Uzbekistan: the “Andijan massacre”, 9/11, and the CIA failing the “Central Asian Spring”

More evidence of American plots.

The intelligence services of many countries have evidence of US/CIA past and present actions to overthrow their governments and destabilize their countries. It seems that an international tribunal to present this evidence would be a logical next step to expose and stop these egregious actions.

From Fort Russ


May 26, 2015
Igor Pankratenko
Translated by Kristina Rus

Ten years ago, Uzbekistan was rocked by tragic events, the true background of which is still debated.

“The Andijan massacre” – is a common name in the West of the tragedy which took place on May 13, 2005, in this Uzbek city. According to various estimates, the number of killed during demonstrations ranges from two hundred to five hundred people. About five hundred fled through neighboring Kyrgyzstan and then settled in the USA and Europe. About two hundred people involved in the events received prison terms.

There are many consequences of the Andijan events, among them – Western sanctions against Uzbekistan, a pivot of Tashkent (the capital) to Moscow and Beijing, the withdrawal of U.S. military base from the territory of the country. There are several versions of what happened, and between the official and, shall we say, the “human rights” interpretation of the tragedy, there are many inconsistencies and “black spots”.

But these are all, by and large, expected discrepancies for events of this scale, which does not change the essential fact: ten years ago the Islamist underground, with the support of the West, tried to stage a coup in Uzbekistan. Which, if successful, could launch a “democratic reformation of post-Soviet Central Asia” nearly six years before the “Arab spring”. The only difference would be that all the bloody “turbulence” would occur not somewhere in the Middle East, but in the immediate proximity to the Russian borders, in the “soft southern underbelly” of Moscow.

“Andijan-2005” – is the culmination of a multi-level game, in which the Uzbek authorities, the U.S. intelligence services, the Western “color revolution” technologists and the Islamists came to a head.

Each side had their own goal in this game, for which they were willing to generously pay with lives of civilians.

We need to study the lessons of those events very carefully. But they don’t like to remember these events in Uzbekistan. The West pretends that it had nothing to do with it. And Russia, as usual, has too many other worries, to pay particular attention to what happens there, in the East. In this article I have to leave many details in order to provide at least a general outline of what happened. And I have to start… with Afghanistan.

The terrorist attacks of “9/11” and the designation of George W. Bush of Afghan Taliban a target for “revenge” gave the neocons Cheney and Rumsfeld, relying on the CIA and the Pentagon, the opportunity to start implementing the project “For the New American Century”. In accordance with it, it was planned to place military bases and special units  in post-Soviet Central Asia. Officially – to prevent terrorist threats. In fact – to provide control over the region and creating the levers of control over the political situation, the individual elements of the “deep state”, the mechanisms of which have already been successfully operating in Europe, Turkey, Egypt and other countries.

Actually, this project was developed since 1992, but the American neocons carefully, step by step, started its implementation in the late nineties. Close contacts between the CIA and the Uzbek security services have been established in 1997-1998. Initially, their goal was to create a channel of operative communication with the “Northern Alliance” via Tashkent. And after the bombings at the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, the U.S. and Uzbek intelligence services began carrying out joint operations against the Taliban and their allies from the IMU – “The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan“.

And it is very important to remember: the agreement of 2001 on the establishment of the first and the largest on the territory of the post-Soviet countries American military base at Karshi-Khanabad – or K-2 – on the territory of Uzbekistan was preceded by a preliminary agreement of local intelligence services on cooperation with the CIA, which was signed in 1999. In the end, on September 11, 2001, the U.S. army special forces were already on the territory of Uzbekistan, at K-2. After another ten days, two weeks before the formal military agreement between the U.S. army and the Uzbek military, the CIA had already sent their staff to the base at Karshi-Khanabad.

And setting the Taliban aside, the primary task of the CIA in Uzbekistan was digging in on the territory of the country. Creating the elements of “deep state” and its combat units, whose role was to be played by the militants of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

 After all, decisions adopted in the eighties by the CIA Director William Casey about covert operations in Afghanistan were not only about this country. Their development is not so much credited to Langley bureaucrats, but to the Director of Saudi Intelligence – first Kamal Adam, and then Prince Turki bin Faisal. Among these decisions we must focus on two.

First, a creation of a kind of “Foreign Legion”, which was tasked with assisting the Afghan Mujahideen. We are talking about network support, which we know today under the name of “Al-Qaeda”. The second – active agent penetration into the territory of Soviet Central Asia, recruitment “in reserve” of the citizens of the republics of this region.

The backbone of IMU initially consisted of these agents, and it relied on the organizational and financial opportunities created by the CIA and Saudis. Uzbek Islamists did not lack financial resources. Moreover, monetary assistance came not only from Afghanistan. It is known that a citizen of Saudi Arabia of Uyghur nationality, Muhammad Amin Turkistoni presented in 1999 one of the leaders of the Uzbek Islamic radicals, Tahir Yuldashev, with 260 thousand dollars to purchase weapons, half of which, in accordance with the requirements of Turkistoni, was transferred to Uyghur separatists in China [Uyghur region of China is the gateway to the New Silk Road project, bringing Central Asian states into Chinese-Russian sphere of influence – KR]

And what’s more interesting: the increasing American presence in Uzbekistan strangely fit with the increasing activity of IMU. During this period, from mid 2001 to 2005, the number of IMU guerrillas was about 10 thousand people, the militants had millions of American dollars in their accounts and the latest weapons in the arsenals. In Afghanistan, which was actively “sweeped” during this period by the Americans, there were several training camps for the militants, and these “training courses” miraculously never fell under aviation bombardment of the “International security assistance force”.

