.jpg)
Listen to this episode on: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Youtube
As part of our wider project examining the armed forces of Central Asia, the research team sat down with experts from government, military, and academia. We brought together all of our findings and research and wargamed some of the region's most likely and plausible scenarios, not because we think war between these states is imminent, but because it is a useful way to gain better insights into how these militaries function and the challenges they would face. The format highlighted several key issues, including drivers such as the impact of lacking sufficient field trucks, unequal aerial capabilities, or the geography of the country forcing invading forces into a single narrow pocket, each of which severely limits the options available to any invading force.
Across all of our wargames, we selected three of the most interesting scenarios to examine here on The Red Line, exploring three key regional conflicts, the most likely triggers for those conflicts, and how prepared each of these states are for war against a peer rival. To guide us through the findings and their implications for defence dynamics in Central Asia, we are joined by this week's special guest for part two of our mini-series, The Armed Forces of Central Asia.
LISTEN TO THE PROGRAM HERE
EPISODE SUMMARY:
PART I: The Battle for Batken - A Tajik Invasion of Kyrgyzstan (03:37)
(Locations of key city's involved in the scenario,with Tajikistan (green) and Kyrgyzstan (red))
with Michael Hilliard and Derek Bissacio
Operational Overreach and Logistical Challenges: Tajikistan's ability to conduct an extended military campaign is severely hampered by its limited logistical infrastructure, particularly inadequate road and rail networks and insufficient supply vehicles. Any prolonged operation in Kyrgyzstan would likely result in supply chain collapses, isolating forward units and leaving them vulnerable to counterattacks.
Deficiencies in Air Power and Strategic Strikes: The Tajik Air Force's lack of jet fighters and long-range precision strike capabilities severely limits its ability to disrupt Kyrgyz command and control centers or neutralize critical assets like drone bases in Osh and Jalalabad. This deficiency gives Kyrgyzstan an overwhelming advantage in UAV operations and retaliatory airstrikes.
Importance of UAV Dominance: Kyrgyzstan's investment in Turkish drones like the Bayraktar TB2 and Anka provides it with superior tactical and strategic flexibility. Tajik forces are particularly vulnerable to UAV strikes targeting logistics convoys, command posts, and critical infrastructure, compounding their operational vulnerabilities.
Challenges of Terrain and Supply Lines: The mountainous terrain and poorly developed infrastructure of the region create logistical nightmares for both sides. Tajik units advancing into Kyrgyzstan would quickly face severe supply shortages, while any Kyrgyz counterattack would struggle with similar issues. This limits the duration and scale of potential conflicts.
Domestic Stability Over Military Objectives: The Tajik government’s priority on maintaining internal stability constrains its ability to commit substantial military resources to offensive operations. Fear of domestic unrest, especially if economic sanctions or external pressure exacerbate public dissatisfaction, undermines the feasibility of a sustained campaign.
(Locations of key city's involved in the scenario,with Tajikistan (green), Uzbekistan (cyan) and Kyrgyzstan (red))
Regional Geopolitical Constraints: Russia and China, as dominant powers in Central Asia, hold significant sway over Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Both nations would likely intervene diplomatically—or through economic and political levers—to prevent large-scale hostilities that threaten regional stability and economic integration.
Economic Vulnerabilities as Strategic Leverage: Tajikistan's dependence on remittances, constituting up to 50% of its GDP in some years, makes it highly susceptible to external economic pressure. Russia could cripple Tajikistan’s economy by restricting remittance flows, forcing Dushanbe to de-escalate any military operations.
Limitations of Tactical Success: Even under ideal conditions, a Tajik seizure of Batken would be politically symbolic but strategically unsustainable. The lack of follow-up capabilities and vulnerabilities to Kyrgyz counterattacks or international pressure make holding captured territory highly unlikely.
Risk of Escalation and Regional Isolation: A full-scale Tajik offensive would likely provoke significant backlash from regional powers like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, potentially leading to diplomatic isolation and economic blockades. Such measures would exacerbate internal challenges for Dushanbe, destabilizing its political and social fabric.
Unfavorable Strategic Outcomes: The most probable outcome of a Tajik offensive is a brief, high-casualty conflict ending in a negotiated settlement under external pressure. Tajik forces would likely suffer heavy losses, incur significant economic damage, and fail to achieve meaningful territorial gains, making the operation a strategically unwise endeavor.
PART II: Brawling with the Behemoth - An Uzbek Invasion of Tajikistan (1:02:24)
(Locations of key city's involved in the scenario,with Tajikistan (green) and Uzbekistan (cyan))
Geography and Logistics Are Decisive Factors: While Uzbekistan has the largest military in Central Asia, geography and logistics significantly limit its effectiveness. Tajikistan’s mountainous terrain splits the country into two distinct theatres, complicating operations and forcing Uzbekistan to manage lengthy supply lines, which are vulnerable to disruption.
Potential for International Repercussions: Any invasion would likely trigger widespread international condemnation, with key regional actors such as Russia, China, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan exerting political and economic pressure to halt hostilities. Uzbekistan’s dependence on international trade and remittances makes it particularly vulnerable to sanctions.
Challenges of Urban and Guerrilla Warfare: Taking key Tajik cities like Dushanbe or Khujand would require prolonged urban warfare, for which the Uzbek military is neither trained nor equipped. Even if cities were captured, Tajik forces could retreat into the mountains, leading to a prolonged guerrilla campaign that would further strain Uzbek resources.
