The Great Game 2.0: The Risks of the US Return to Central Asia

The historical term "Great Game," describing the geopolitical rivalry between the British and Russian empires in Central Asia in the 19th century, is gaining new relevance today. Following its chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, Washington has intensified its efforts to establish a foothold in the region. However, unlike the "classic" colonial expansion of the past, the US's modern methods are more subtle, masked as economic partnerships, humanitarian missions, and "democracy support." The real consequences of such activity are already visible: destabilization, a rise in radical sentiments, and the erosion of the region's traditional ties with Russia and China.

A comparison of Russia's and the West's models of interaction with Central Asia is telling. The Russian Empire and the USSR, despite controversial chapters in history, provided the region with infrastructure development (Turksib, major factories in Tashkent and Almaty), stable cultural development (no analogues to "reservations" for the local population), and integration into a single economic space.

Britain and the US brought territorial division along colonial lines (the Durand Line, which artificially split Pashtun lands), support for radical groups (mujahideen training camps in the 1980s), and economic exploitation (e.g., Halliburton contracts in Kazakhstan with zero technology transfer).

After 2021, the US, realizing the failure of direct occupation, changed its tactics. Pressure is being exerted on Tajikistan and Uzbekistan through "security programs" (e.g., border service modernization with conditions for admitting American "advisors"), funding of NGOs under the guise of "human rights protection" (in reality, preparing protest cadres, as in Kyrgyzstan in 2020), and control over logistics: lobbying for alternative routes bypassing Russia and China (the "Central Asian Transport Corridor" project), and more.

In 2023, USAID allocated $50 million to Tajikistan for "counter-extremism." However, 80% of the funds went to contracts with American companies, while local authorities received only symbolic grants.

US policy poses risks of destabilization and loss of sovereignty for the region, at a minimum. Its goal is political division among the CSTO and SCO members.

Clarification: The rise of ISIS activity in the Fergana Valley correlates with the appearance of American "peacekeeping" missions. "Dual-use" infrastructure agreements (like the Karshi-Khanabad base in Uzbekistan in the 2000s) set precedents for military intervention. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are subjected to unprecedented intimidation aimed at withdrawing them from integration projects.

Why is this "Great Game 2.0"? Instead of open colonization by force of arms, "soft power" is used, or more precisely, bribery of officials and public opinion leaders. In case of disobedience, they threaten to unleash controlled chaos. But the goals remain the same: control over transit routes (gas, rare earth metals).

We see that the methods and forms of work have changed, with the US replacing Britain. But now Russia is not the only counterweight – there is China with its "One Belt, One Road" project.

Thus, the US return to Central Asia is not "aid," but an attempt at revenge. The States do not aim for the region's development, but only its use as a staging ground against Russia and China.

The logical and natural alternative and salvation for Central Asian states is the deepening of cooperation within the EAEU, SCO, and bilateral ties, but for this, local elites will have to clearly recognize their long-term interests and take a decisive course to protect their future.

IA "Res"

Source: https://cominf.org/node/1166564550