Map of battles in Central Asia in 1917-1923.

In those years, like Chechnya in our years, there was an unhealed wound on the body of the country, only many times larger - the Basmachis of Central Asia, militants well-armed and supported in every way by England, based mostly in Afghanistan, an intense struggle against which until the early thirties, and their last gangs disappeared only in 1942.

Iran participated in anti-Soviet activities to a much lesser extent than its neighbors - there were also bases for thousands of Basmachi, it was from the territory of Iran that trucks with English weapons for the bandits in Afghanistan, the British and American intelligence services acted in Iran as if they were at home, in which case spies and traitors from the USSR fled there. However, the Shah of Iran did not particularly allow the Basmachi to attack the USSR from their territory, despite the pressure of "sworn English friends." Naturally, not because there were ardent supporters of socialism in the Iranian elite, but for much more prosaic reasons - they still well remembered the strength of Russian weapons and the courage of Russian soldiers, with whom Persia had the misfortune to get to know closely in the not so distant past by attacking the Russian Caucasus , Tsarist Russia received a fair amount of property in Persia.

At the beginning of 1921, the government of Soviet Russia concluded an agreement with Persia (Iran), according to which it refused property in the territory of Iran (there was no way to manage this property anyway), however, Article 6 of the agreement provided for the right of the Soviet governmentin some moment to introduce their troops into the territory of Persia, in the event of attempts by third countries to turn Persia into a base for military actions against the Soviet State. Few people know thatthis agreement is still in effect. .

In the early 1920s, the Rockefellers actively tried to control the oil fields of Northern Iran. These are now traitors and idiots from the so-called. "Russian leadership" easily agrees with the seizure of all Iraqi oil by the Americans and the British, renounce their influence wherever possible, even in Azerbaijan and Georgia, and then the leadership of Soviet Russia was well aware of the consequences of such "control" and skillfully defended national interests even with a completely destroyed peasant country behind them. A harsh unofficial statement from Soviet Russia followed, and Rockefeller flew out of Northern Persia like a cork from a bottle - the Persians were unobtrusively reminded of article number 6.

" If Russia managed to maintain dominance in the Caspian Sea, this would be a more important victory for it than the victory of the West, which achieved NATO expansion to the East ," - K. Weinberg, former US Secretary of Defense.

This is the meaning given to the region by Anglo-Saxon geopolitics. And at this time, the so-called. The “President of Russia” himself offers military installations on the territory of Azerbaijan for “sharing” with the Americans and looks favorably on the penetration of American oil and gas companies into the Transcaucasus, which they did not even dare to dream of until recently.

And at that time, the completely bloodless USSR only strengthened its positions in the region - a very interesting autonomy was formed on the border with Iran in 1923 - Red Kurdistan, which was discussed in the previous article. If anyone does not know, there are many Kurds living in the northwestern part of Iran who periodically dream of an independent Kurdish state with weapons in their hands. On Iranian lands, of course. The fact that “in which case” the Kurds can begin to dream of independence together “with their Soviet brothers” immediately brought the Iranian leadership to mind and “in which case” did not come. For these reasons, and with the support of Russia's enemies in Iran, it was much more difficult than in its neighbors, although there were no more reasons to love Russia there than in Turkey or Afghanistan.

The main forces of the Basmachi were defeated by the Red Army in the early 20s, but the bandits and their Western allies tried to take revenge after that for more than 10 years. In 1924-1925. Basmachi, under the control of English instructors, reorganized, received centralized control under the leadership of an agent of the British special services, a certain Ibrahim-bek, a nuker of the former Emir of Bukhara. He was actively supported, trained, supplied with weapons, ammunition and equipment by a number of foreign intelligence services, where leading role played, of course, English.

English instructors were seriously trained according to all the rules for conducting rebellion wars and sabotage operations - the Basmachi created: a special ideological department for coordinating groups of anti-Soviet and religious propagandists, a command center for sabotage acts, a communication system, encryption and transmission of coded messages.

A new strategy for conducting a rebellion-war was being worked out - in the occupied areas, "authorities" of the rebels were immediately formed, the collection of "taxes" from the population and the development of "duties" were established. The main parts of Ibrahim-bek numbering about 3000 people. were based in remote mountainous regions of Tajikistan, from where they delivered strikes on the tip of local agents. Ibrahim-bek acted mainly in Tajikistan, although he himself was an Uzbek. Basmachi were well armed, they had a large number of automatic weapons(light machine guns) and even English mountain guns. A massive information and propaganda campaign in support of the "freedom fighters" began in the West. How familiar, isn't it?

However, the leadership of the USSR accepted the challenge without hesitation - in the spring of 1925, the troops of Ibrahim Bek fell into a trap set by the leadership of the Turkestan Front, a well-organized pursuit of the bandits led to the fact that the defeat of the Basmachi was complete. Their losses amounted to 2104 people. killed and 638 people. prisoners. Subsequently, another 2279 people voluntarily surrendered. Parts of the Red Army lost 719 people. killed and wounded.

Most of the Kurbashi (Basmach chieftains) were demoralized by the terrible defeat (the irretrievable losses of the Basmachi were almost 30 times higher than the irretrievable losses of the Red Army) and either fled abroad or laid down their arms. This is the question of how our grandfathers knew how to fight. As a result, only about 30 small gangs remained on the territory of Tajikistan (former Eastern Bukhara). total strength a little over 400 people. The English plan to cut off Central Asia, to put it mildly, failed.

Naturally, there was no talk of “independent regions”, but still the situation in Central Asia remained extremely difficult - Soviet power in many villages ended at the moment when the last Red Army soldier left their territory, and real power there for a long time was something between semi-feudal -tribal system and the power of armed bandits. The Basmachi kurbashi, including Ibrahim-bek, belonged to most of wells in the areas bordering Afghanistan (in the East, whoever controls the water also controls the land) and the dekhkans dutifully paid him "rent" until 1930. In fact, these were areas covered by a sluggish rebellion-war, where the Soviet Government until the beginning of the 30s did not even have the opportunity to establish new property relations.