Tajik Defenders’ Strategic Advantages: Tajikistan’s defenders could leverage natural bottlenecks, such as narrow valleys and limited river crossings, to slow the Uzbek advance. Urban and mountainous terrain would favour defensive tactics, negating much of Uzbekistan’s numerical superiority and potentially leading to high Uzbek casualties.
Russian Presence Complicates Operations: The presence of Russia’s 201st Military Base near Dushanbe introduces a major obstacle. Uzbek forces would either have to bypass the base, further bottlenecking their advance, or risk provoking Russia by striking Russian assets, a scenario Uzbekistan is keen to avoid.
Uzbekistan’s Logistical Limitations: Uzbekistan’s reliance on Soviet-era equipment and limited logistical capabilities hampers its ability to sustain a prolonged campaign. Much of its equipment requires frequent repairs, often in Belarus, making it effectively irreparable during an extended conflict.
Economic Vulnerability to Sanctions: Uzbekistan’s economy, heavily reliant on remittances and trade with neighbouring countries, is particularly susceptible to sanctions. Prolonged conflict could lead to inflation, panic buying, and public unrest, further destabilising the country internally.
CSTO and Regional Alliances: Tajikistan’s membership in the CSTO raises questions about whether Article 4, mandating collective defence, would be invoked. While Moscow may pressure CSTO members to avoid direct intervention, the spectre of a Russian response would loom large over any Uzbek operations.
Limited Strategic Gains: Even if Uzbekistan captured key Tajik cities, the long-term gains would be minimal. The international community is unlikely to recognise territorial acquisitions, and maintaining control over captured regions would require resources Uzbekistan lacks.
Peace Is the Most Viable Option: Despite its military advantages, Uzbekistan’s best course of action remains peace. Invasion risks significant economic, strategic, and reputational costs, with minimal rewards. Both nations’ current strategic doctrines prioritise regional stability and integration, aligning with peace as the most logical and beneficial outcome.
PART III: The Nightmare in the North - A Russian Invasion of Kazakhstan (1:48:12)
(Locations of key city's involved in the scenario,with Kazakhstan (blue) and Russia (red))
Geographic and Logistical Challenges Favor Kazakhstan's Defence: The vast, open steppes between Russian and Kazakh cities provide little cover for troop movements, making large-scale invasions slow and predictable. For either side to march the 500 km between Petropavl and Astana is logistically daunting, exposing supply lines and creating significant vulnerabilities.
Kazakhstan’s Minimal Military Presence in the North: Kazakhstan’s lack of major military infrastructure in the north stems from budgetary constraints and the legacy of Soviet-era planning. This setup avoids provoking Russia while focusing resources on defending key southern cities, but it leaves northern cities like Petropavl and Pavlodar exposed to rapid occupation.
Russia’s Strategic Importance to Kazakhstan: Kazakhstan's economy and infrastructure are deeply intertwined with Russia, with most railways, pipelines, and trade routes funnelling through Russian territory. Any conflict would disrupt these links, significantly harming Kazakhstan’s economic stability and forcing Astana into a delicate balancing act.
Limited International Support Options for Kazakhstan: Unlike Ukraine, Kazakhstan is geographically isolated from potential NATO or Western support. Its neighbours—China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan—are unlikely to aid Kazakhstan militarily, leaving it with few options to resist prolonged Russian aggression.
Potential for Russian Justification of Invasion: Russian nationalist rhetoric frequently highlights the presence of ethnic Russians in northern Kazakhstan, drawing parallels to pretexts used for intervention in Ukraine. Localised unrest or "manufactured riots" could provide Moscow with a pretext for intervention, claiming to protect ethnic Russians.
Astana’s Strategy for Managing Escalation: Kazakhstan’s limited northern military deployments may provide a de-escalation pathway, allowing negotiations before a full-scale conflict erupts. This reduces the likelihood of early casualties, which could otherwise harden positions and escalate the conflict.
Urban Defence Challenges and Strategic Depth: If Russia were to occupy northern cities, Kazakh forces would likely retreat to defensive positions further south, leveraging Kazakhstan’s vast territory. This strategic depth could make it difficult for Russia to sustain long supply lines or force the Kazakh government to capitulate.
China’s Likely Neutrality: China, while economically dominant in the region, is unlikely to intervene directly in a Russian-Kazakh conflict. Stability along its border with Kazakhstan is Beijing’s primary concern, meaning it would push for rapid de-escalation rather than taking sides.
Economic Fallout of Prolonged Conflict: Any invasion would severely damage Kazakhstan's investment attractiveness and disrupt Central Asian economic stability. Russia, too, risks alienating key regional partners and damaging its reputation, which could harm its long-term strategic interests in the region.
NATO Membership Unlikely as a Trigger: The most plausible trigger for Russian aggression would be Kazakhstan signalling interest in NATO membership. However, given Kazakhstan’s reliance on Russia and its geographical isolation, it is highly unlikely to seek NATO membership, making this scenario more speculative than imminent.
On the Panel this Week:
Derek Bisaccio
- Lead Analyst at Forecast International
- Defence and Security Specialist for Russia and Central Asia
The Armed Forces of Central Asia (Part 2): Wargaming Regional Conflict
(Released November 28th)
For episode transcripts, monthly geopolitics Q&A’s, member-only videos and to support the show, check out our Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/theredlinepodcast
