The March of 2005 became a significant period of great changes in the life of Kyrgyz nation. It's much more then protests and the overthrow of the former president Askar Akayev. This change is regarded as a critical point not only in the country,but in other parts of an “active world”. It had repercussions over all Central Asian region,and no doubt on Russia and China as well. However,at the first glance it was difficult to define if it was made by just “fed up” mob or by organized and backed group of people. So,here,quite challenging questions are: If it really occured spontaneusly,how some analysts have expressed,what were the motives so strong to be able to move a mob;if it was organized,who was “the player” or at least “the supporter”? These seem to be immediately discussed questions among those,which were than out of Ala-Too Square. Not less interesting question: What effect will it have on progressive political processes?

From 90's until now Kyrgyzstan has undergone great ordeals of “the new world” and its globalizing characteristics. She has experienced a lot on political,economic and social matters. Trying to delve in essence of the market economy,she set and consolidated ties with most countries and members of almost all the international and regional organizations. Thus,the Kyrgyz Republic and Kyrgyz nation stepped toward a multidimensional global structure. Ideas,which are dominant over the “liberal and democratic” part of the world,are not inherent in the mind of “new-born”  state. Despite all,the country was able to cover a vast space of democracy and relatively in a little period of time became “an island of democracy”. Some looming techniques of the market economy are gradually bringing out more clear and practicable. Initial steps were taken by privatisation and by attracting foreign investments. It seems like the state is determinantly making its way to prosperity and wellfare, however, there are real barriers to be prevailed yet. Discriminately looking inside of the country it could be observed,that there are problems,which always caused a serious harm to the general development. The country is “divided into” two different parts. Differences between the southern and the northern regions are not only in economic,but also in political and social spheres. Estimating the population as about five million it's really hard to get into core of such differences. However, this state can be an indispensable tool to provoke “the collapse” by potential foe. These two parts have different geographic features,economic wellfare and even political views. Who knows,maybe it's just a remnant of continual tribal rivalries between various and numerous tribes (clons) of the Turcic civilization. What is clear is that this is a really serious obstacle, and the most challenging one to be dealt by leaders. It seems like a plausible excuse to some extent, that connection between southern and northern regions is restricted by geographical structure. Mountainous part contains %94 of the total land. Besides, living conditions in the southern part, except for the Fergana Valley inhabitants, are worse. All these things led to desperation in a nature of people. As a result of it and considering the whole economic growth of the young republic,it's obvious, that it would be not too difficult to cause an instability or to occur instability “by itself”.

The situation shaped in the country should be considered as a ring of chain of what took place in Ukraine and Georgia recently. These cited countries made almost a U-turn in a political orientation. It's obvious provided their current relationships with “ex-soviet sphere” and with the West, specifically with the USA considered. The US administration approved the “willing” changes. Also,it was observed and “spotted” occured touches between them before the revolutions brought out. The same about Kyrgyzstan can't be thought if we look at the present political stance. What about a political climate formed under the government of the first president? It can be depicted by multidimensional political ties, which of them sooner turned into social,even into cultural ties. The West plays an important role in economic life of the state. Here,the relationships with US should be especially stressed. Because,last events took place in Bishkek could be explained by setting off from this point. The USA is regarded as an important investor. From 1992 until 2002 the US government had invested about 730 million dollars.Right after the September 11,total investments decreased to 50 billion dollars. These investments were directed toward the democracy reforms, market economy, security affairs and humanitarian relief. 9/11 is a crucial date in the development of further relationships. USA “rated” an airbase in Manas International Airport 40 kilometers far from the capital city. Thus began a period of US military presence in the region, no doubt causing an unease to Moscow, Beijing and maybe to Tehran.

The interesting fact is, that the terms of bilateral agreement set on airbase exploitation are quite obscure. The airbase was considered to be used in “the airstrike campaign” of war on Afghanistan. The war came to the end in reality,but the military presence didn't. Looking at the pre-revolutionary developments, we can notice relatively slight dissension between the US government and Askar Akayev on the issue of locating AWACS planes on the airbase. Moreover, in those period, the government was hetting little far from being “the island of democracy”. All these events and conditions led the state toward the “breaking point” in the rule,or toward the “coup de groce” of the leading president. The organization and the “coup” itself was financially supported by the US. Not to mention, the same country was also an important consultant. As a result,at least today, it's not easy to percieve any dramatic change in a wellfare and economy. Besides,old political ties are not warped. The nation still hopes for reforms.

It's not certain if this event, which shaked some parts of the world, should be taken as granted or not. It seems like an unavoidable in a “global world” . The next steps the Kyrgyz Republic should take are quite certain. We should just wait and see…