Tag: Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan keeps relying on Russia for its military equipment

Over the recent years, Russian and international media have been actively writing about various contracts of Uzbekistan for the purchase of Russian military equipment, some of them are the most modern, and the other part are a legacy of the USSR. The numerous deals indicate Tashkent’s determination to take arms sales talks with Moscow to a higher level. In 2017, Uzbekistan committed to modernizing its armed forces as part of a five-year development strategy. Another factor that may have spurred Uzbekistan’s Defense Ministry recently was the intra-Afghan conference in Qatar, which resulted in the adoption of a nascent peace resolution. Tashkent has a lot at stake in this process, since any withdrawal of Western (particularly American) troops as a result of the resolution will have direct security consequences. Thus, Uzbekistan will take sole responsibility for protecting its border with Afghanistan.

In addition, in 2019, Uzbekistan purchased 12 Mi-35M military helicopters. These transport helicopters, which can also be used to attack ground targets, have been in production since the 2000s. Besides, Uzbekistan has ordered an unspecified number of BTR-82A armored personnel carriers (APCs), capable of carrying three crew members and seven soldiers. Previously, Tashkent also purchased “several dozen” special-purpose armored vehicles VPK-233136 “Tiger”, capable of transporting up to seven military personnel (according to TASS).

In addition to modernizing equipment for its ground forces, Uzbekistan plans to enter into contracts for the Air Force and order new fighter jets and a radar system. In particular, Tashkent is negotiating the purchase of Su-30SM multirole fighters, which Russia has deployed in Syria. Uzbekistan has also expressed interest in acquiring Sopka-2 radar systems, which monitor airspace, as well as upgrading the country’s existing military radars to Sopka-2 levels.

Closer-than-usual military cooperation between Russia and Uzbekistan began with President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s first trip to Moscow in April 2017 and President Vladimir Putin’s return visit to Tashkent in October 2018. During these meetings, the parties discussed issues of military cooperation and modernization of Uzbekistan’s military equipment using Russian assets; the real details of these conversations are only surfacing now. And, no doubts, Uzbekistan’s recent purchases of Russian weapons, along with ongoing negotiations between the two sides, are directly related to these aforementioned summits.

A number of factors indicate that Uzbekistan’s efforts to update its military arsenal are related to the dynamically developing situation in Afghanistan. Earlier this year, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of Uzbekistan, Major General Pavel Ergashev, spoke about the movement of “centres of instability” in northern Afghanistan (i.e. areas close to or bordering Uzbekistan), which, in his opinion, threatens stability in Central Asia. The fact that these purchases came after intense peace negotiations in Afghanistan, which were supported by Uzbekistan, is not a mere coincidence. Assuming a subsequent withdrawal of US troops from the theater of operations in the short to medium term, the burden of defending the Afghan-Uzbek border will now fall solely on Tashkent.

Despite the fact the Turkish drones such as the Bayraktar TB2 have become extremely popular due to their successful deployment in multiple conflicts around the globe and have also popped up in Central Asia, Uzbekistan seems to rely more on the Russian drone system. In August 2021, Uzbek armed forces performed a readiness drill with Russian-made drones in an area near the country’s southern border. The Yug-2021 exercise was held jointly with the Russian army against the backdrop of worsening stability in neighboring Afghanistan.

Uzbekistan has tried to develop domestic defense capabilities elsewhere too. In October 2021, the State Defense Industry Committee announced it had developed its own remote-controlled heavy machine gun. A month later, the same body said it had begun production of a domestically designed light-armored vehicle called Qalqon (Shield).

It is much more profitable for Uzbekistan to purchase military equipment from Moscow rather than from NATO for a number of reasons. Firstly, in the current conditions of logistical difficulties, the delivery of military equipment from Russia is much safer and cheaper than from NATO countries. Secondly, given Uzbekistan’s Soviet past, many standards and the language of instructions for Russian equipment are clearer than Western ones. Thirdly, the United States is gradually curtailing its geographic scope of military operations, since it cannot support them financially, and accordingly, supplies of depleted equipment to Uzbekistan will cost more, and their effectiveness is quite low. Finally, Uzbekistan is also aware of the strategic risks of purchasing military equipment from NATO – ultimately this will lead to the deployment of NATO military bases on the country’s territory under the pretext of “maintaining and monitoring” equipment in proper condition, joint exercises, etc.

Thus, these factors and global changes are motivating Uzbekistan to quickly acquire military equipment from the country where most of its obsolete military equipment originally came from.