On the Afghan territory IMU operated on a par with the Taliban, in some military situations, the leaders of this movement demonstrated their independence and superiority. In short, the formation of an “invasion force” into Uzbekistan was in full swing, which were to play the role of the detonator of destabilization with subsequent “democratic reformatting”. The leader of the Uzbek Islamists Tahir Yuldashev announced about his plans not somewhere from a cave, as his senior colleague Osama bin Laden, but in an interview with “Radio Liberty” (Radio Svoboda): “We know our goal, this goal is to overthrow the existing system in Uzbekistan, to free about a hundred thousand of our brothers and sisters from behind bars – Muslims of Uzbekistan, and create in Uzbekistan a regime in which people could freely practice their faith”.

Even to an outside observer, by 2003 it became clear that Washington was playing a double game in the country, implementing its own plan for transition of power in Tashkent: from Islam Karimov to American candidates.

Nothing strange about it at all. Planners in the White House have already formulated a strategy of Washington in the region, among its elements the former Director of the Department of Eurasian relations in the Security Council, Rosemary Foresythe emphasized the following tasks in the beginning of the “zero” years:
  • Contribute to the weakening of the influence of the Commonwealth of Independent States and Russia;
  •  To carry out economic penetration of the U.S. in order to strengthen the American presence in the region;
  • To involve the Central Asian states in market relations for maximum benefit from unequal exchange of finished goods for commodities;
  •  To carry out the linking of economic plans with the regional policy environment, providing “containment” of Iran and support of Turkey and Saudi Arabia as agents of Western interests among the population.

At the same time the White House formulated requirements for the Central Asian political elite: “a thorough involvement of the West is a necessary condition for changing the trajectories of development of Central Asian states. But this participation is not enough in itself. The outside world can provide direct investment, technical assistance, loans and grants, but it takes commitment to reforms in the countries of the region, as we saw in Kyrgyzstan. It should come from the population willing to endure the turmoil associated with political and economic changes. And, more importantly, it must come from the leaders willing to abide by the terms of staying in power, as defined by the Constitution, to hold free and fair elections – even if the polls show that they will lose, and to leave their post in case of defeat”.

Not one of the leaders of post-Soviet States of Central Asia met the asserted demands, the political culture of post-Soviet elites was completely different.

Islam Karimov absolutely did not intend to “reformat” Uzbekistan to the standards of “American democracy”, which in the East always turned into an even worse dictatorship, loss of autonomy and the transition of natural resources under foreign control.

On the initiative of the Uzbek side cooperation was phased out, followed by limitations in activities of CIA operatives in the country and other unpleasant things for Washington. Thus by the end of 2003, Islam Karimov was blacklisted by the American side as “unpromising” for further cooperation.

At the official level it was expressed, first of all, in curtailing economic cooperation, Tashkent was left without the standard Western “carrot” for post-Soviet States, whether it was Russia, Kyrgyzstan, or Uzbekistan: investment, the same “sweets”, which messed with the heads of the new rulers, who came to the rubble of the USSR. Before the official visit to the United States in 2002, Islam Karimov exuded optimism: “This country has a great investment potential, – he said. – Our close ties with the United States will help us in conducting our economic reforms.”

A few years later, he openly said in a conversation with Vladimir Putin: “We thought we were welcomed on the international arena with open arms. Thought in vain.”

There were openly demonstrative signals from the West. The leadership of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development – previously providing credit to Tashkent – demanded Karimov to condemn the violence in places of detention, and to do it publicly. Such a statement, according to the organizers, was to demonstrate the readiness of the Uzbek leadership for liberal reforms. When the President refused the bankers, the Bank’s activities in the country were curtailed.

Well, and the small things. In 2003, the court in New Jersey issued a verdict in which the parental rights to two children of Karimov’s daughter, Gulnara, were given to her husband, American, Mansour Maksudi. And she, who before the divorce took her children home, was found guilty and declared wanted.

Based on available data, all through 2004 CIA resident agents in Uzbekistan worked diligently, mobilizing everyone they could for the preparation of the coup.

It is noteworthy that in January 2005, the Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Michael Goldman, visited homes of some Uzbek human rights defenders and asked them questions from a specially prepared questionnaire:

  • “Do you think the population of the Republic is ready to come out to mass protests?”
  • “Could we rely on relatives of people convicted on religious grounds in the organization of such rallies?”
  • “What do you know about the Islamic group “Akramia”? [the one which was the primary organizer of the riots in Andijan – I. P.]”
  • “Can Islamists come to political power in Uzbekistan after the exit of Karimov from the post of President of the country?”
  • “Who would you like to see as the President of Uzbekistan after the departure of Karimov?”.

According to the results of the survey, in mid-February 2005 Goldman writes in his official report to J. Purnell, the American Ambassador in Uzbekistan, that “the social situation in the country is favorable for the implementation of tactics and strategy that meets the interests of the United States”.

And at the end of February 2005, at the U.S.-Uzbek gold mining joint venture Zarafshan-Newmont there was a new Deputy Director – Joseph Presel, former U.S. Ambassador to Uzbekistan. He is also a career CIA officer, former first Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in the Soviet Union, expelled in 1977 for espionage. Immediately after the arrival the new Deputy Director travels not to Navoi, where the enterprise is located, but to the Fergana valley.

And at the end of April 2005, the State Department “suddenly” disseminates the warning to American citizens that “The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the Republic”. Therefore they are encouraged to avoid visits to the Fergana valley. It became clear that the countdown to “acute events” is on, and the place for action has already been chosen.

In Uzbekistan, more precisely, in the Fergana valley, the main “actors” were the members of the “Akramia” community, which was created by a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Akram Yuldashev, a namesake of his associate. This community is so interesting, and its story is so instructive and relevant, that some aspects deserve close attention.

