Commenting upon the recent events in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, experts and journalists draw attention to the fact that the conflict between Kyrgyz former President Almazbek Atambayev and the Republic's current leader Sooronbay Jeenbekov is a personal conflict based on the short temper of the former and jealousy of the latter, followed by sort of revenge. The conflict as an analogue of the well-known Gogol's story about how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich, entailing an onward-moving conflict aimed to destruct the counterpart without realizing the possible catastrophic consequences of the battle unleashed for each of the parties involved.
Sometimes, however, observers note in their comments that there are clans backing the parties to the conflict in the Kyrgyz Republic: Jeenbekov is supported by the southern clan, Atambayev – by the northern, and, consequently, the present-day situation in Bishkek is another round of these clans' struggle for business and power supremacy. Just like in Ukraine, where all the political decisions have been accompanied by civilizational rivalry between the West and the East for almost 30 years (since the collapse of the USSR).
The South of Kyrgyzstan is now actively involved in China's economic projects, while the northern clan is closer to economic cooperation with the EAEU countries, and Atambayev's private business is, among other things, connected with Turkey and the Islamic Ummah. For this reason, the blatant rivalry between the former colleagues is fueled today by clan interests and fundamentally different sources of personal and corporate budgets' replenishment. It seems that Atambayev does not like Jeenbekov's and his clan's pro-Chinese shift, as the team of the current President not only conducts a relevant personnel policy (favoring the Osh region immigrants), but is also pressing against pro-Turkish business associates of the former Kyrgyz President. And the current head of Kyrgyzstan does not like the criticism coming from his former patron, for which reason the republic's investigative bodies accuse the latter of all manner of offenses.
By the way, former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev might be faced with quite a number of criminal cases, including the most punishable offences, but he is at the same time constantly and rather freely criticizing the current leadership of Russia. That is, it never crossed Vladimir Putin's mind that he ought to prosecute the former President of the USSR for his criticism of the President of the Russian Federation, or even to engage in controversy with him.
In such a way the Russian leader gives a clue to some of his CIS partners that the relationship between the former and current heads of state should not stem from interpersonal dealings: each of them is responsible for his own actions before the people and the state. That is why Russia provides shelter to the former leaders of other countries, such as Akaev, Viktor Yanukovych, and so on.
Unfortunately, in various countries of the post-Soviet space, counterexamples are an ordinary thing as well. In Armenia, for instance, Nikol Pashinyan's desire to take revenge on ex-President Robert Kocharyan as his former offender not only undermines the authority of the current Prime Minister, but also destroys the country. The situation in Kyrgyzstan may develop in a similar way: initiating criminal cases against the former head of the Kyrgyz Republic (including under false pretenses) and his subsequent severe punishment will unlikely contribute to the consolidation of this country's elites and the triumph of justice.
But that's just a thought.
I believe Sooronbay Jeenbekov would be more subtle in assessing the ex-President's activities, had it not been for the pressure from his surroundings – representatives of the southern clan, who make the country take a course towards a new "strategic partner" who pledges the Republic multi-billion investments and has already begun piling a lot into the construction of a trade and transport hub in the Naryn region. Anyway, Russia hopes that the current leadership of Kyrgyzstan will find opportunities to stop the conflict through dialogue rather than by force.
Meanwhile, one cannot help but see the effect of another destabilizing factor behind the events in Bishkek, which today no one pays attention to, even though this factor plays a pretty significant role in aggravating the situation in the Kyrgyz Republic. What is meant here are activities of various pro-Western NGOs, sponsored from abroad and coordinated, in particular, by the British Council, the British NGO "International Alert", as well as by entities owned by George Soros and USAID.
I will not describe the whole logical chain of the alleged influence of the British and other Western intelligence services on the recent events in Kyrgyzstan (this is a matter for a separate article). The only thing I will say is that the operation to detain Atambayev began exactly on the eve of the Kyrgyzstan-hosted meeting between heads of the EAEU countries' governments and coincided with an outbreak of border confrontation between the military of Pakistan (whose leadership is closely related to the British intelligence services) and India.
Britain, which is currently leaving the European Union (via Brexit), and most importantly – from the Big Three (USA - Beijing - Moscow) of the leading members in the process to redesign the world, is apparently heading for large-scale destructive foreign policy actions in order to ignite a new deadly world war and confrontations in the hottest spots of Eurasia, as well as demonstrate its exceptional foreign policy capabilities.
I suggest that everyone analyzing the causes and background of the growing conflict in Kyrgyzstan amid a certain interpersonal confrontation between the two leaders of this country, carefully consider the factor of pro-Western (primarily pro-British) NGOs affecting the situation in the Kyrgyz Republic. Moreover, these sort of non-profit and non-political structures are massively becoming the key player in various "revolutions", coups and protests with a high degree of manipulating their participants' behavior.