One very important point, very characteristic of the East, should be noted: in Soviet military reports, the number of only active participants in the Basmachi formations was counted. It was a common situation when a gang of fifty sabers entered a large village, and a semi-regular Basmachi unit of several hundred horsemen came out of there. If the situation for the bandits was not in the best way, then the core of the gang went to the mountains or abroad, and the rest again turned into ordinary dekhkans: “What’s the matter, comrade chief, what a basmach, a peasant am I !?” Often the core of the gang brought with them from Afghanistan hundreds of rifles and dozens of machine guns supplied by the British.

It was extremely difficult to fight such "flickering" gangs. However, the integrated security system created in the USSR (which will be discussed in more detail in future articles) successfully coped with this task, as well as with all the others. In the near future, the Basmachi entering the village were no longer met with butter cakes, but with bullets and saber blows. "East is a delicate matter".

England, with the support of the United States, stubbornly continued undeclared war against the USSR and in coordination with the provocation of the conflict on the CER in August 1929, active operations were resumed by large Basmachi units in the Fergana Valley (east of Uzbekistan) and in southern Kyrgyzstan in the Osh region. Please note that the destruction of the USSR began precisely with well-organized "riots" in these key areas in the late 80s.

At the beginning of 1929, several large Basmachi gangs invaded the territory of the Tajik SSR from Afghanistan. The enemy concluded that the Basmachi could not withstand a direct collision with units of the Red Army, even if they had a significant superiority in manpower and weapons.

This time, a different tactic was chosen - instead of capturing the regions with the declaration of their "independence", strikes were made on almost the entire vast territory of Central Asia, which was very difficult to control by small (only 18.5 thousand people) units of the Red Army. As usual, the actions of the Basmachi were accompanied by wild atrocities against the captured Red Army soldiers and the local population, if it refused to support them. Pay attention to how almost to the smallest detail the strikes inflicted by the USSR then and the strikes from the south against Russia and the remnants of the USSR, inflicted now. One logic, one planning centers, the same approaches.

The actions of the Basmachi gangs were supported by the coordinated actions of the widely introduced agents of foreign (usually British and Turkish) intelligence agencies in the organs of Soviet power in Central Asia. The population no longer accepted the Basmachi, but in a number of areas they were intimidated, and religious authorities actively supported the rebels. This time, the actions of the Basmachi were at first more successful than 4 years ago, soon the well-trained formations of Ibrahim-bek leaked there, who again stood at the head of the three thousandth group, again declared himself the ruler, but already in 1931 he was traditionally beaten by the cavalry units of the Red Army , lost his entire grouping and fled to Afghanistan, but was soon captured as a result of a brilliant operation by the Soviet special services. Now about how it all happened.

Unknown Campaign in Afghanistan. How ours fought

In the second half of the 1920s, the Soviet Government began tough political pressure on Afghanistan, as a result of the measures taken, the relatively friendly Padishah Amanullah Khan to Soviet Russia sharply limited assistance to the bandits and forced some of them to leave the country. But at the end of 1928, a rebellion began in Afghanistan, which quickly captured the capital. The rebels were led by the British agent Bachai Sakao (Khabibullah), who was supervised by the "super spy" Lawrence himself. It is clear that the Basmachi, controlled by the British special services, take an active part in the rebellion. The padishah was forced to flee to the mountainous regions, and immediately after that, the invasion of the reorganized and rearmed Basmachi from Afghanistan into the Soviet republics of Central Asia began.
But the Soviet Government was no match for the rabble of traitors and criminals who now rule Russia. It strikes back without hesitation:

In March 1929, Stalin held a strictly confidential meeting with Afghan Foreign Minister Sidiq Khan. The content of the conversation is not known in detail, but immediately after that there was an order to Tashkent: to urgently form a special detachment of communists and Komsomol members to be sent to Afghanistan. The participants in the upcoming campaign were personally selected by the Deputy Commander of the Central Asian Military District M. Germanovich.

“On April 15, 1929, a strange-looking detachment crossed the Soviet-Afghan border. Two thousand horsemen dressed in Afghan military uniform, but communicating with each other in Russian, perfectly armed and equipped, with a supply of provisions, crossed the full-flowing Amu Darya and entered Afghan territory. The crossing was made in the area of ​​the Tajik city of Termez, almost in the same place where, half a century later, Soviet sappers would build a floating bridge for the troops of the 40th Army, who entered the DRA, to become the "Limited Contingent".

On May 17, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan, Sirojiddin Aslov, defended the project for the construction of the Rogun hydroelectric power station on the Vakhsh River ... in front of European officials in Brussels. It would seem, what does it matter to a little-known power plant in a distant mountain river and why does the representative of Dushanbe go to the capital of the European Union for approval of the construction in his republic? But this ordinary boring protocol event indicates that in the center of Eurasia real threat war. The former Soviet republics of Central Asia may come into conflict over such a valuable resource as water. I figured out how likely such a course of events was and whether the active penetration of China into Central Asia would remove the problem.

Irrigation and energy

Post-Soviet and foreign media regularly remind that conflicts over water in Central Asia are very, very likely. Alarmist forecasts are not unfounded, because this resource is distributed extremely unevenly among the countries of the region. On the territory of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, in the upper reaches of the rivers, there are huge reserves of water resources. But downstream, in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, there is not enough water: 77 percent of the water in Uzbekistan comes from outside, in Turkmenistan - more than 90 percent, in Kazakhstan - more than 40 percent.

