CSTO destined to strengthen or collapse? Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

Signs of the possible collapse of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) are mounting. The other day, Kyrgyzstan initiated the exclusion of Tajikistan from the military bloc. Marat Imankulov, secretary of the country's Security Council, made this statement in light of recent armed incidents resulting in human casualties.

"Issues arising between the CSTO member states should be resolved peacefully. If some country tries to use force, we propose to exclude it from the organisation. What is the point of becoming a member of the CSTO and waiting for protection from an external threat, if instead, you get into a conflict with the country inside the organisation? It is time for our countries to revise some parts of the charter that provide for such moments," he said.

This is one thing. The second is the acute dissatisfaction with the organisation in Armenia, where rallies are regularly held in favour of leaving the CSTO. Moreover, in recent days, evidence has appeared that the Armenian leadership itself is considering such a possibility.

In addition, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have banned their citizens from going to war against Ukraine on Russia's side, which understandably does not help to strengthen CSTO unity either.

How can we assess the degree of strength of this bloc in the current circumstances? Well-known experts of the CSTO member states themselves answered this question for Caliber.Az. And it is notable that these answers turned out to be different from each other.

Askar Dzhakishev, a political expert, Doctor of Historical Sciences, and professor at the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University (Bishkek) believes that at the time of the creation of this organisation, it was assumed that the CSTO was designed to ensure the security of the countries participating in the treaty along the outer perimeter of the former USSR countries.

"It seems to have been an attempt to recreate a mini-analogue of the disintegrated Warsaw Pact. So no one at the time had any idea that armed conflicts could erupt between CSTO members. The reality today is that in its current form the CSTO cannot respond to this kind of conflict between members, so it needs to be fundamentally reorganized. The CSTO structure has not developed a mechanism for preventing and suppressing the escalation of such conflicts, which gives rise to the view that the bloc is ineffective and that other solutions are needed to ensure its own security.

However, it appears that none of the CSTO members today are ready to take such a rash step as leaving the organisation. This is particularly evident for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, whose military capabilities are extremely low, compared to such an unpredictable neighbour as Afghanistan. Among the CSTO members, Kazakhstan's decision to substantially increase its defence capabilities, learning from the January 2022 events, is noteworthy. But for the foreseeable future, it does not appear that any member state will leave the CSTO, despite criticism of the organisation. Kazakhstan's role in the organisation can be predicted to increase in direct proportion to the country's defence capabilities.

The general trend among the CSTO participants is that the states will turn towards ensuring their defensive capacity on their own, rather than rely on assistance from the CSTO," Askar Dzhakishev said.

In turn, Aidar Amrebayev, a political analyst (Kazakhstan), believes joint projects with Russia's participation in today's environment are highly "toxic" because that country's leadership violates not only international law but also the usual humanitarian rules of human life.

"This also applies to such organisations as the CSTO and the EAEU. Not only do they fail to meet the original objectives for which they were created, but they directly contradict them.

We are witnessing a paradoxical situation when, for example, the unification of the military potential of the CSTO member states, which pursues peacekeeping and mutual support, in fact, separates the positions of the countries and creates an unnecessary 'field of tension', leading to direct confrontation, as in the case of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

The CSTO mission to Kazakhstan in January this year has also become a subject of speculation and blackmail by a number of 'spokespeople' of modern Russia, making claims to our country about the alleged "ungratefulness" of Kazakhstan for the assistance provided, although we, like any CSTO member, have the right to use the "services" of this organization to ensure our own security according to its charter.

In my view, the CSTO, like the EAEU, has de facto lost its significance and practicality of participation in it. Membership in it is not only formal (a kind of "tribute to loyalty" of the former metropolis), but in the current circumstances is very dangerous. In fact, there are attempts to involve the member countries in the internal affairs of some countries and political adventures with their participation. This includes Armenia's desire to involve the CSTO in the resolution of the Karabakh issue and bilateral Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.

It is quite predictable that Russia will want to "stain its CSTO satellites with blood" in Ukraine after the sham referendums on another annexation of Ukrainian territories have taken place. There are already voices alarming the need for the CSTO to support Russia's military intervention in Ukraine under the pretext of protecting the "reacquired" lands in this way.

This organisation has discredited itself and awaits its fate similar to that of the defunct USSR," Aidar Amrebayev said.

However, Mikhail Neyzhmakov, a leading analyst at the Agency for Political and Economic Communications (Moscow), said tensions or conflicts of interest among the individual participating states in the military bloc are not fatal for such organisations in themselves.

"One can recall, for example, the relationship between NATO member states Greece and Türkiye. The withdrawal of individual member states from the CSTO is hypothetically possible in the future either in the case of political forces in such states that are determined to distance themselves as far as possible from Russia, or a significant adjustment of the foreign policy strategy of such a state (recall how Uzbekistan twice suspended its membership in the CSTO). At the same time, a multifaceted foreign policy and negotiations with the US on military cooperation do not hinder membership in the bloc - note the example of Kazakhstan.

As we can see, the crisis around Ukraine has also not become an obstacle not only to holding meetings at the CSTO level but also to conducting military exercises under the auspices of the organisation.

Criticism of the organisation within Armenia, which periodically increases against the background of the escalation of conflicts on the country's border with Azerbaijan, is quite an expected phenomenon. But such sentiments, which are characteristic, at least for part of the Armenian population, are unlikely to lead to the country's withdrawal from the CSTO in the near future.

On the whole, the CSTO is not likely to face a mass withdrawal from the organisation in the near future. Paradoxically at first glance, the stability of the bloc is due to the fact that it was not created as an organisation with rigid commitments in the event of a large-scale military conflict. To a greater extent, the participants see it precisely as an additional aid in case of situational security threats and one of the platforms for interaction with Russia," Neyzhmakov said.

Samir Ibrahimov