Thoughts On Kyrgyzstan
Is it even called Kyrgyzstan anymore? I thought it was the Kyrgyz Republic. Obviously, I do not follow the CIS all that much. But the way the events have been “analysed” in the Western media have been somewhat upsetting to say the least.
In my view, and from my observations, what happened says more about the personality of Vladimir Putin than about any over-arching foreign policy goal of the Russian Federation and her government. What people fail to understand is that Putin reacts to things. There is no real thought or strategy to it. That’s why Dima Medvedev is now fear mongering, and claiming that Kyrgyzstan could erupt into Civil War. Because they did not think through what they were doing. It was all reaction, and anger, and frustration because Bakaiev turned around, and stabbed them in the back. Understandable, but not a wise, or even rational, way to conduct any kind of foreign policy.
So, while there is a sense of the unpredictable in Putin, and his Government, overall:
(1) he is very predictable;
(2) he takes things very personally;
(3) anything that offends him is offensive to broader Russia as a whole, and therefore he has no compunction of using the State as a tool of revenge;
(4) he values loyalty above every other virtue (I cannot stress this enough, and will repeat it frequently).
Will this be tried again in other countries? It depends on how “loyal” the leaders of the other countries in the region are.