The New 'Great Game': state & non-state competition

[Jedburgh]

The Jamestown Foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor, 18 Sep 07:

Kazakhstan's Cadets Prefer Belarus to America

Kazakhstan has strengthened its security ties with Washington since 9/11 in order to maximize the numbers of officers from Kazakhstan’s armed forces who receive military training and education in the United States. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Defense has used this as an engagement tool to develop further the existing bilateral military assistance relationship. Pentagon analysts and U.S. diplomats in Kazakhstan have argued that programs such as International Military Education and Training (IMET) have yielded a good return on the investment of U.S. money into the military structures of Kazakhstan.....

....The statistics are alarming; recent reporting observed that out of 250 officers who received an education in the United States, 110 have already quit the military, citing “various reasons.” Despite a contractual obligation placed on graduates of foreign universities to serve a minimum of 10 years, many are finding loopholes in order to exit early. There is little will to enforce these commitments on the part of officials. Kazakh military servicemen attend courses in 160 specialist fields at 55 foreign universities. Around 550 people are sent abroad for education annually. Of these, 300 are servicemen being sent for full-time education, and 250 are officers sent for short-term courses. Approximately one-third of the graduates of foreign courses enter into the service ranks of the armed forces in Kazakhstan. Although retention is significantly higher in the cases of high-ranking officers attending short-term courses abroad, the real problem exists within the junior and middle-ranking officers; here the hemorrhaging appears greatest.....

[SteveMetz]

The Jamestown Foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor, 18 Sep 07:

Kazakhstan's Cadets Prefer Belarus to America

Most of the Iraqis that went through our staff and war colleges last year didn't go back. There's several million tax dollars down the drain.

[Jedburgh]

SSI, 11 Feb 09: Kazakhstan's Defense Policy: An Assessment of the Trends

The U.S. war on terrorism, with its deployment of military assets within Central Asia in support of ongoing antiterrorist operations in Afghanistan, ensures the long-term strategic importance of Central Asia in U.S. policy planning. Kazakhstan, with its vast hydrocarbon reserves combined with its high profile support for the war on terrorism, will play a key part in these calculations. As Kazakhstan has developed the capabilities of its armed forces, with American and allied assistance, questions arise over how in the future it may play a more active part either in antiterrorist or in peace support operations. Kazakhstan is also exploring such issues in the context of its forthcoming chairmanship of the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe in 2010, which may indicate that Astana would like to raise its international security profile further still.

In this monograph, the author argues that Kazakhstan’s armed forces, though subject to many structural changes, have not yet experienced systemic military reform. He assesses the achievements and setbacks of U.S. and NATO defense assistance to the country, while also showing that Kazakhstan remains deeply linked in close defense and security partnership with Russia. He suggests greater sophistication and follow-up is needed from Western assistance programs to ensure that Kazakhstan successfully gains genuine military capabilities and the type of armed forces it needs within the region.....

[George L. Singleton]

U.S. and NATO military assistance in Central
Asia as a whole and especially in Kazakhstan
needs to be underpinned by a sophisticated,
well-developed, and open public relations
campaign that circumvents political pressure
from Moscow, and in fact addresses Russia’s
concerns about the motives and intentions in
Western assistance programs.

Would the US/NATO do better to seek to work openly in league with Russia in this and all realted nations cases, to include Georgia?

Aren't we "over promotion" open politicial antagonism between these nations leadership, civilian and military, and Russia?

Surely with all the logistical difficulties we "suddenly" have with Russia both up front and in the background giving us "fits" re airlift and such (air lift basing and transit of supplies needs) this type of thinking on the part of NATO/US invites problems with Russia today?

The old addage for our hardliners, of whom there are still many, still applies: "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know."

My view after looking over this adroit article by the analyst from Kent, England, whose Oxford education suits his writing well.