Actually, conflicts that do not go into a hot phase arose almost immediately after the former Soviet republics gained independence. The fact is that rivers can be used in two modes - irrigation, that is, for irrigation, and energy - for generating electricity at hydroelectric power plants. But these regimes contradict each other: if water is required for irrigation in summer, then electricity consumption increases in winter, which forces power engineers to dump the resource that farmers will need during the cold season. AT Soviet time a single water and energy complex made it possible to act in the common interest - the newly formed states fail to do this.

In the 1990s, Bishkek and Dushanbe decided to revive projects for the construction of powerful hydroelectric power stations on the rivers leading to Uzbekistan. In Kyrgyzstan, they planned the construction of the Kambarata-2 hydroelectric power station on the Naryn River, in Tajikistan - the Rogun hydroelectric power station on the Vakhsh. Tashkent regarded this as a threat to its security: the dams of the stations blocked the flow of water and left the fields of Uzbek villagers without irrigation. Plus - rarely talked about out loud - a hydroelectric dam, in the event of mismanagement or a terrorist attack, poses a threat to the villages downstream: a flood of water can sweep away everything. In Tajikistan, in the “dashing” 90s, there was a civil war with the Islamists, whom the government never managed to defeat, and Kyrgyzstan, even by post-Soviet standards, was politically extremely unstable. Under these conditions, for Uzbekistan, the "construction of the century" of its neighbors looked like an attempt to get weapons mass destruction- not very predictable republics could become the owners of a universal means of blackmailing a country dependent on the flow of rivers.

Years passed, but the problem was not solved. And in 2015, the first president of Uzbekistan already stated bluntly: water problems in the region “may worsen to such an extent that they will cause not only serious confrontation, but even wars.” The head of state explained that the construction of the Kambarata hydroelectric power station will hit the harvests in Uzbekistan, for which fruits and vegetables are also a significant export item.

Idea fix Dushanbe

In March 2016, Bishkek noted with dismay that an attempt to regain control over the hydraulic structures on the border caused military activity in Uzbekistan - Tashkent deployed additional forces at its borders. In August of the same year, troops from Uzbekistan were landed from a helicopter near the border Kasansay reservoir: relations between the two republics again escalated due to a dispute over water resources. Kyrgyzstan also sent additional forces to the disputed area.

In October 2016, the President of Tajikistan sat down at the levers of a bulldozer to throw a layer of land into the waters of the Vakhsh - this was the beginning of the construction of the Rogun hydroelectric power station. Critics of the Tajik leader argued that Rahmon could afford such a symbolic gesture only after the death of Islam Karimov - the Uzbek president was considered the patriarch of the post-Soviet space and was consistent and adamant in defending the interests of his country. Rahmon has been waiting for this day for a long time: back in 2009, he obliged citizens to purchase shares in a hydroelectric power plant - for Dushanbe, construction has indeed been and remains a fixed idea.

Meanwhile new president Uzbekistan has shown that it is not going to change the course of its predecessor. During his March visit to Astana, he, together with the President of Kazakhstan, emphasized: water resources- the common property of all countries of the region. For Astana, this is also extremely important: the republic receives water not only from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, but also from China.

Ways and rivers of the Middle Kingdom

The sources of the rivers Ili, Irtysh and Tekes, which supply water to several regions of Kazakhstan, are in the territory of China, in glaciers. And it is precisely its northwestern, border territories that China is most actively developing in recent times. The economy of China's least water-provided Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR) is demanding more and more natural resources. Irtysh and Ili are already experiencing rapid development XUAR - the level of rivers is decreasing. Glaciers from behind global warming are rapidly melting, and problems on transboundary rivers will only increase.

The well-known sinologist Konstantin Syroezhkin notes that Astana has a weak position in negotiations with Beijing on the water problem. “All the trump cards have already been played, and Kazakhstan can only rely on the goodwill of the Chinese side,” the expert says. Indeed, it is difficult to argue with a country that has invested about 24-27 billion dollars in your economy - analysts cited such data on PRC investments in Kazakhstan in 2016.

China is also actively investing in other countries in the region. For example, as a result of the visit of the President of Uzbekistan to China, Tashkent and Beijing signed agreements worth $22 billion. By the way, the visit of the Uzbek leader to the Chinese capital had symbolic meaning- Shavkat Mirziyoyev took part in the opening of the One Belt - One Road Forum. The slogan "One Belt - One Road" is a formula for combining two projects, one of which provides for the development of transit through Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Beijing is strengthening its resource base and trade routes with Europe, it needs an alternative to traditional and conflict-vulnerable maritime routes. Does China's presence in the region reduce the risk of a water war? Judging by the pessimistic tone of Western media observers and experts, no.

The big war, which the United West launched "in response" to the events of September 11, 2001 in the United States by ensuring the presence of its troops in Afghanistan and direct aggression in Iraq, received a new impetus 10 years later. Starting in the form of "revolutions" in the Maghreb countries, this war turned into a ground operation of the special forces of the Western Coalition forces in Libya, and now, apparently, a repetition of a similar scenario should be expected in Syria.

I call it the Great War, and not a series of military and other special operations of the NATO countries against some "dictatorial regimes" - for the reason that all these special operations are fronts and directions of strikes within the framework of one military STRATEGY deployed by the West in the Asian region.

It is clear that all small and big goals of this war in a "disassembled" form may look like a series of seemingly unrelated local conflicts when in one case there is a struggle for oil and gas, and in the other - for opium or against nuclear facilities. However, the Great War is the Great War, because all its goals, reasons and causes are actually connected together and carried out within the framework of a single strategy and a single command. At the very least, the United States, without a doubt, is waging a Great War, and not just participating in one or another, strictly unrelated events of a regional scale.