Akram Yuldashev creatively reworked the principles of other Islamist groups, logically reasoning that created according to the specifics of Arab countries, they don’t answer to the Central Asian realities.

He believed that the attainment of true faith and the revival of the Caliphate is possible only when these two ideas “will take place in the consciousness of everyone who calls himself a Muslim.” But since such “enlightenment” of all at once is impossible, then it needs to be achieved “from below” within one community, village, city. Actually, as wrote the already quoted analysts of the White House, “the pursuit of reforms in the countries of the region… must come from the population.”

Yuldashev organized the operations of his group in the Fergana valley, as described by the expert on this issue, brilliant Uzbek orientalist Bakhtiyar Babadzhanov, according to the following scheme:

Stage 1: “Sirli” (hidden, underground) – the selection and education of future members of the group in special study groups, where they will be trained in “original Islamic rituals”. Successfully completing this stage, the neophyte undergoes a special ceremony with an oath of allegiance to the other brothers on the Quran.

Stage 2: “Moddii” (material) – creation of the material resource base of the community with efforts of all of its members. Neophytes get a job in public production organizations, where “brothers” are already employed or at small industrial or agricultural enterprises founded by members of the group. 1/5 of the income is allocated to the common treasury by each group member.

Stage 3: “Ma’ Naviy” (spiritual) – constant “spiritual communication” with strictly defined circle of “brothers”, which are held by the leaders of the cells.

Stage 4: “Usvy Maidon” (organic infusion, connection) – which involves the actual legalization of the community in the structures of power by recruiting officials and law enforcement, or by implanting their own people in local authorities.

And, finally, stage 5: “Okhirat” (final, ultimate) – when a “true Islamization” of society must occur, meaning the transition of power in a particular locality to the leaders of the “Akramia”.

In fact – we have before us the structure and tactics of the Islamist underground, adapted to modern conditions and for the post-Soviet States. Note: very effective, because on the same principles this underground acts in Kyrgyzstan and in Western Siberia.

For the masses the most attractive aspect – economic policy, business opportunity to employ the “brothers” and their relatives, to financially help the “sympathizers”, charity, while recruiting new supporters. And, of course, to recruit officials and law enforcement agents.

It is also important that such tactics can easily direct the discontent of the masses in the right, anti-government direction. Corruption and extortion from businesses, prevailing social injustice and incompetence of the authorities is a problem of the whole community simultaneously with the growing popularity of Islamist cells. The credibility of “good businessmen” surpassed that of local authorities among the population. And it was enough for the authorities to try to eliminate a local community and cut down its economic roots, incidentally, for profit motives, as the city engulfed in mass protests. It took very little to destabilize – a couple dozen fighters and mass discontent with the authorities.

On the night of May 12 to 13, 2005, these two dozen militants first seized a military base, procuring weapons for distribution to “the masses”. Then, attacking a jail released about five hundred prisoners, of which the militants were joined by about a hundred. But the rest made their contribution to destabilization.

On the morning of May 13 a rumor was started in Adijan about the arrival of President Islam Karimov. Supposedly, he stayed at the summer house of the regional authorities, and was going to appear on Babur square during the day. People from all corners of the city started gathering there. Their flow increased after the traditional Friday prayer: some of believers went to hear the President’s speech right from the mosques [sounds familiar? – KR]. The global mass media, representatives of which were present in the city, hysterically aired their own purely anti-government view of events. The Babur square turned into a Kiev “Maidan” and the future “Tahrir” in Egypt, causing a massive explosion throughout Uzbekistan. And then the crowd started firing at the law enforcement. To which the authorities responded with machine-gun fire…

“Andijan-2005 has left a lot of questions. Why the Uzbek “security forces” did not take any measures in order to neutralize the gunmen on the way from prison to the Babur square? Who’s spread the rumors about the upcoming speech of the President? Why the authorities did nothing to stop these rumors, to make formal statements on radio or television?

In my opinion, there are only two logical explanations, which, incidentally, are not mutually exclusive. First, some officials and law enforcement officers worked for the conspirators [just like in Kiev – KR]. Secondly, the local authorities were completely frazzled and showed total incompetence.

No matter what, blood was spilled, but, at the same time, Uzbek society was vaccinated against rebellion. The country was on the brink of an abyss – and managed to hold on. The dead Andijan residents with their own lives had saved the region from collapse and mass slaughter. To some extent, Islam Karimov repetead what, in 1982, did the father of the current Syrian President Hafez al-Assad in the town of Hama: fired at the rebellion of the “Muslim brotherhood”, pacifying the local jihadists for nearly three decades.

Unfortunately, there are no “eternal” victories. The Fergana valley has remained a “boiling cauldron” of the region which could blow any moment. Neither economic nor social problems after “Andijan-2005” had disappeared, nor the interest of the Islamists and the West to this region.

And Russia should really take a closer look at the history of those events. Their lessons had become painfully effective and relevant today.

KR: I can only imagine how the Western authorities would worry about the human rights of hundreds of prisoners who just escaped and ran downtown to shoot at some cops and take over the city after we just saw their reaction at a looting of a CVS!

The role of Soviet soldiers is something we tend to forget – interview with Dutch researcher

From Sputnik News, May 8, 2015
by Svetlana Ekimenko

Remco Reiding is a Dutch writer and a researcher who has covered the topic of Soviet graves abroad during his decades-long career. He’s the author of the book “Child in the Field of Honor”, which refers to a World War II-era Dutch concentration camp where 101 Soviet prisoners of war were sent to die.