February 28, 2024
Uzbekistan’s energy pathways: at a crossroads between East and West

The new Russia-Uzbekistan nuclear plant agreement on cooperation in the construction of generation nuclear power plant (NPP) VVER-1200 reactor of 3+ generation in Uzbekistan seems to pose far more opportunities than it might seem. With the Tashkent’s critical need of non-costly energy resources, the project aims not only to foster Uzbekistan’s self-sufficiency and persistence in the energy sector, but also to launch national production and export of its own energy resources. Despite the plant is claimed to be of the ex-soviet prototype, the new industry will be equipped with state-of-the-art technologies and facilities by State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM, a global technological leader.

However, while Russia is likely to become a major energy partner for Uzbekistan, Tashkent will also continue developing energy construction projects along with the US and China. Earlier this year Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Miromonovich Mirziyoyev visited the White House where President J. Trump proposed a plan for strategic partnership with Uzbekistan in various spheres. But while Uzbekistan-US cooperation in social, economic and educational development does not require industrial waste management and recycling, the cooperation in the nuclear and energy sector with the use of nuclear elements of the US origin and a lack of US recycling technologies may pose an ecological threat for the country.

China, for its part, willing to contribute to the modernization of the Uzbekistan’s energy sector bears more global motives rather than selling technologies to its geographical neighbors. Should Beijing become a nuclear partner of Tashkent it will obviously take over the control of the Uzbekistan’s energy infrastructure.

Certainly, the agreement between Uzbekistan and Russia is not going to meet the country’s entire demand for energy resources. However, with the current US-China trade confrontation and blur industrial management prospects both from Beijing and Washington, collaboration with Moscow seems to be a win-win opportunity for Uzbekistan at the moment.

November 21, 2018
Discussions on Achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDG) at Global-Local Approach Level and “Uzbek Model”: “Historical Experience, Contemporary Implementations and the Common Future”

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin EROL, Gazi University, Deputy Head of International Relations Department

The “Millennium Development Goals” (MDG) project which is being implemented under the leadership of the United Nations (UN) focusing
to solve the eight fundamental issues facing the human beings at the global level, regarded as a courageous step for the future. The realization of the goals
will be a historical turning point in terms of the great philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” which is still regarded to be a utopia today without any
doubt. In other words, the UN has undertaken a mission issued by the leaders in the Millennium Summit 11 years ago and targeting a more prosperous, just and
peaceful world.

Well, how much is it possible to implement this project which is almost challenging the next millennium in the name of improving the welfare and quality of life of
the humanity? Especially, how will this issue be solved when materialistic perception of globalism that is being made dominate the world and subsequent
problem of evaluating moral-subjective values are considered? Will the UN be able to get over this paradox in an atmosphere in which quantity forestalls
quality and, with regard to this, “imposing” proposed solutions are put on the market as “standard” packages under
different names and an atmosphere in which all these “standard” packages cause more problems?

No doubt neither at present nor in the medium-term it is easy to answer these questions. Especially approaching to the issue in this way and seeking for
“yes-no” answers to the said questions will mean dynamiting the way to the solution. Anyhow, such an approach will go against both the spirit of social
sciences and the methodological understanding. Our goal here is, through this kind of questions, to bring up the matters that should have been asked and
raised in the first place and to ensure the development of possible solutions, may be by saying “the Emperor is bare.” For this reason, there is no need to
enter into philosophical discussions and very complex methods. Even putting the reality of the world and the statements in the published declaration will be enough
to depict a certain number of challenges in front of the process. Accordingly, although the MDG are launched as a project to find a common solution to the
problems of the humanity at the global level, in practice they are open to be attributed different meanings as long as a common road map cannot be introduced.

Especially after the post-Cold War era within a context where some local issues which could be solved locally are globalized over the concepts are brought into intervention tools,                                                                                                                     so it is inevitable for some nation-states to consider this type of UN based projects cautiously. Therefore, it seems that it wouldn’t be so easy for our world experiencing ebbs and                                                                                                                 flows between the globalization and nation-state process to realize the targets set in the MDG in terms of the implementing developments and practices
about “human rights-democracy- governance” understandings on national, regional and global basis. In other words, this cautious approach will endure unless the
mentality does not change and an objective viewpoint considering the local in many respects and in this context balancing the local-global with collaboration
is not put forth instead of top-down approaches and interventions. On the other hand, as it is partially mentioned above, this is not a problem that
cannot be overcome. The key to overcome it lies in listening the local, trying to grasp its realities, and taking its journey, experience, values and
sensibility into consideration. Hence, it is time to recognize the local as a solution partner rather than taking it only as the source and field of
problems. After all, the locals are global in total and today goals stated with regard to the MDG are predicated on the solution of the problem that grows out
of the locals within the pioneering powers of the globalization. Additionally, it should be accepted that the problems formed with regard to the MDG are not
belong just to the century or millennium we live and that their roots originates in centuries before.

