• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • 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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Have U.S.-Belarusian Negotiations Stalled?

    Minsk clearly expected the dialogue with Washington to yield more results, in particular the lifting of EU sanctions and permission to export potash.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Ten Years After Karimov’s Death, How Much Has Uzbekistan Really Changed?

    In the tenth year of his presidency, President Mirziyoyev’s system is becoming even more personalized than that of his predecessor Karimov.

      Galiya Ibragimova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    As It Turns 25, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Reflects the New World Order

    With the growth in points of friction between the great powers, organizations like the SCO will continue to play a role in the strategic adaptation of the smaller powers caught between them.

      Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Exporting Its Fuel Crisis to Central Asia

    When faced with fuel shortages in the past, Central Asian governments could always count on additional supplies from Moscow. That safety net no longer exists.

      Galiya Ibragimova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Where Are President Tokayev’s Political Reforms Leading Kazakhstan?

    Tokayev’s predecessor, Nursultan Nazarbayev, outlined arrangements for a power transition too soon and in too much detail, ultimately losing control over the process. Tokayev is determined not to meet the same fate.

      Temur Umarov

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