russia.
  6. Nechai
    0
    22 January 2013 15: 37
    Quote: Old Rocketman
    , where is at least one proposal for its solution ?,

    Igor, how can Ekaterina voice a really capable proposal, if it is one disconnectable sentence - there should not be these borders! Live in one State! Then state-nationalistic passions will not be brought into the relations of neighbors. And either they decide everything between themselves in a good way, or the minstrels will judge in their own way. So that one and the second will not seem enough.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"