As of today, it cannot be a coincidence that almost the whole of the problems which are on the spotlight of the world agenda and tried to be solved in the
context of the MDG are seen in the former colonial countries, too. As a matter of fact, the said problems’ moving away from their limited and local image,
spreading, deepening, gaining a global character and, at the end, turning into threats to and elements of instability for the future of the whole humanity
have their roots in the centuries before.

In such an environment how can geographical discoveries, colonialism and, as an inevitable outcome of these, imperialism together with the globalization be
kept out of all these? What can be said for materialism that tramples all moral values-beliefs by making material forestall meaning and what can be said for
distorted understanding of modernization that turns people into consumption slaves? Today how many of the problems emerging in the context of the MDG                                                                                                                                                        has followed a development process independent from these mentioned points?

We know that projects are represented as they are very much humanistic in the global manner. However, since they are kept limited to certain regions for
certain reasons and are launched as peculiar to these regions, they can face some challenges in practice. As a result, in resolution of such kind of
problems it is necessary first to have a clear and well-intentioned position and second to take steps accordingly. Then, what can be done at this point?

There is no need to go so far to find an answer to this question. To find an answer, it will be enough to look at successful approaches and practices that this
region contains within and implements in line with its realities and values, that have their roots in centuries before, that maintain their existence today,
and that take human as its base. In this context, two leading practices of civil society perception and solidarity in Uzbekistan are noteworthy. Focusing
on these practices shows that indeed they are successful models for a significant part of the problems drawn out of the MDG.

As a result of the historical practices and experiments, the civil approach understanding in Uzbekistan is based on the protecting the people from many
difficulties and threats and aiming social justice, equality and healthy social structure in such an unstable region like Central Asia. It is known that these
human based practices have the capacity to solve many interdependent social-individual problems with on time interventions. This nongovernmental
approach which is taking the family as the base and the woman and the children in the family as the focus and   imposing the necessity of all types of good education                                                                                                                                             is a successful practice within the power of the local completely. These practices are called “Makhalla System” and “Kamalat Youth Movement” and as mentioned above briefly                                                                                                                     they have got human based nongovernmental understanding, a deep history and tradition in the country.

The governing idea of the “Makhalla System” that has been implemented after the independence of Uzbekistan as one of the most concrete examples of participationary and direct
democracy is making the system, in which the basis of social structure is formed, the ground which prepares the youth for the future. With another words, “Makhalla is a big family”,                                                                                                        “Makhalla is the cradle of education” idea and together with “Economic development starts from the Makhalla” understanding constitutes the core of this model.

Constituting the first stage of the participatory administration, “Makhalla Foundations” started their activities in small Makhalla with 5000-7000 residents in which everyone knows each other.                                                                                         They have a spiritual, educational, informative and ability improving attitude. In this context, education, social assistance, environmental health and development; solution to social problems of                                                                                      the residents; help for the ill, aged and needy; employment and construction of social facilities for the youth; attachment of importance to women and their problems; and                                                                                                                             “Women Affairs Commission” working on a voluntary basis are outcomes of the “on-site and on time solution” perception of this model.

Moreower, “Kamalat Youth Movement”, formed in 2001, accepts young people aged between 14 and 28 as members and prepares them for the future with the necessary facilities.                                                                                                                     It is a civil society movement working actively on the issues such as unity of the youth, protection of their interests, improvement of their abilities, solutions to their problems, teaching them                                                                                                their social rights and guiding them in the way of entrepreneurship, and sport.

Therefore, as it is seen in this study primarily some problems emerged at the local-global basis from the aims put forth in the MDG and some concerns carried
by the local and ignored realities will be considered, firstly. Then, the importance and role of Uzbekistan will try to be emphasized in order to understand the
local very well and adaptation of successful practices of it into the global process. At this point, the contributions of “Uzbek Model” and its NGO understanding with “Mahalla System”                                                                                                        and “Kamalat Youth Movement” which are based on their historical depths, strong tradition, experience and human based dimensions can be considered as a
successful example and experience in terms of challenging with the fundamental issues facing the human beings at the global level.

November 22, 2011
UZBEKISTAN: US OFFICIALS NEGOTIATING A RETURN TO UZBEK AIR BASE – SOURCE

Shahin Abbasov 23/03/09

According to a diplomatic source, the United States is reportedly conducting talks with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan about opening up bases in the two Central Asian countries.