Politicians and experts are guessing: which country will become the next victim of the Big War operators (read - the global aggressor) after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria (since the fall of this regime is a foregone conclusion - the West has not just a position on this matter, but a specific Plan and budget). Most observers cite as next goal international aggressor Iran - and this is logical, since the Great War in the coming years will not only continue, but also grow, and from the regimes obviously hostile to the West in Asia Minor and the Middle East, after the fall of Syria, only Iran will remain.

From our point of view, a much more preferable point for the United West today (for the period up to about 2014) is still not Iran, but former Soviet Central Asia. And to understand this, you need to deal with the hidden goals of the Great War.

Among the main goals of the West's escalation of its incursions into the countries of Asia Minor and Central Asia, as a rule, the following are named.

First, according to the official version of the West itself global community at the head of the "civilized" West, as it were, is fighting international terrorism in this part of the world and different kind opponents of democracy and freedom represented by the ruling regimes of certain countries.

Secondly, if in fact, along with the “advancement of freedom and democracy to the third world countries” and traditionally for its foreign policy, the West is strengthening its positions in this region of the world in order to ensure control over hydrocarbon deposits and their transportation routes, including to prevent their delivery to the increasingly competitive China.

Thirdly, he outlined this point of view in his article “Will Russia and China Stop NATO’s Ground Invasion of Libya?” member of the Expert Council of the EurAsEC Institute Alexander Kashansky, “The West is defending itself against the advancing and aggressive South,” but prefers to do so on enemy territory.

Fourthly, the growing aggressiveness of the West is explained by its objective desire to escalate the Great War in connection with the growth of the so-called global financial crisis. According to many Russian analysts, the Anglo-Saxons can nullify the colossal and growing foreign debt of the United States in one single way - to start a war in order to nullify the debt bubble under its pretext, and at the same time support their stagnating economy with military orders.

Fifthly, the owners of the Federal Reserve System (US Fed), who are the main creditors of the North American economy, are obviously not going to wait for the Anglo-Saxons to solve their problems by continuing the operation of the printing press, increasing the already gigantic financial bubble. They want to participate in the war in order to solve their problems with the hands of debtors.

There are also sixth, seventh, eighth, etc. From a long list of reasons for the escalation of the Great War, we note, perhaps, one more and very important reason, not directly related to the policies of the US State Department, NATO, the Fed or the European Union. It's about about the need of the main subjects of the world economy (the so-called “global market”) that has entered a period of crisis to continue its extensive development - to extract profits through further monopolization of control over the emission of world currencies, to increase oil and gas production, and to increase high world prices for raw materials and weapons, in the forcible capture of new sales markets, in the promotion and "promotion" of new information resources, etc. From our point of view - this is the main and long-term reason for the gradual transformation of the Great War into World War. And today the West is faced with the task of not just saving the dollar or the American economy, not just reformatting the global financial system and keeping the Bretton Woods agreements, but preserving the very model of the economic and political system, the foundations of which today are increasingly being questioned by peoples and politicians within the Western world itself. In this case, however, it must be borne in mind that the main "combat" actions during the new World War will still be carried out without the use of direct military force and the use of traditional weapons - such force will be used for demonstrative purposes only in relation to the most intractable regimes.

The launch of a military operation against Iran to some extent meets the interests of a narrow circle of beneficiaries of the Great War. A war between NATO and its satellites against Iran would allow the United West to solve global problems related to keeping the dollar, keeping the existing financial and economic model, and keeping control over the planet through the formation of a new world order. However, in such a scenario of the development of events, there is one big BUT - is the West ready to go for broke and is it not easier for the forces of the Western coalition to starve Iran out using the methods of information and financial and economic warfare?

The start of a military operation against Iran will inevitably lead to an increase in anti-war and anti-government sentiments in the Western countries themselves and, above all, in the European Union, which is experiencing a serious economic crisis. And if the American voter, fooled by his own politicians and the media, as well as bribed by unlimited dollars printed in unlimited quantities, will support any decisions of the State Department, then with Europe (as well as Israel, which is not taken into account today), everything does not look so simple.

We understand that, on the one hand, the war in Iran will allow the Anglo-Saxons to bend the European Union and suppress in Western Europe - through the hands of collaborators and European bureaucrats - all sorts of Eurocentric, anti-American and pacifist sentiments (the world financial oligarchy would be happy to develop such a scenario), however, on the other hand, it is not very clear whether the Anglo-Saxons and, in particular, the Republicans need it today, who, if NATO is involved in a military operation against Iran, will have to deal not only with pacifying the turmoil in the ranks of the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union, but also a continuation of the collapse of the already dubious "democratic" institutions and norms in the US itself, which will lead to a serious drop in the rating and influence of the Republicans and the white minority in this country?

From our point of view, the position on Iran may not become a bone of contention, but certain contradictions between the Republicans and the owners of the Fed who are trying to solve their problems with their hands. And it is possible that it is easier for Republicans to at least partially nationalize the Fed than to lose power in the long term in their own country.

Objectively, the Anglo-Saxons today are quite satisfied with the economic boycott of Iran, and the fact that the growing China and India continue to buy oil from Iran should push the Headquarters strategic planning Great War on three obvious thoughts.

Thought first is that it is in the American interests today to support the hysteria around Iran in every possible way, up to bringing it to full combat readiness NATO troops and, accordingly, the armed forces of Iran, in order to strengthen their presence in Persian Gulf, while maintaining the ability to block Iranian oil terminals at X hour. But, of course, not to start open hostilities until the conditions for a “revolution” from below are ripe in this country and the current political regime in this country will not begin to crumble under the pressure of the opposition.

