The True Narcissists

Ethnic violence ravages Osh in the south of Kyrgyzstan.  Placed in the crux of the national gerrymandering of ethnicities by the USSR is opening the Russian in Central Asia.  Osh is far enough away from its bases as to warrant the relatively cool response.

But what the hell is going on in Kyrgyzstan?  As far as what can be gleaned is the resistance of loyalists to the ousted former leader Kurmanbek Bakiyev has begun a campaign to challenge the interim leader Rosa Otunbayeva.

I am a little underwhelmed by this stratagem.  For Bakiyev supporters the focus on the minority Uzbek population so close to the boarder is bound to require reaction and support from the other states in the region.  Though Russia, as of now, have taken under advisement Otunbayeva’s calls for international assistance the situation will only rally international support facilitating the end to the violence.

Another point being that the machinations of Bakiyaev supporters have opened a window for Russia to gain a further foothold in the tiny nation.  By fermenting unrest the pressure of this on a declared interim government will test the loyalties of the political and military classes to each other.  If this risks a power struggle, then Russian leaders can have their choice on whom to support.

Russia appeared to welcome the change of leadership, but has let Bakiyev lumber around its ally Belarus since his ouster.

If continued low level violence is the norm Russia will feel this situation out and will present Otunbayeva with the following options: either let us in or we won’t help.

Russia has desired more sway in the former USSR member and the ability to come to the rescue of a fledgling government will allow Russia the functional connection to the power-brokers to exert influence to tip the US out of Kyrgyzstan eventually.

For Russia, the opportunity has presented a strategic opening for the expanding power over its regional domain.  The question is the US being outplayed?

Esteemed Harvard historian Niall Ferguson recently penned an article titled “The Axis of Upheaval” that points to the potential burgeoning hot-spots for international conflict that will face President Obama. On this list is Russia, Somalia, Mexico, Iran, Lebanon, Israel/Gaza, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India with contenders Indonesia, Turkey and Thailand as well as about 60% of sub-Sahara Africa.

Certainly an impressive list to be sure. Ferguson sees this time as especially ignitable due to the recent economic downturn that will cause further disruptions to these fledgling middle world economies. With this downturn will follow domestic political upheavals along with the potential in a few cases for inter-state war as well.  The case for this seems plausible due the globalized nature of interconnectedness for larger international conflicts that develop from state collapse.

The last severe structural economic shock with such a political dimension on the global level was perhaps the Oil Shock of 1973. The following years saw the start of several conflicts that would continue to tragic proportions: Angolan Civil War, Ethiopian Civil War, and the Lebanese Civil War. Further, nations severely hit by the crisis and subsequent downturn faced pivotal changes that continue to have international implications. Iran and Pakistan fit these categories.

But which of these nations would pose the biggest threat to the US if the political systems of these nations fall into violent and disruptive patterns. Though this is purely hypothetical, the list is compiled to reflect the possibility of direct US involvement.

1. Pakistan collapse, Indian invasion. This seems to me to be the most possible of these, and the most potentially disrupting to world order. Not only are the nuclear weapons and large populations the fodder for this scenario, but also the presence of Russia, China, and the US in the region place the conflict at a geopolitical center of potential major power disruptions.
2. Mexican collapse, US response. If Mexico falls into complete disarray then be prepared for a swift response from US officials to preserve order. The potential for millions of refugees flooding into the southwest states makes its case for number two simply in its proximity to the US. Apart from the conservative nightmare this would impart on poor Pat Buchanan, the US would face serious challenges mitigating a failed Mexican state.
3. Afghan collapse. This unpleasant possibility would severely damage the US world standing and reflect its impotence to bend the will of foreign peoples. Also, the process of this collapse would drag on for endless years, with the potential for a two-generation war. Such an occurrence would be devastating to the US.
4. Iran goes nuclear, shuns US pressure. While this is an unpleasant possibility it is by no means the outright disaster. This defeat is more psychological for the US than a real geopolitical disasters of the previously mentioned. In practical terms, the US capability and lack of reliable allies for Iran may provide enough of a deterrent to keep Iran in check for many decades to come. The wild card in all of this is the Israeli reaction.
5. Russia and the next eventual clash with the former soviet bloc. While the expansionist goals of our old Cold War buddy are never far away from the policy makers who cut their teeth in the previous generations, a serious victory for Russia in these areas could range from mild (Georgia or Moldova) to down right alarming (Belarus or Ukraine). Though the zero-sum reasoning of the Cold War might be over the limits of tolerating Russian aggression have not seen the boldest of responses from the US leaders.
6. Israel/Gaza and Hezbollah create regional disharmony. The continual flares of the conflict in Israel remain the most likely of these to flare, but I am not convinced that the implications of this are not that great on a macro scale. It seems that the major danger comes with the injection of further regional meddling, most likely from Syria, but for the time being it appears the region will continue along its familiar path. Though the conflict is the cause of much disharmony during the frequent spats, that is usually all they lead too; contained little outrages that repeal meaningful international action better than piracy. Which leads me too…
7. Somalia falling further. Perhaps it is just me, but this issue deserves to be at the bottom of the list. The media attention this story has garnered is impressive, but I am tired already of the “shores of Tripoli” references for action that the US will not commit to because the problem is relatively small potatoes. Also, lets temper the terrorist label for these high sea entrepreneurs before the facts are in; it seems more likely that these are criminal profiteers in it for the potential for easy money and not al Qaeda 3.0.