Regional security paradigm shifts as experts question role of Russian bases in Central Asia

The discussion, which focused heavily on audience inquiries, addressed the presence of Russia's 201st military base in Tajikistan, alongside Russian aviation facilities in Kyrgyzstan.

Military bases as instruments of geopolitical pressure

According to Farhod Tolipov, the current geopolitical environment demands a fundamental reassessment of foreign military infrastructure across the region. He argued that the time has arrived for a gradual phased closure or, at the very least, a functional reformatting of these assets.

Tolipov questioned the practical efficacy of these facilities, citing widespread expert consensus that the real operational effectiveness of installations like the airbase in Kyrgyzstan remains remarkably low. Furthermore, multilateral regional security frameworks, such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), have consistently failed to function as the robust defense mechanisms they were intended to be.

The political scientist noted that the true value of any collective defense pact is only tested during a large-scale crisis. Over the past 30–35 years, Central Asia has not faced systemic, conventional military aggression from an external state. While localized incursions by armed groups from Afghanistan did occur, national security forces successfully neutralized these threats independently. Consequently, the practical necessity for massive, foreign-operated military hubs has been virtually nonexistent.

Beyond the logistical shortcomings, Tolipov emphasized the hidden geopolitical costs of hosting foreign troops. Both historical precedent and political theory demonstrate that foreign military installations invariably act as beachheads for the strategic interests of the deploying nation. This presence creates direct and indirect channels of influence, which frequently manifest as subtle pressure on the host nation’s sovereign decision-making processes.

A new regional security architecture

The conversation highlighted a significant shift toward strategic autonomy, underscored by the seventh consultative meeting of Central Asian heads of state held in Tashkent last November. The summit yielded two critical outcomes: a comprehensive regional security concept and an accompanying catalog of regional threats.

Although these documents remain classified and shielded from public scrutiny – a restriction Tolipov criticized as it prevents independent scholarly analysis – their adoption sends a clear signal. Central Asian states are actively trying to construct a self-contained "regional security architecture" to manage internal and external threats without external guardianship.

This trajectory mirrors past regional initiatives. In 1997, Central Asian nations successfully declared the region a nuclear-weapon-free zone despite Turkmenistan's strict neutrality. Analysts suggest that applying this historical lesson to conventional forces could lead to a logical next step: transforming Central Asia into a zone entirely free of foreign military bases.

Overstated threats and domestic mediation

Hamid Sodiq expanded on this view, stating that the perceived military threat emanating from Afghanistan toward Tajikistan has long been systematically exaggerated by external actors. While international attention remained strictly fixed on Afghan instability, real security breaches occurred elsewhere, such as the repeated, deadly border clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The failure of foreign bases to prevent or de-escalate these internal conflicts highlights the inaccuracy of initial threat assessments.

The expert noted that while foreign units like the 201st division might persist if local regimes view them as necessary for political survival, they no longer align with the broader collective defense needs of the region. From a strategic standpoint, a structured, conditions-based withdrawal of these forces is becoming increasingly plausible.

This shift is further enabled by the rise of a credible, homegrown diplomatic mediator within the region. Uzbekistan has successfully stepped into this role, working to resolve bilateral disputes among neighbors on the basis of strict equality and mutual respect. Crucially, unlike external superpowers, Tashkent’s mediation efforts do not carry the burden of geopolitical leverage or transactional political pressure.

Watch the full analytical discussion on the Geosiyosatkunuz YouTube channel