The world is celebrating the 70th anniversary of the victory of the allied forces in World War II. And this means a lot especially for Russian people. This is a very special day…

Remco Reiding: Absolutely, and I has everything to do with more than 26 million of war victims in the former Soviet Union, something we tend to forget in the West, because we were liberated by Americans, Canadians, British, so the role of the Soviet Union is sometimes forgotten. But that is one of the reasons I think it’s very important that there is a book now about Soviet soldiers in this case Soviet soldiers buried in the Netherlands.

Why “Field of Honor”? Of course people don’t know what this refers to.

Remco Reiding: It’s a cemetery, where 865 Soviet war victims have been buried in the center of the Netherlands. And it was created because during the war in this town, my home town of Amersfoort there was a concentration camp where 101 soviet soldiers were sent to. These were mostly soldiers from Uzbekistan, so they had Asiatic look, they were very poorly dressed, they didn’t get any food during transport to this camp in the Netherlands and their fate in the camp was also terrible – all 101 died in Amersfoort. And the idea then was that we as Dutch people, as you could say brotherly, friendly people to the Germans, from the same branch of peoples. And they had that crazy idea that the Dutch would choose the German side, if we would see what kind of ‘Unter-menschen’ a kind of lower kind of people Soviet soldiers were. And this propaganda was actually meant to make us change sides and fight against Bolshevism.

Do we know at what stage of the war, what year concentration camp was set up there?

Remco Reiding: Yes, this story starts in 1941. Those soldiers arrived only a couple of month after the camp opens. And by then the population was only Dutch or mostly Dutch and most of the prisoners were actually Dutch communists, because they have been resisting the German occupation from the beginning, and they were arrested after the start of operation Barbarossa – the attack on the Soviet Union. And the idea is probably that the communists were meant to be shown what kind of bad people they were supporting. That was an unrepeatable propaganda campaign, because they brought prisoners all the way from Smolensk to a country in the West. So they were in cargo trains for two weeks before they arrived in Amersfoort.

It’s interesting that you mention this, because so many people I’ve been talking to here in Russia don’t understand how is it that there were concentration camps in such odd places? Now we understands why.

Remco Reiding: That is one of the reasons. Actually after the war Amersfoort was chosen as a meeting point a collection point for other Soviet soldiers buried in the Netherlands. And most of those soldiers actually also ended up in the West, in Germany, but still the west of Germany, where many Prisoner-Of-War camps were and a lot of forced labors were, because there were mines, there were factories – that is why they sent those Soviet soldiers, prisoners of war to the west of Germany, so they could work there. And unfortunately they died of illnesses and ended up in the Netherlands as well.

In that particular camp they all died towards the end of the war or else?

Remco Reiding: No, the first group, 24 of them died within half a year, because they were treated very badly and the other 77 they were hardly alive – but they decided to tell them that the climate was not right for them and they would be transported to France, but in fact they were transported 500 meters further – where they were executed in groups of four, which is a huge war crime, by the way, you cannot just shoot POW without any court decision. And it’s also the second biggest massacre in the Netherlands, and therefore it’s a group that should not be forgotten.

Was that something that became known immediately after the war or a whole period of time had to pass before it actually surfaced?

Remco Reiding: Yes, it was known right after the war. It was not covered up at all – they tried to prosecute everyone who was involved and they managed to for a big deal of them. Some were not alive or not caught right away. But the later commander, at that moment he was actually lowest in rank, and he did many things wrong during the next years – he was executed after the War, and mainly because of the execution of these 77 Soviet soldiers.

How did your interest and your involvement actually start, I believe you were journalist at that time?

Remco Reiding: You could say I was a student of Journalism; I was already working for a local newspaper, the one in my home town, and I got the opportunity in an exchange program with the possibility to go to New York. But I thought that New York is the place I will visit one day – so let’s go to Moscow. I had no connection to Moscow at that time, and as a student of Journalism I was very curious. And I can tell you now that it’s been 17 years, and I’ve never ever been in New York. I’ve lived in Moscow for 8 year.

What was your first impression of Moscow?

Remco Reiding: That first impression changed my life, I was very much impressed by Moscow and it seemed to be completely different world with positive and negative sides, but still I was impressed. That was 1998. It was a difficult time, but also a bit crazy time, wild time… I was a 21 year old student. And I fell in love with the city, but not only the city – that’s how it goes. And I came back in the Netherlands – and that’s how it started. They told me you are crazy about Moscow, about Russia, you have an interest, you’re curious, you’re young, you have all the time in the worlds, because you are a student, we don’t have to pay you – so maybe then go and investigate those Russian graves that we have. So the idea to investigate those graves came from the local newspaper. It was an old idea. The idea was also very vague, because they did not tell me it was a complete cemetery, they didn’t tell me how they ended up there, they didn’t tell me who they were. The only thing they told me – was: “We have Russian graves and they are kind of forgotten”.

What was the cemetery like at the time? Were there gravestones?

Remco Reiding: Yes. It’s absolutely amazing that those graves were forgotten, because it’s a complete cemetery, it’s next to the entrance of the general cemetery, there are individual graves and they are very well taken care of by the Dutch government. However none of the relatives of those 865 soldiers have ever been traced. So you can imagine the cemetery is already a place of death, and if no relatives come to put flowers, it’s even more and easier to become a place of death and of forgotten soldiers. My task was to give this forgotten cemetery a face, to trace relatives of those soldiers – that was the idea.

Did your heart ‘warmed’ to the project immediately?

Remco Reiding: Yes, but there was certain development and motivation, because my first motivation was curiosity, which is normal for anyone and certainly for a 21 year old student of journalism. And the second thing – it was a challenge, ambition. I had difficult years, my mother have died and I felt kind of lost in the world and here I saw a project that could help me also do something special, and mean something in life. Then of course I realized I was not looking at stones but I was looking at people, people of my age that fought in the war that they hoped never to fight, people who were buried thousands of kilometers from home. And their families didn’t know. I felt it was a moral obligation for all of us, and for me to investigate and try to inform the relatives.