After Kyrgyzstan’s decision in February to evict US forces from an air base at Manas, US officials sent out feelers to Ashgabat and Tashkent about setting up a military presence on Turkmen and Uzbek territory, the diplomatic source claimed. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]1.

The source indicated that an agreement between US and Uzbek officials could be reached soon that would allow American forces to return to the Karshi-Khanabad (K2) air base. Uzbekistan evicted US forces from the base in late 2005 amid bilateral rancor over the Andijan events in May of that year.

Since Kyrgyzstan formally initiated the Manas base closure process, US defense officials have maintained that a base in Central Asia is not absolutely necessary for maintaining the existing level of support for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan. While many regional analysts have said it would be logical for Washington to explore the possibility of regaining access to K2 in Uzbekistan, there has been no official confirmation either coming out of Washington or Tashkent that any such discussions have occurred.

Indeed, US diplomats in recent weeks have publicly denied any knowledge of talks between the governments of the United States and Uzbekistan on a possible base deal. In a March 5 interview with the Russian-language newspaper Sobytiya (Events), for example, the US ambassador to Tajikistan, Tracy Ann Jacobson, stated that she “had not heard one word from my colleagues in the Pentagon about the possibility of creating a [new] base” in Central Asia, the agency Central Asian News reported.

It would seem to be a much longer shot for the United States to secure Turkmen approval for a base in that Central Asian nation. Turkmenistan has long staked out a neutral foreign policy.

US Defense Department officials did not immediately respond to repeated telephone and email queries made by EurasiaNet seeking comment on the supposed base negotiations.

The diplomatic source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, indicated that US officials have also sounded out Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev’s administration about the possibility of establishing a military base there. The clear US preference, however, is to find a facility that is closer to Afghanistan. “It would be more logical and efficient for a military operation in Afghanistan to have bases in Central Asia, but not in the South Caucasus,” the source said.

Beyond the military base matter, US officials are interested in securing wider Turkmen and Uzbek participation in a network to expand the flow of non-lethal supplies into Afghanistan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Ashgabat and Tashkent could play important roles in building a supply route running from Turkey to the Georgian Black Sea port of Poti, then by rail to Azerbaijan (Baku), and across the Caspian Sea. Both the Turkmen port of Turkmenbashi and the Kazakhstani port of Atyrau have been mentioned for the route’s next stage. Cargo would then move on to Uzbekistan and, finally, Afghanistan. Tajikistan, which borders on Afghanistan, has also been discussed as a storage point.

Transportation specialists, government officials and private companies from Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia, as well as US officials, gathered in Baku on March 9-10 for a US-sponsored conference on ways to integrate Azerbaijan into supply networks to Afghanistan. A March 9 statement from the US Embassy in Baku specified that cargo from Azerbaijan would be non-military and carried by private companies. Military personnel would not be involved in the transit, according to the embassy statement. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

A source in the Azerbaijani government who did not want to be named termed the conference productive for Azerbaijan. “The Americans offered to set up the necessary infrastructure in Azerbaijan [for storage], as well as to contract transportation companies and local businesses which would purchase the necessary goods and products [for troops in Afghanistan],” the source told EurasiaNet.

Former presidential foreign policy aide Vafa Guluzade, though, sees an eventual military component in the discussions as well. “Azerbaijan is situated closely to Afghanistan, Central Asia, Pakistan, Iran and Russia. Therefore, sooner or later, a US military presence in Azerbaijan is inevitable,” Guluzade said.

Not everyone agrees. Sulhaddin Akper, head of the Azerbaijan-Atlantic Cooperation Association, a Baku-based think-tank, said a base in Azerbaijan would be an inefficient way to support operations in Afghanistan, given the distance involved.

Whether or not a base is feasible in Azerbaijan, Baku is interested in helping to expand an Afghan supply route via the Caucasus. Azerbaijan already has 92 soldiers in Afghanistan as part of the US-led coalition that is combating the radical Islamic insurgency.

Azerbaijan’s willingness to strengthen strategic cooperation with the United States has made two of Baku’s neighbors — Russia and Iran — nervous. But for now, there is little that either country can do about it. Akper noted that Moscow’s ability to influence Baku has been diminished by a scandal in which the Kremlin reportedly authorized the transfer of Russian arms to Armenia. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Editor’s Note: Shahin Abbasov is a freelance correspondent based in Baku. He is also a board member of the Open Society Institute-Azerbaijan.

1 EURASIA INSIGHT

Eurasianet

March 23, 2009