• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
Russia and the Crisis in Osh

Source: Getty

Article
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

Russia and the Crisis in Osh

As Moscow grapples with the question of whether to intervene to stop the violence in southern Kyrgyzstan, it is forced to confront a vexing issue: can Russia utilize its political and military potential to help resolve local and regional conflicts in Central Asia?

Link Copied
By Alexey Malashenko
Published on Jun 15, 2010
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

As Moscow grapples with the question of whether to intervene to stop the violence in southern Kyrgyzstan, it is forced to confront a vexing issue: can Russia utilize its political and military potential to help resolve local and regional conflicts in Central Asia?

There are several ways in which Russia could intervene.

In the first scenario, troops from the member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), led by Russian units, would enter Kyrgyzstan. Because it is hard to imagine Kazakh or Tajik troops in Osh or Jalalabad, a peacekeeping contingent from the CSTO would inevitably be predominantly Russian.

The decision for the CSTO to intervene in the Kyrgyz conflict must come from the members’ heads of state, who are in no hurry to make a decision.

The second scenario would be for Russian troops to enter Kyrgyzstan as part of a bilateral agreement. The Kyrgyz provisional government has requested Russian assistance, and Moscow could oblige. But Moscow has made no final decision as of yet, limiting itself to technical support, which, though important, is insufficient to alter the situation on the ground.

Direct military support would be provided only if the Kremlin is certain that it will achieve a rapid and decisive victory, without running the risk of being drawn into a protracted civil war.

Meanwhile, it is unclear how Kyrgyzstan’s neighbors would react to Russian intervention in Kyrgyz affairs. The Uzbeks in particular would be distressed to see foreign troops on their borders.

The United States, on the other hand, would be relatively more supportive of decisive Russian action, driven by Washington’s desire to avoid further tension in the Afghan neighborhood.

The third scenario would be for Russia to abstain, declaring the “slaughter,” as some Russian media have dubbed the events in Kyrgyzstan, an internal Kyrgyz matter. That, however, would lay bare Russia’s weakness, bordering on helplessness, in Central Asia. Russian passivity would also undermine the new Kyrgyz authorities, who have repeatedly sworn loyalty to Moscow and openly called for help. If Russia remains inert and limits itself to rhetoric, its authority in the region will suffer irreversible damage.

Any decision will be difficult for Moscow. The Russian government is stalling for time, in hopes that the situation in Kyrgyzstan will resolve itself and the local authorities will consolidate their power. But even if that does come to pass, Moscow’s indecisiveness will leave a bad taste in the mouths of Kyrgyz leaders.

And all of this serves as further confirmation of the helplessness of Russia’s pet project, the CSTO.

About the Author

Alexey Malashenko

Former Scholar in Residence, Religion, Society, and Security Program

Malashenko is a former chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Religion, Society, and Security Program.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    What Will Uzbekistan’s New President Do?

      Alexey Malashenko

  • Commentary
    Preserving the Calm in Russia’s Muslim Community

      Alexey Malashenko

Alexey Malashenko
Former Scholar in Residence, Religion, Society, and Security Program
Alexey Malashenko
Central AsiaKyrgyz RepublicAsiaForeign Policy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Greenland United States Denmark Agreement Nuuk
    Commentary
    The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of Time

    The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.

      Marc Pierini

  • Ukraine Russia Black Sea Food
    Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    A Black Sea Truce Is About Global Food Security, Too

    A summer of escalation in the Black Sea has hurt Ukraine economically and is exacerbating world food security. A truce is needed—as is a broader reframing of Europe’s Ukraine strategy.

      Thomas de Waal

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Does the EU Have a Germany Problem?

    Are Germany’s economic, industrial, and political struggles becoming a liability for the EU’s ability to rise to the geopolitical moment?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The Speech Ursula von der Leyen Can’t Deliver

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is about to give her annual address on the state of the EU. Here’s what she won’t—but should—say.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe Fails to Learn the Lessons from Ceuta

    The aftermath of the Ceuta crisis shows Europe has drawn the wrong lessons. Rather than doubling down on failed migration policies, the EU needs to address the underlying roots of such episodes.

      Richard Youngs

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.