Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US warplanes land in Uzbekistan
Dawn | Sept 22, 2001

Posted on 09/23/2001 9:51:26 AM PDT by Sawdring

TASHKENT, Sept 22: US warplanes have landed in the former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan, as Russian President Vladimir Putin, after an extended silence, voiced readiness to cooperate with US plans to strike Afghanistan - but only after they are approved by the UN security council.

Uzbek military sources said on Saturday that the US jets were stationed just outside the Uzbek capital of Tashkent and were equipped with surveillance devices, presumably aimed at the Taliban.

Uzbek officials had previously denied that they were willing to cooperate with the US in its fight against the Taliban.

Heavily armed US attack helicopters are still stationed on a military base some 40 kilometres east of Tashkent, following joint NATO-Uzbek military exercises in the region this month.

The use of former Soviet bases by Washington has been busily debated in Moscow, which has pronounced itself ready to join a world anti-terrorism campaign, but still worries that NATO forces will permanently root themselves in the lucrative Central Asian region should Russia agree to a joint attack.

In a sign that the two sides were starting to bridge their positions, Putin and US President George W. Bush held a 40-minute telephone consultation on the issue late on Saturday Moscow time, although the Kremlin refused to disclose any details of the talks.

The Russian leader - whose generals have previously refused to grant US troops any access to Central Asian countries labelled by Moscow as the "near abroad" - emerged from a near-silence at his Black Sea retreat to voice a mixed message for Washington.

Putin was further holding late-night consultations on the crisis with his most senior security officials at the Sochi base on Saturday, senior Kremlin sources said.

Earlier, speaking ahead of his Tuesday visit to Berlin, Putin hinted in an interview to Germany's ARD television that while Russia was cautious, it was willing to negotiate a joint response to the terror strikes in the United States. "This does not mean that we cannot discuss such questions together with our partners, think about the possible reaction to the terrorist acts," said Putin in remarks aired nation-wide on Moscow television on Saturday.

Putin said Russia's possible level of participation would be decided "based on the level and character of our partnership with the US and NATO".

These comments coincided with those recently made by senior Russian officials, who claim to have Putin's ear. The officials in private said that Moscow would be willing to offer its full cooperation in a new US war should Russia be accepted as a member of NATO.

The same senior Russian officials have said that NATO discussions were far more important than any debates on US plans to build a missile defence shield, an issue that has been the top priority for talks between Moscow and Washington for months.-AFP


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 last
To: Reeses
Instead of just complaining, what is your alternate solution to deal with terrorism?

Don't be silly. Z-man doesn't care about terrorism. That's not on his hate-America agenda.

7,000 murdered people don't count. If oil companies make a profit--now there's something to get outraged about.

41 posted on 09/24/2001 6:27:07 AM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
You go guy. Great posts. Great analysis. Great arguments, and admirable restraint. Don't give up.
42 posted on 09/24/2001 8:07:23 AM PDT by sjy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sawdring
For every action, there is a hidden agenda.

The Taliban was set up to allow oil pipelines through Afghanistan.

Now we must replace the Taliban with the next US oil-friendly regime. Nothing ever changes. We will get our oil fix any way we can.


BUMP

43 posted on 09/24/2001 8:30:45 AM PDT by tm22721
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa

This is a specious argument that assumes that supply from all other sources ceases during the life of the ANWR reserves.

Trust me, I know the argument. I know that it assumes no other oil but ANWR. But the point here was to close up all other incoming oil in favor of our own. I merely pointed out that that won't last long.

44 posted on 09/24/2001 8:52:32 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson