• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    The Israel Lobby, U.S. Foreign Policy, and Domestic Liberties

    In an interview, Ian Lustick and Eli Clifton discuss their new book on why a prominent ally has so much influence in America.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    In the Trump Gaza Plan, Diplomatic Failure is Success

    By failing to address Palestinian representation, the current process is bound to lead to just another temporary arrangement.

      Nathan J. Brown

  • people watching smoke rising at sunrise from rooftops
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Bombing Campaigns Do Not Bring About Democracy. Nor Does Regime Change Without a Plan.

    Just look at Iraq in 1991.

      Marwan Muasher

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran and the New Geopolitical Moment

    A coalition of states is seeking to avert a U.S. attack, and Israel is in the forefront of their mind.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Baku Proceeds With Caution as Ethnic Azeris Join Protests in Neighboring Iran

    Baku may allow radical nationalists to publicly discuss “reunification” with Azeri Iranians, but the president and key officials prefer not to comment publicly on the protests in Iran.

      Bashir Kitachaev

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.