How did you start, what was the first thing you were able to do?

Remco Reiding: It started with that first group and those Uzbek soldiers, but already pretty soon I found out that they have all been buried as unknown soldiers, because the Germans had destroyed the administration. I understood that this group is not the group with the biggest chance of success. So I started to find out where did the others come from, how did they ended up in Amersfoort and after about one and a half years of searching the archives finally I found out additional information that helped me to identify soldiers, because the name is not enough. With this information I was able to start tracing relatives.

What kind of response you got when you made the enquiries?

Remco Reiding: It’s hard to give an answer, because in the end archives are not archives, its human beings working there and most of them understand. And they find a way if it’s not within the rules directly to help. And sometimes there are human beings that don not understand, do not care and they don’t help, and you find those human beings in Germany. And then I try to explain that it’s not about me or about them – it’s about helping people who have been without news about their relatives for 50, 60 now already 70 years. This emotional appeal often helps, maybe it’s needed a bit more in the Netherlands and Germany than here, because here every family understands what the war has done to a regular family.

Did you ever think your project was an example for someone else to follow in other countries?

Remco Reiding: It’s a bit difficult to find similar situations; it’s a bit unusual that there are Soviet graves in the West, because the Soviet army was fighting in the east. However, Germany is full of such graves, and it would be great if the German society also takes part in tracing relatives. In Belgium there are certain people having similar situations. In Russia there are many people the so-called ‘searchers’, who are searching in the woods and fields for remains of soldiers.

Any particular story, any emotional part of it?

Remco Reiding: All 865 for me they all are evenly important, but the story I tell in my book is very important for me – it’s the first family I traced and it’s also the son of the soldier Vladimir Botenko – his son Dmitry, he was the first ever to visit the cemetery. I was lucky also to receive his photograph, so we now know how the family looks like. And I managed to get a lot of information about his life; I visited his place of birth, the house he was living in, the house he built himself just a year before he had to go to the front. It was very emotional for me. Now we have our own child of the ‘Field of Honor’ and we named him Dima, after Dmitry the first traced relative. My life will always be connected to this story.

Do you something to sum up for the people around the globe marking this great anniversary? What should they not forget?

Remco Reiding: Let me answer it for us… We have started a program called ‘Grave adoption’, we ask people to adopt a grave to adopt a soldier, and by doing this we try to find 865 people who want to do this. By doing this we want to preserve the memory of each soldier. I think such initiatives can take place everywhere. And if one person takes care of a soldier, then all of them will not be forgotten.

The coming color revolution chaos in Kyrgyzstan

From Russia Insider, March 19, 2015
By Andrew Korybko

It can be certain that the arrival of the ‘Male Nuland’ to Kyrgyzstan, freshly forced out of retirement to take on this pivotal role, portends the Central Asian anti-Russian equivalent of what Nuland unleashed in Eastern Europe over a year ago with EuroMaidan.

The first part of the article discussed Richard Miles’ Color Revolution credentials and why the arrival of the ‘Male Nuland’ in Bishkek likely portends an oncoming destabilization there. It also looked at American policy towards Uzbekistan and the importance of Ambassador Spratlen’s appointment to Tashkent. An overview of the US’s grand strategy against Russia, as adapted for the Central Asian vector, was also explored in that section. At this juncture, the article forecasts what the chaos that Miles is about to unleash in Kyrgyzstan will look like, including the tempting ‘media Crimea’ scenario that is bound to split Tashkent from Moscow and crown Uzbekistan as the US’s long-term Lead From Behind proxy in Central Asia.

The Kyrgyz Game Plan:

Zeroing in on Kyrgyzstan and Richard Miles’ ‘temporary’ appointment as the de-facto ambassador there, it’s likely that the general course of Color Revolutionary chaos will take on a relatively predetermined path. Parliamentary elections are scheduled for October, and will likely serve as ‘the event’ needed to ‘justify’ a Color Revolution. This is a very opportune time for the destabilization to commence, since Kyrgyzstan would have already joined the Eurasian Union, and ‘opposition’ candidates and/or activists can attempt to manipulate this into a campaign issue (either within the country or in front of the foreign media). Also, October represents the tail end of fall and the beginning of winter, which in Kyrgyzstan, leads to a de-facto months-long division between the North and the South owing to the blocking of critical mountain passes connecting the two.

With the country having almost splitduring the last spate of externally driven instability in 2010, the prospects remain for it to do so once more if there’s a repeat of similar violence. This is because the North-South Kyrgyzstan rivalry hasn’t gone away in the years since, but only went underground and outside of the international public’s attention. The emergence of ‘South Kyrgyzstan’ in fact or in form could become an epicenter of future conflicts and easily follow the Afghan model of drug trafficking and terrorism. These fears could create the conditions needed to force Russia and the CSTO into a Reverse Brzezinski intervention, made even more difficult by the mountainous terrain that favors insurgency over counter-guerrilla operations. Left to its own, ‘South Kyrgyzstan’s’ black hole of destabilization could combine with a renewed Taliban threat in Afghanistan to existentially endanger Tajikistan, which aside from further pressuring Russia to intervene and crush the fledgling ‘Central Asian Islamic State’, could raise fears in China that Uighur terrorists will exploit the disorder to establish bases for carrying out attacks in Xinjiang.