Hence the second thought: Today it is easier for Americans to cut off the channels for the delivery of hydrocarbons to China in other parts of the world. Taking into account that China has bought almost completely unproduced gas in Turkmenistan, the easiest way is to unleash another ("saxaul") revolution here - or in some other way "persuade" the leadership of Turkmenistan to turn around 180 degrees - towards the NABUCCO gas pipeline, the project the launch of which is called into question due to the erroneous assessment by Western experts of the real volumes of gas reserves in the Turkmen field "Galkynysh" and the beginning of a decline in gas production in Azerbaijan. (On Turkmenistan as a weak link in Central Asia, see the article by the Chairman of the Council of the EurAsEC Institute Valery Munirov "Challenges of the CSTO" (answers to the questions of the weekly "Arguments and Facts").

You can also try to block the transit of Turkmen gas to China through the territory of Uzbekistan, which, by the way, can save the NABUCCO project. The only question is how best to do it - by force or through political agreements. It is clear that the United States will not take Uzbekistan in economic tug in response to the termination of the transit of hydrocarbons through this country to China (30 million Uzbekistan is not 4 million Georgia), therefore, another scenario may be chosen. This scenario is known and has already been tested by the American intelligence services during the organization of the riots in Andijan and in neighboring Kyrgyzstan. From our point of view, this scenario may well be launched again not in the fall of 2012, but in the spring of 2013. Moreover, the reason for this already exists. So, in October 2011, Hillary Clinton visited Tajikistan, who not only called on the authorities to democratize the country's political system, but, according to some sources (see Alexander Gorbatov's article "The First Ambushes on the Silk Road"), supported the leadership of Tajikistan in his intentions to complete the construction of the Rogun hydroelectric power station in the upper reaches of the Vakhsh River, which caused indignation in the leadership of Uzbekistan, who feared a decrease in water flow to the Amu Darya ... It would seem - where is the USA and where is Tajikistan? And why would the US administration get involved in such a dubious and already controversial project as the construction of some kind of hydroelectric power station in a distant mountainous country? Apparently, American potential "investors" liked the Rogun project for the very reason that it could become a time bomb in relations between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

It is possible that the Taliban will soon be sent here - to Tajikistan and to the Tajik-Uzbek border, with whom the Americans, as if leaving Afghanistan, seem to have found mutual language. By eliminating Bin Laden (or the one whom the Americans passed off as Bin Laden), the United States formally "solved" its task in this region. But you need to know the Anglo-Saxons - they can’t just leave Afghanistan, but only in exchange for some agreements and maintaining control over the situation. Most likely, the Americans agreed with the Taliban on the covert support of the latter in their advance to the north - to Tajikistan and other republics of the former USSR in order to create an "Islamic Caliphate" in the region with the participation of the Taliban. (By the way, the Americans also need controlled activation of the Taliban in order to influence the leadership of Pakistan and keep the fuse of relations between Pakistan and India in their hands.) Of course, following the Taliban, NATO units will come to this region for a long time. Officially - in order to "prevent" the advancement in the region " international terrorists"and drug traffickers, but in fact, to ensure control over deposits, gas pipelines and highways along the Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan axis, that is, the so-called Great Silk Road.

Hence the third thought: since in the event of the outbreak of a military conflict in the region of Tajikistan (or the start of another "revolution" here), the question will arise about Russia's position in relation to the events in this country, which is a member of the EurAsEC, the CIS, the CSTO and the SCO, the US State Department will announce along the way - unofficially - about the beginning of another "reset" of relations with the Russian Federation, and at the same time with Kazakhstan - on the terms of limiting the supply of Russian and Kazakh energy carriers to China. (Note that already today China plans to contract not only the main volumes of Turkmen gas exports, but also a significant part of the gas exports of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.) Of course, before the choice is to stop gas transit to China or face the prospect of a "revolution" and its well-known consequences - will be Uzbekistan.

The only thing holding back today the intensification of the actions of NATO forces in Syria, as well as in the Iranian and Central Asian directions, is the upcoming November this year. presidential elections in the United States itself, the outcome of which - due to the growing intensity of the hidden dialogue between the world's leading "centers of power" - today even CIA analysts are not able to predict. Thus, answering the question: when and where will Russia be drawn into the Great War? - we can say: most likely, this will happen in the spring of 2013 and this will most likely be connected with the events in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, as well as the growing pressure of the West on Uzbekistan.

In all this geopolitical context, one more very important point should be taken into account: in order for Russia to be more accommodating in future battles and unambiguously take the right side, starting from autumn 2012, the "orange" scenario will be activated here, as well as the so-called "anti-Eurasian" scenario, which implies the activation of projects alternative to the integration policy of the Russian leadership.

Today, the anti-Russian strategy of the Western intelligence services and the politicians who serve them is being built on the formation of two controlled external and hostile to Russia political vectors. As the first (western) vector of the attack on Moscow, the Poland-Ukraine link is considered, in which the leading and guiding role is assigned to Warsaw, as the second (southern) vector, the Turkey-Kazakhstan link is considered, in which Ankara is assigned the leading role. Already today, Poland and Turkey are pumped up with Western money and personnel, designed to form a long-term strategy for the cultural (based on the Slavic factor) and economic integration of Ukraine and Belarus with Poland - called the strategy of including Ukraine in the European Free Trade Area, and, accordingly, the strategy of similar integration of Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries (on the basis of the Turkic factor) - with Turkey, called the "Great Silk Road" project).

According to the plans of the architects of the "new world order", Ukraine should be de-Russified and converted to Catholicism or various forms of Uniatism, while the former Soviet republics of Asia should be de-Russified and Islamized. Of course, if these two Western projects are successful, there will be no Eurasian Union with the participation of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and even Belarus will not be. And in order to accelerate the process of delimitation of Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan with the integration of Ukraine into the European Union, and Kazakhstan into the future "Islamic Caliphate, the global aggressor will strike at the weak (in politically) to the link of the CIS and the EurAsEC - for Belarus, specifically - by the President of this country Alexander Lukashenko. But how and when exactly the “orange” attack on the President of Belarus and, after that, a new attack on Vladimir Putin in Russia will begin, we will tell in our next report.

