• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "James F. Collins",
    "Matthew Rojansky"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "Central Asia",
    "Kyrgyz Republic",
    "Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Kyrgyzstan: A Test for Mutual Security

The crisis in Kyrgyzstan presents an opportunity for the three multilateral groups working in the area to do real, immediate good while building trust and demonstrating that cooperation is possible in the increasingly interconnected and fragile Eurasian security space.

Link Copied
By James F. Collins and Matthew Rojansky
Published on Jun 15, 2010
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

Source: The International Herald Tribune

Kyrgyzstan: A Test for Mutual SecurityPolitically driven ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan has already claimed more than 100 lives and threatens to erase the country’s progress toward self-government following the April ouster of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

It is an ominous sign that a society which had undertaken impressive reforms aimed at creating the region's first parliamentary democracy is now teetering on the brink of outright civil war and state failure.

With the violence around Osh continuing and a very real possibility that the conflict could expand to engulf parts of neighboring Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, NATO and the United States must immediately engage with regional partners to help restore security.

For two decades, NATO has played the role of policeman in conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo, while Russia has done so separately in Georgia and Moldova. Not surprisingly, what one side has viewed as peacekeeping, the other has labeled bullying occupation.

The crisis in Kyrgyzstan presents an opportunity for three multilateral groups working in the area — NATO, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (C.S.T.O., an alliance of seven former Soviet states currently chaired by Armenia), and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (O.S.C.E.) — to do real, immediate good while building trust and demonstrating that cooperation is possible in the increasingly interconnected and fragile Eurasian security space.

Both Russia and NATO maintain military presences in Kyrgyzstan — the only country in the world where this is true — and neither can afford to allow the violence there to destroy the vulnerable Kyrgyz state or plunge the region into a wider ethnic war.

Moreover, responding to this crisis and restoring stability is a responsibility NATO must share with the C.S.T.O. and the O.S.C.E. Where these institutions failed in 2008 to prevent or defuse the Russia-Georgia war, they must now succeed in preventing localized violence in southern Kyrgyzstan from deepening or spreading.

To do so will require the United States and Russia, as leading security partners in these groups, to put aside outdated stereotypes and focus on their fundamentally shared interests in Eurasian security.

Although the Kyrgyz provisional government has called for Russian troops to help maintain order, Moscow has referred the problem to the C.S.T.O., which resolved on Monday to provide “comprehensive assistance.”

In recent years, Russia has sought to expand C.S.T.O. capabilities through a partnership agreement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a security forum which includes Russia, China and four of the Central Asian republics, and creation of a standing rapid reaction force, which remains a work in progress. Some in the West have regarded the C.S.T.O. as a tool of Russian expansionism, and are reluctant to see NATO or the O.S.C.E. engage with it directly.

However, the C.S.T.O. does serve Russia's legitimate interests in collective security and stability in the post-Soviet space, which is focused in Central Asia on securing energy supply lines and stemming the flow of narcotics, weapons and human trafficking across Russia's vast porous border. To work around the C.S.T.O. during the present crisis would suggest wrongly that the U.S. and NATO are more interested in rolling back Russia’s influence than in regional security.

But the C.S.T.O. is not the only multilateral security organization that has a mandate to prevent political and ethnic violence in Central Asia from spiraling into wider war.

The O.S.C.E., with 56 member states from Europe, Asia, and North America, binds NATO, Russia and the C.S.T.O. member states to a mission of conflict prevention, border protection and peace implementation.

While the organization has a mixed record since its origin in the 1970s, it has occasionally played a pivotal conflict-prevention and peace-implementation role, such as in the mid-1990s when it took over for the U.N. administration in Bosnia.

With the O.S.C.E.’s rotating chairmanship currently held by Kyrgyzstan’s large northern neighbor, Kazakhstan, there is a clear opportunity for the organization to step up to the challenge of defusing this regional threat.

Now is the time for the United States and NATO — whose presence in the region is part of an ongoing counterinsurgency mission in Afghanistan — to look beyond old stereotypes and offer any and all assistance to the Kyrgyz government, in full cooperation and partnership with both the C.S.T.O. and the O.S.C.E.

The point of such assistance must be, first and foremost, to help quell the violence around Osh before more innocent people are killed, so that Kyrgyzstan’s fragile provisional government has the chance to regain its footing on the road to rebuilding self-government.

By holding out a hand not only to the Kyrgyz authorities, but to natural regional partners, including the C.S.T.O., and the O.S.C.E., the United States and NATO can demonstrate the sincerity of their interest in regional security.

The killing in Osh must be stopped, innocent civilians and their property must be protected from further attacks, and tensions must be calmed so that Kyrgyzstan’s provisional authorities can get back on track to self-government.

The tragic events of recent days in Kyrgyzstan are not merely a matter of that country’s political future; they pose a defining challenge for mutual security in the Eurasian region as a whole.

About the Authors

James F. Collins

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program; Diplomat in Residence

Ambassador Collins was the U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation from 1997 to 2001 and is an expert on the former Soviet Union, its successor states, and the Middle East.

Matthew Rojansky

Former Deputy Director, Russia and Eurasia Program

Rojansky, formerly executive director of the Partnership for a Secure America, is an expert on U.S. and Russian national security and nuclear-weapon policies.

Authors

James F. Collins
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program; Diplomat in Residence
James F. Collins
Matthew Rojansky
Former Deputy Director, Russia and Eurasia Program
Matthew Rojansky
SecurityForeign PolicyCentral AsiaKyrgyz RepublicAsia

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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Far Can Russian Arms Help Iran?

    Arms supplies from Russia to Iran will not only continue, but could grow significantly if Russia gets the opportunity.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Can the Disparate Threads of Ukraine Peace Talks Be Woven Together?

    Putin is stalling, waiting for a breakthrough on the front lines or a grand bargain in which Trump will give him something more than Ukraine in exchange for concessions on Ukraine. And if that doesn’t happen, the conflict could be expanded beyond Ukraine.

      Alexander Baunov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Once Neutral on the Ukraine War, Arab States Increasingly Favor Moscow

    Disillusioned with the West over Gaza, Arab countries are not only trading more with Russia; they are also more willing to criticize Kyiv.  

      Ruslan Suleymanov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Will the Loss of Starlink and Telegram Impact Russia’s Military?

    With the blocking of Starlink terminals and restriction of access to Telegram, Russian troops in Ukraine have suffered a double technological blow. But neither service is irreplaceable.

      Maria Kolomychenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Signs of an Imminent End to the Ukraine War Are Deceptive

    The main source of Russian aggression is a profound mistrust of the West and the firm belief that it intends to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. As long as this fear persists, the war will not end.

      Tatiana Stanovaya

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.