The entire dynamic would be complicated by the re-eruption of ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan’s portion of the Fergana Valley, where the ethnic Uzbeks’ grievances and the tensions between them and ethnic Kyrgyz were simply swept under the rug for the past few years in the same way that the North-South Kyrgyzstan rivalry was. In the event that Miles succeeds in initiating any type of Color Revolution disorder in the country (which given its existing instability, isn’t that difficult to do), it’s expected that the 2010 ethnic chaos will return, when about 300,000 Uzbeks were displaced and 100,000 fled to Uzbekistan. This time, however, instead of Uzbekistan sitting on the sidelines and reacting to the crisis, it’s forecasted that it will directly intervene in the country, which is the tripwire that will irrevocably break Uzbek-Russian bilateral relations and herald in Tashkent’s role as the US’ Lead From Behind partner in Central Asia.

Breaking Kyrgyzstan

If the Kyrgyz authorities and their Eurasian Union and SCO allies aren’t successful in quickly containing and extinguishing Miles’ planned Color Revolutionary violence, then the prospects for foreign military intervention dramatically increase, due to all actors’ fears that the situation will rapidly spiral out of control if left unattended. While it’s never known exactly how any campaign can play out in advance, if the oncoming crisis in Kyrgyzstan even remotely mirrors that which the country experienced in 2010 (as was forecasted above), then the following is the most likely way that events could play out:

The Kant Air Base And Northern Kyrgyzstan:

Russia retains an air base in Kant, located on the outskirts of Bishkek, and it’s forecasted that this would form the nucleus of any stabilization force deployed to Kyrgyzstan. As previously mentioned, Russia will try its best not to get trapped in the Kyrgyz cauldron, meaning that it would likely limit any boots on the ground to Northern Kyrgyzstan, where they can more easily assist in restoring peace and order in cooperation with their legitimate counterparts there. This intervention only becomes possible if the Kyrgyz security forces begin to lose control of the capital and other

major cities in the north straddling the Kazakh border, and specifically request external assistance in restoring governance there. Even then, the Russians could always take a ‘wait-and-see’ approach to avoid being drawn into a Reverse Brzezinski, but if the violence becomes uncontrollable, they’ll be forced to intervene, especially if the Kant Air Base is threatened.

On the other hand, unlike in 2010 when Russia refused to conventionally intervene in support of the friendly revolutionary government, in 2015, the situation may be that the friendly legitimate authorities request Moscow’s help in order to beat back violent anti-Russian mobs trying to seize control of the state a la the EuroMaidan model. In such a situation, it may be hard for Russia to say no, understanding that failure to shore up stability in Kyrgyzstan could either create the black hole of chaos that it’s been dreading or lead to the establishment of a radical pro-Western government obsessed with purusing a Russophobic foreign policy. Not only that, but a serious crisis of that nature sprouting up inside the Eurasian Union could destabilize the entire organization and increase pressure on Russia and the other members (all of which are part of the CSTO) to actively respond.

In any case, it is highly unlikely that Russia and its partners will intervene in Fergana Valley, because just like in 2010, they don’t want to dangerously get caught between two warring ethnicities and/or create the impression (which would be obviously manipulated by the hypocritical Western media) that they’re waging a ‘war on Islam’ by ‘occupying’ conservative Muslim strongholds there. As for Southern Kyrgyzstan, it will most probably remain a ‘no-go’ zone for all foreign military parties due to the forthcoming winter snow (if the destabilization commences in October as predicted) that would hinder all but the most essential military operations in that mountainous and sparsely populated area.

Uzbekistan And The ‘Media Crimea’:

Seeing as how the Fergana Valley isn’t anticipated to have any Russian or CSTO military intervention in the event of any forthcoming Kyrgyz destabilization, this leaves Uzbekistan as the only probable actor that can flex its muscles in that area. At this moment, one needs to recall the first part of this article dealing with the US’ strategy towards Uzbekistan, Ambassador Pamela Spratlen, and Washington’s desire to see the country become the pro-Western Lead From Behind proxy for Central Asia. It should also not be forgotten that Uzbekistan and Russia appear to be on the cusp of a minor renaissance of relations, and that the US has a vested interest in tearing Tashkent and Moscow apart just it did Kiev and Moscow after EuroMaidan. Keeping this in mind, it becomes understandable why the US would press for an Uzbek ‘humanitarian intervention’/’Responsibility 2 Protect’ in the Fergana Valley in the foreseeable event that ethnic clashes resume between Uzbeks and Kyrgyz there amidst a statewide meltdown. Considering that this would amount to Uzbekistan invading a CSTO-member state (Kyrgyzstan), such an action would certainly bring Uzbek-Russian relations to a crisis level, which is exactly what the US wants.

In fact, Pamela Spratlen’s ultimate strategic objective is to convince Uzbekistan to perform a ‘media Crimea’ in the Fergana Valley in order to lay the seeds for prolonged tension between it and Russia for the years to come. By this, it is meant that Uzbekistan actually perform in the Fergana Valley what the Western media falsely stated that Russia had done in Crimea, which is a military invasion and subsequent annexation of its neighbor’s territory on the grounds of protecting one’s ethnic compatriots.

Russia never did any of this, but it doesn’t matter, since it’s still guilty of these ‘crimes’ in the eyes of the Western media, and the international audience is now largely attuned to understanding what the fake ‘Crimea precedent’ means. Thus, if Uzbekistan stages a ‘media Crimea’ and invades and annexes Kyrgyzstan’s Uzbek-populated parts in the Fergana Valley (perhaps even spreading to include all or parts of Osh and Jalal-Abad, Kyrgyzstan’s most important cities in the area), then this would not come as a surprise, and ironically, would actually be cheered on by the West.