Vladimir Tamak, EurAsEC Institute

140 years ago, on March 2, 1876, as a result of the Kokand campaign under the command of M. D. Skobelev, the Kokand Khanate was abolished. Instead, the Fergana region was formed as part of the Turkestan Governor-General. General M.D. was appointed the first military governor. Skobelev. The liquidation of the Kokand Khanate ended the conquest by Russia of the Central Asian khanates in the eastern part of Turkestan.

The first attempts of Russia to gain a foothold in Central Asia date back to the time of Peter I. In 1700, an ambassador from the Khiva Shakhniyaz Khan arrived to Peter, asking to be accepted into Russian citizenship. In 1713-1714. two expeditions took place: to Lesser Bukharia - Buchholz and Khiva - Bekovich-Cherkassky. In 1718, Peter I sent Florio Benevini to Bukhara, who returned in 1725 and brought a lot of information about the region. However, Peter's attempts to establish himself in this region were unsuccessful. This was largely due to lack of time. Peter passed away early, without realizing the strategic plans for the penetration of Russia into Persia, Central Asia and further to the South.

Under Anna Ioannovna, the Younger and Middle Zhuz were taken under the guardianship of the “white queen”. The Kazakhs then lived in a tribal system and were divided into three unions of tribes: the Younger, Middle and Senior zhuz. At the same time, they were subjected to pressure from the Dzungars from the east. The clans of the Senior Zhuz came under the authority of the Russian throne in the first half of the 19th century. To ensure the Russian presence and protect Russian citizens from the raids of their neighbors, a number of fortresses were built on Kazakh lands: Kokchetav, Akmolinsk, Novopetrovsk, Ural, Orenburg, Raim and Kapal fortifications. In 1854, the Vernoye fortification (Alma-Ata) was founded.

After Peter to early XIX century, the Russian government was limited to relations with the subservient Kazakhs. Paul I decided to support Napoleon's plan for joint action against the British in India. But he was killed. The active participation of Russia in European affairs and wars (in many respects this was a strategic mistake of Alexander) and the constant struggle with the Ottoman Empire and Persia, as well as dragging on for decades Caucasian war did not give the opportunity to pursue an active policy towards the eastern khanates. In addition, part of the Russian leadership, especially the Ministry of Finance, did not want to be bound by new expenses. Therefore, Petersburg sought to maintain friendly relations with the Central Asian khanates, despite the damage from raids and robberies.

However, the situation gradually changed. Firstly, the military was tired of enduring the raids of nomads. Some fortifications and punitive raids were not enough. The military wanted to solve the problem in one fell swoop. Military-strategic interests outweighed financial ones.

Secondly, St. Petersburg was afraid of the British advance in the region: the British Empire occupied strong positions in Afghanistan, and English instructors appeared in the Bukhara troops. The Great Game had its own logic. A holy place is never empty. If Russia refused to take control of this region, then Britain would take it under its wing, and in the future, China. And given the hostility of England, we could get a serious threat in the southern strategic direction. The British could strengthen the military formations of the Kokand and Khiva khanates, the Emirate of Bukhara.

Thirdly, Russia could afford to start more active operations in Central Asia. The Eastern (Crimean) War was over. The long and tiring Caucasian war was coming to an end.

Fourth, we must not forget the economic factor. Central Asia was an important market for the goods of Russian industry. The region, rich in cotton (in the future and other resources), was important as a supplier of raw materials. Therefore, the idea of ​​the need to curb robbery formations and provide new markets for Russian industry through military expansion found increasing support in various sectors of the society of the Russian Empire. It was no longer possible to tolerate archaism and savagery on its borders, it was necessary to civilize Central Asia, solving a wide range of military-strategic and socio-economic tasks.

Back in 1850, the Russian-Kokand war began. At first it was small skirmishes. In 1850, an expedition was undertaken across the Ili River in order to destroy the fortification of Toychubek, which served as a stronghold for the Kokand Khan, but it was only possible to capture it in 1851. In 1854, the Vernoye fortification was built on the Almaty River (today Almatinka), and the entire Trans-Ili region became part of the Russian Empire. In 1852, Colonel Blaramberg destroyed two Kokand fortresses Kumysh-Kurgan and Chim-Kurgan and stormed the Ak-Mechet, but did not succeed. In 1853, Perovsky's detachment took Ak-Mechet. Ak-Mosque was soon renamed Fort-Perovsky. Attempts by the Kokand people to recapture the fortress were repulsed. The Russians erected a series of fortifications along the lower reaches of the Syrdarya (Syrdarya line).

In 1860, the West Siberian authorities formed a detachment under the command of Colonel Zimmerman. Russian troops destroyed the Kokand fortifications Pishpek and Tokmak. The Kokand Khanate declared a holy war and sent an army of 20 thousand, but it was defeated in October 1860 at the fortification of Uzun-Agach by Colonel Kolpakovsky (3 companies, 4 hundreds and 4 guns). Russian troops took Pishpek restored by the Kokand, small fortresses Tokmak and Kastek. Thus, the Orenburg line was created.

In 1864, it was decided to send two detachments: one from Orenburg, the other from western Siberia. They had to go towards each other: Orenburg - up the Syr Darya to the city of Turkestan, and West Siberian - along the Alexander Range. In June 1864, the West Siberian detachment under the command of Colonel Chernyaev, who left Verny, stormed the Aulie-ata fortress, and the Orenburg detachment, under the command of Colonel Verevkin, moved from Fort-Perovsky and took the Turkestan fortress. In July, Russian troops took Chimkent. However, the first attempt to take Tashkent failed. In 1865, from the newly occupied region, with the annexation of the territory of the former Syrdarya line, the Turkestan region was formed, the military governor of which was Mikhail Chernyaev.