Other than precipitating a major crisis between Uzbekistan and Russia/CSTO (which would automatically make Tashkent turn to the West), it would also be a way to ‘stick it to Russia’ by using the fake ‘Crimea precedent’ as a weapon to harm its interests, which could then be touted as an informational victory in its own right (despite not having any real connection to Russia’s actual actions vis-à-vis Crimea). If Uzbekistan balks at Spratlen’s initial ‘suggestion’ of a ‘media Crimea’, then she could always turn up the heat by utilizing existing Color Revolution infrastructure within the country to launch a massive ‘grassroots’ campaign to pressure the authorities to accede to her demands. This could realistically be coupled with Western governments ‘guilting’ Uzbekistan for its failure to intervene next door, much as they attempted to do with Turkey over Ayn al-Arab (Kobani in Kurdish). If the Uzbek authorities continue to refuse Spratlen’s ‘suggestion’, then the ‘grassroots’ movement for a ‘media Crimea’ in the Kyrgyz Fergana Valley can morph into an actual Color Revolution attempt against the government, which might just be the straw that breaks the state’s back.

Chinese Mediation:

Throughout all of this, China’s mediation role is assured due to its strategic interests in all three actors. The Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership guarantees that Moscow and Beijing have no intention of ever butting heads over something as relatively minor to their bilateral relationship as Uzbekistan, while China’s hefty energy investments and pivotal pipeline transit through Uzbekistan makes it so that Beijing will not turn a blind eye towards Tashkent’s interests as well. While China may publicly chastise Uzbekistan through the SCO format for its ‘media Crimea’ in Fergana, it will by no means support a Russian/CSTO military counter-measure against it (which is unlikely anyhow) because it believes that such a move could further destabilize the country and endanger its pipeline security.

Russia is not expected to behave unilaterally and/or militarily respond to Uzbekistan, and in any case, it will not risk jeopardizing the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership after Beijing warns it not to do so. The Strategic Partnership is thus that it is fully dependent on trust between Moscow and Beijing, and that if either one violates this understanding and begins behaving in a manner that is seen as counter to the other’s interests, a classic security dilemma can emerge that could speedily lead to the dismantlement of the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ and a possible Sino-Russian split. Both sides are acutely aware of this and know that the US fantasizes about such a scenario, hence why they will not risk a falling out over something as relatively trivial to them (in the global perspective) as Uzbekistan.

Concerning Kyrgyzstan, China is currently involved in an anti-terror campaign in Xinjiang against militant Uighur separatists, and it fears that a destabilized Kyrgyzstan abutting the province could serve as a terrorist rear base. Thus, it is in Beijing’s interests to see overall stability returned to Kyrgyzstan if it becomes wracked with violence after another US-directed Color Revolution, but due to its tradition of non-interference, it will stop short of committing its troops to any operation on its territory. Instead, it will likely fortify the border as much as it can and take the diplomatic lead in helping all parties in the country reach a negotiated settlement in order to restore peace as soon as possible. Once this is achieved, albeit even partially, then all the countries can begin to (jointly?) tackle the shared problem of Southern Kyrgyzstan.

The Conundrum Over Southern Kyrgyzstan:

Amidst turbulence in Northern Kyrgyzstan and possible Uzbek annexation in the Fergana Valley, Southern Kyrgyzstan will be largely forgotten until these two issues are first dealt with. As was discussed earlier, October (the time of the Parliamentary elections, the suspected Color Revolution onset event) is very close to the beginning of winter, and if the period of destabilization described above is not resolved soon enough, then the inclement weather may de-facto intervene to divide the country by cutting off the few mountain passages linking the north and south. This would have the effect of incubating Southern Kyrgyzstan’s drug and terrorism threats and preventing all but the most serious and determined external interventions from eradicating them before they spread throughout the region.

Of course, the mountainous population of this portion of Kyrgyzstan (minus the Fergana Valley, of course) is very small, but still, the area it covers is large enough to present a critical non-state actor threat that can directly affect Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and China’s Xinjiang Province. Indirectly, but no less important, the problems festering in Southern Kyrgyzstan can quickly make their way north into the Eurasian Union and further afield into Russia proper, thereby compelling Moscow into some type of action to stem this virus before it becomes uncontrollable (to say nothing of the immediate danger it presents for Russian forces in Tajikistan). Some type of foreign action would have to be taken to resolve this issue, but it’s impossible to know what it will look like. The only thing that can be ascertained is that it would involve the Kyrgyz authorities and potentially a multilateral force incorporating Tajik and/or Russian elements, with Uzbekistan and China notably not taking part (the former due to tensions over the ‘media Crimea’ and the latter due to its policy of non-interference).

Concluding Thoughts

Richard Miles’ return from retirement in order to staff the US Embassy in Bishkek is more than just a random event. The Color Revolution specialist was ordered to Kyrgyzstan not to gently shuffle papers, but to forcibly shuffle the composition of the government. This is in accordance with the 21st-century Reagan Doctrine that Hillary Clinton publicly unveiled in December 2012, whereby it was decreed that the US will do whatever it can to roll back Russian influence in the Near Abroad. In conjunction with the US-inspired destabilization that is projected to hit the country around the October Parliamentary elections, Washington also envisions pulling Tashkent away from its flirtation with Moscow through coaxing it into a ‘media Crimea’ in the Kyrgyz Fergana Valley. Dividing Uzbekistan from Russia in the same manner that Ukraine was separated from it a year prior is the ultimate strategic goal of the US in the region, since it would create a long-term Lead From Behind proxy to challenge Russian influence in Central Asia. Kyrgyzstan’s role, or more precisely, that of Southern Kyrgyzstan, is intended as nothing more than a permanently failed state abutting the Eurasian Union, Uzbekistan, and China, in order to continuously inflict destabilizing pressure on them. No matter which shape the oncoming chaos takes, it can be certain that the arrival of the ‘Male Nuland’ to Kyrgyzstan, freshly forced out of retirement to take on this pivotal role, portends the Central Asian anti-Russian equivalent of what Nuland unleashed in Eastern Europe over a year ago with EuroMaidan.