The next major step was the capture of Tashkent. A detachment under the command of Colonel Chernyaev undertook a campaign in the spring of 1865. At the very first news of the approach of Russian troops, the people of Tashkent turned to Kokand for help, since the city was under the rule of the Kokand khans. The actual ruler of the Kokand Khanate, Alimkul, gathered an army and headed for the fortress. The garrison of Tashkent reached 30 thousand people with 50 guns. There were only about 2 thousand Russians with 12 guns. But in the fight against poorly trained, poorly disciplined and poorly armed troops, this did not matter much.

On May 9, 1865, during the decisive battle outside the fortress, the Kokand forces were defeated. Alimkul himself was mortally wounded. The defeat of the army and the death of the leader undermined the combat capability of the fortress garrison. On June 15, 1865, under cover of night, Chernyaev launched an assault on the Kamelan Gates of the city. Russian soldiers secretly approached the city wall and, using the factor of surprise, broke into the fortress. After a series of skirmishes, the city capitulated. A small detachment of Chernyaev forced to lay down their arms a huge city (24 miles in circumference, not counting the suburbs) with a population of 100 thousand, with a garrison of 30 thousand with 50-60 guns. The Russians lost 25 men killed and several dozen wounded.

In the summer of 1866, a royal decree was issued on the annexation of Tashkent to the possessions of the Russian Empire. In 1867, a special Turkestan Governor-General was created as part of the Syrdarya and Semirechensk regions with a center in Tashkent. Engineer-General K. P. Kaufman was appointed the first governor.

In May 1866, a 3,000 detachment of General D.I. Romanovsky defeated a 40,000 Bukhara army in the Battle of Irdzhar. Despite their large numbers, the Bukharians suffered a complete defeat, losing about a thousand people killed, while the Russians lost only 12 wounded. The victory at Ijar opened the way for the Russians to cover access to the Ferghana Valley of Khujand, the fortress of Nau, Jizzakh, which were taken after the Irdjar victory. As a result of the campaign in May-June 1868, the resistance of the Bukhara troops was finally broken. Russian troops occupied Samarkand. The territory of the Khanate joined Russia. In June 1873 the Khanate of Khiva suffered the same fate. Troops under the general command of General Kaufman took Khiva.

The loss of independence of the third major khanate - Kokand - was postponed for some time only thanks to the flexible policy of Khan Khudoyar. Although part of the territory of the khanate with Tashkent, Khujand and other cities was annexed to Russia, Kokand, in comparison with the treaties imposed on other khanates, was in a better position. The main part of the territory was preserved - Ferghana with the main cities. Dependence on the Russian authorities was felt weaker, and Khudoyar was more independent in matters of internal administration.

For several years, the ruler of the Kokand Khanate Khudoyar obediently carried out the will of the Turkestan authorities. However, his power was shaken, the khan was considered a traitor who made a deal with the "infidels". In addition, his position was worsened by the most severe tax policy in relation to the population. The incomes of the khan and the feudal lords fell, and they taxed the population. In 1874, an uprising began, which swept most of the khanate. Khudoyar asked Kaufman for help.

Khudoyar fled to Tashkent in July 1875. His son Nasreddin was proclaimed the new ruler. Meanwhile, the rebels were already moving towards the former Kokand lands, annexed to the territory of the Russian Empire. Khojent was surrounded by the rebels. Russian communications with Tashkent were interrupted, to which the Kokand troops were already approaching. In all the mosques there were calls for war with the "infidels". True, Nasreddin sought reconciliation with the Russian authorities in order to gain a foothold on the throne. He entered into negotiations with Kaufman, assuring the governor of his loyalty. In August, an agreement was concluded with the khan, according to which his authority was recognized on the territory of the khanate. However, Nasreddin did not control the situation in his lands and could not stop the unrest that had begun. Detachments of the rebels continued to raid Russian possessions.

The Russian command correctly assessed the situation. The uprising could spread to Khiva and Bukhara, which could lead to serious problems. In August 1875, in the battle near Mahram, the Kokand people were defeated. Kokand opened the gates to Russian soldiers. A new agreement was concluded with Nasreddin, according to which he recognized himself as "a humble servant Russian emperor”, refused diplomatic relations with other states and from military operations without the permission of the Governor-General. Lands along the right bank of the upper reaches of the Syr Darya with Namangan departed to the empire.

However, the uprising continued. Its center was Andijan. 70,000 pieces were collected here. army. The rebels proclaimed a new khan - Pulat-bek. The detachment of General Trotsky, which moved to Andijan, was defeated. On October 9, 1875, the rebels defeated the khan's troops and took Kokand. Nasreddin, like Khudoyar, fled under the protection of Russian weapons to Khujand. Soon the rebels captured Margelan, a real threat hung over Namangan.

Turkestan Governor General Kaufman sent a detachment under the command of General M. D. Skobelev to suppress the uprising. In January 1876, Skobelev took Andijan, and soon suppressed the rebellion in other areas. Pulat-bek was captured and executed. Nasreddin returned to his capital. But he began to establish contacts with the anti-Russian party and the fanatical clergy. Therefore, in February Skobelev occupied Kokand. On March 2, 1876, the Kokand Khanate was abolished. Instead, the Fergana region was formed as part of the Turkestan Governor-General. Skobelev became the first military governor. The liquidation of the Kokand Khanate ended the conquest of the Central Asian khanates by Russia.

It should be noted that the modern republics of Central Asia are also currently facing a similar choice. The time that has passed since the collapse of the USSR shows that living together in a single, powerful empire-power is much better, more profitable and safer than in separate "khanates" and "independent" republics. For 25 years, the region has been steadily degrading, returning to the past. The Great Game continues and Western countries, Turkey, Arab monarchies, China and network structures of the "Army of Chaos" (jihadists) are actively operating in the region. The whole of Central Asia can become a huge "Afghanistan" or "Somalia, Libya", that is, an inferno zone.