Jewish homeland proposal for Crimea – Stalin and the “Crimea California” project

Read Kristina Russ’ comments at the end.

From Fort Russ, March 14, 2015
Translated by Kristina Rus

Crimean California
Originally published in “Ostrov Krym”  (“Crimea Island”) in September, 1999

1948. Returning from Sevastopol to his summer house, Stalin recalls everything that was recently associated with Crimea. As the main theorist in the field of ethnic issues, it was obvious to him: if the problems on the Peninsula are not properly addressed, these problems will turn into a time bomb of a tremendous destructive power in the future. In recent decades, the ethnic question, along with the victorious pace of its antipode – the ideas of proletarian internationalism, was the basis and the driving force behind processes on a global scale. It, of course, is not comparable with the power of the Marxist-Leninist ideology in general. But…

The Crimean peninsula usually either contained several small municipal entities, or the entire Crimea or a part of it was part of other states. Therefore none of the historical events in Crimea should be considered in isolation, without regard to the fate of not only the Northern Black Sea region, but also Europe, and most importantly – the Soviet Union (Russia).

– But… – Stalin mused, – now Crimea is just a region in RSFSR.

Crimea is Russian, as it should be, for it is a historically predetermined fact. Only Russian, otherwise there will be a lot of hunters for this land. Take, for example, the project to create “Crimean California”…

These facts are little known today to the general public. Unavailability of archives raises a lot of conflicting rumors and speculation, but the secret is securely hidden…
Continue reading

Washington stalks its next victim, sends color revolution expert “male Nuland” to Kyrgyzstan

From Oriental Review, March 5, 2015
By Andrew Korybko


Image: Richard Miles a.k.a father of Color Revolution

One of the most prominent Color Revolution experts in America’s coup d’état toolkit has been hurriedly recalled from retirement for immediate deployment to Kyrgyzstan. Richard Miles, the engineer of the first Color Revolution in Serbia and the Rose Revolution in Georgia, has been appointed as charge d’affaires in Kyrgyzstan until a new ambassador is confirmed by the Senate, because the former one, Pamela Spratlen, has been reassigned as the US Ambassador to Uzbekistan. While it is not known how long Miles will remain in Kyrgyzstan, which will be the Eurasian Union’s weakest economy when it joins in May of this year, ordinary citizens there already suspect that foul play is being planned against their country and have protested his arrival. Given that Miles’ track record of regime change makes him worthy of the ‘Male Nuland’ moniker, it’s appropriate to investigate what tricks the US may be up to in Central Asia, and how it may be trying to force the Ukrainian scenario onto Russia’s southern doorstep.

“The Male Nuland”

Richard Miles has kept a relatively low profile throughout the years and hasn’t garnered the notoriety that his ideological protégé Nuland has, but this doesn’t mean that he’s any less dangerous for the countries he visits. In fact, since he’s the individual who spearheaded the Color Revolution tactic in the first place, he can even be referred to as a ‘proto Nuland’, owing to his ‘successes’ in Serbia and Georgia that helped make EuroMaidan possible in the first place. While he was no longer the American Ambassador to Yugoslavia when the 2000 Bulldozer Revolution overthrow Slobodan Milosevic, he certainly paved the way for its implementation during his work over the three years prior, including overseeing the NATO War on Serbia. As regards Georgia, he served as US Ambassador from 2002-2005 and repeated the Belgrade template in Tbilisi.

Afterwards, he became the Executive Director for the Open World Leadership Center for most of 2006, during which he fostered the creation of thousands of pro-American ‘leaders’ in the former Soviet Union. To Center’s own mission statement concisely describes the type of work that it does:

“Begun as a pilot program in 1999 and established as a permanent agency in late 2000, the Center conducts the first and only international exchange agency in the U.S. Legislative Branch and, as such, has enabled more than 17,000 current and future leaders from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan to meaningfully engage and interact with Members of Congress, Congressional staff, and thousands of other Americans, many of whom are the delegates’ direct professional counterparts.”

The above statement can be read as an admission that the Center’s purpose is to create pro-American proxies that can seamlessly interact with and do the bidding of their Washington patrons, thereby essentially making it an NGO front for the US intelligence community’s cultivation of Color Revolution assets. The organization doesn’t hide the fact that its purpose is to promote American interests and profit, brazenly bragging that:

“Open World offers an extraordinary “bang for the buck” in terms of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and value. The Center boasts an overhead rate of about 7 percent, every grant contains cost-shared elements, and more than 75 percent of our appropriation is plowed back into the American economy every year. The Center might best be described as both a mini-stimulus plan as well as a true international exchange program.”

Bearing in mind Miles’ experience in running this Color Revolution recruitment front, as well as his contribution to managing two ‘successful’ regime change operations in Serbia and Georgia, he can easily be identified as one of the most dangerous people in the US deep state establishment, and the fact that he was recalled from retirement to urgently take the ‘temporary’ post in Kyrgyzstan during these tense geopolitical times must absolutely be seen as a warning about Washington’s nefarious intentions.

Uzbekistan’s Role In The US’ Central Asian Strategy

While Washington is poised to destabilize Kyrgyzstan, it’s showing strong signals that it’s ready to do the opposite in neighboring Uzbekistan, and has been reingratiating itself with Tashkent over the past couple of years in a bid to shore up what it intends to become its Lead From Behind proxy in the region. Continue reading