The economy in the Central Asian region cannot independently develop and maintain the life of the population at a decent level. Some exceptions were Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan - at the expense of the oil and gas sector and the smarter policy of the authorities. However, they are also doomed to a rapid deterioration in the economic, and then the socio-political situation, after the collapse in energy prices. In addition, the population of these countries is too small and cannot create an "island of stability" in the raging ocean of world unrest. In military and technological terms, these countries are dependent and doomed to defeat (for example, if Turkmenistan is attacked by jihadists from Afghanistan), if they are not supported by the great powers.

Thus, Central Asia again faces a historic choice. The first path is further degradation, Islamization and archaization, disintegration, civil strife and transformation into a huge "inferno zone", where most of the population simply will not "fit" into the new world.

The second way is the gradual absorption of the Celestial Empire and sinization. First, economic expansion, which is happening, and then the military-political one. China needs the resources of the region and its transport capabilities. In addition, Beijing cannot allow jihadists to settle down near it and transfer the flames of war to the west of China.

Third way - Active participation in the reconstruction of the new Russian Empire (Soyuz-2), where the Turks will be a full and prosperous part of the multinational Russian civilization. It is worth noting that Russia will have to fully return to Central Asia. Civilizational, national, military-strategic and economic interests are above all. If we do not do this, then the Central Asian region will collapse into turmoil, become a zone of chaos, inferno. We will get a lot of problems: from the flight of millions of people to Russia to the attacks of jihadist detachments and the need to build fortified lines ("Central Asian Front"). Chinese intervention is no better.

Basmachism is a military-political and religious anti-Soviet movement in Central Asia during the period civil war. It reached its apogee in 1918-1919, when tens of thousands of local residents stood up under the banner of the Basmachi. Nevertheless, by the mid-1920s, the movement had almost completely died out. What is the reason?

dashing raiders

The word "basmach" comes from the Uzbek "basma" - an armed raid. The ideological basis of Basmachi was pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism.

The start of the movement is usually considered to be February 1918, when the Red Army finally defeated the self-proclaimed Turkestan autonomy, which covered the lands of present-day Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

The raiders were especially active in the Fergana Valley and adjacent areas, in the Samarkand and Sardarya regions, in Khiva, Eastern Bukhara and the Krasnovodsk region. Basmachi detachments were divided into small (up to a hundred people) and large. The number of the latter could reach several thousand people or more.

Their tactics were typical of guerrilla warfare in mountainous and desert areas: the Basmachi tried to avoid clashes with numerous and well-armed enemy units. Emphasis was placed on organizing ambushes and dashing cavalry raids. As a rule, they organized base points in hard-to-reach places. Intelligence information was provided by local residents.

According to the laws of war

The Basmachi were a very serious and insidious opponent. Their methods of warfare differed from the combat tactics of the Whites, with whom the Bolsheviks successfully fought on the fronts of the Civil War. One of the most famous kurbashi (commanders) was Irgash. In the spring of 1918, he put together a detachment of 500 people, but suffered a series of defeats.

But the very next year, he was able to create a group of 15 thousand people. Among other things, his fighters participated in the anti-Bolshevik uprising in Tashkent in 1919.

In addition to the Irgash, at least 40 Basmachi detachments operated in the Ferghana region. One of them numbering about 700 people was commanded by Madamin-bek. In November 1918, he made a major raid against Russian villages located in the Ferghana region.

In Moscow, realizing that the success of Soviet power in Central Asia directly depends on the fight against the Basmachi, they decide to send an additional contingent of the Red Army to the region. In February-March 1920, the Red Army went on the offensive against the Kurbashi units.

During the winter, the groups of Akbar-Ali, Makhkam-Khoja, Parpi and other commanders were defeated and surrendered, with a total number of more than five thousand people. The Irgashi detachments also suffered heavy losses. Some of them went to China and Afghanistan.

By 1923 Andijan, Kokand and other regions of Fergana were completely cleared of gangs. Many leaders of the Basmachi were captured and were handed over to the revolutionary military tribunal, which sentenced them to death.

During the first 10 months of 1922, in the Ferghana Valley alone, the Red Army destroyed about 120 Basmachi detachments with a total number of more than four thousand people. 320 commanders were killed, and 175 surrendered.

On the territory of Tajikistan, due to the complexity highlands armed struggle with the Basmachi continued until June 1925. By spring, about 400 robbers remained in the mountains. Over the next few months, the Red Army took control of Dushanbe, Faizabad and other areas.

Through negotiations

There were those among the Basmachi who voluntarily agreed to stop the fight. So, Madamin-bek, whose detachment was defeated in February 1920, agreed to include the surviving 1200 people in the Red Army. On this occasion, the commander of the Turkestan Front, Mikhail Frunze, organized a military parade in Fergana.

Those who went over to the side of the Soviet government began to be called "Red Basmachi". At the same time, a number of historians argue that their subordination to the command of the Red Army was only formal. The fact is that when it came to clashes with fellow tribesmen, the defectors did not want to fight.

End

Most of the Basmachi was eliminated by the end of 1926. The movement began to raise its head again after the start of forced collectivization in the late 1920s.

As historians note, the leaders of the Basmachi, many of whom took refuge in Afghanistan, received some support from Great Britain. London benefited from the weakening of Soviet power in Central Asia.

However, the support of the British and popular discontent did not help the Basmachi. By 1933, they were again defeated and finally driven out of the region. The last detachments abandoned armed confrontation with the Soviet authorities in 1942, when the USSR and Great Britain agreed to end the cross-border Cold War.