Not considering any state or coalition of states as its adversary, and opposing the use of military force to achieve political and economic goals, Kyrgyzstan has nevertheless recognized the necessity of preparing the country to defend against possible armed attacks. Thus, the state has committed itself to maintaining and developing its own armed forces (AF).
The legislative foundations for the creation and functioning of the military security system were defined in the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic and initially enshrined in the Military-Defense Concept of the Kyrgyz Republic of 1994, later in the Military Doctrine of the Kyrgyz Republic, as well as in the Defense Law.
Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic states: “The Kyrgyz Republic has no goals of expansion, aggression, or territorial claims resolved by military force. It rejects the militarization of state life, subordinating the state and its activities to the tasks of waging war. The Armed Forces of Kyrgyzstan are built according to the principle of self-defense and defensive sufficiency.” According to paragraph 2 of Article 73 of the Constitution, the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic takes measures to ensure the country's defense.
The Military-Defense Concept of the Kyrgyz Republic of 1994 states that “the Kyrgyz Republic does not consider any state or coalition of states as its adversary. Its main goal in the field of security is to prevent wars and armed conflicts.” The principle of self-defense and defensive sufficiency in building the AF is complemented by:
• the principle of correspondence of the organizational structure, combat composition, and strength of the AF to the national security needs of the state;
• the ability to adequately increase combat power in response to rising military threats;
• maintaining combat and mobilization readiness of armed formations at a level corresponding to the evolving situation.
The main defense task, according to the Military-Defense Concept, was considered to be “maintaining, together with other CIS states, a military potential sufficient for their collective defense and ensuring the inviolability of borders, protection of sovereignty, and territorial integrity.”
In the Military Doctrine of 2002, influenced by the so-called Batken wars, the emphasis shifted somewhat. Here, ensuring the military security of the Kyrgyz Republic is recognized as “the most important direction of state activity,” and the main goal of ensuring military security becomes “the protection of sovereignty, territory, and economy of the state, state institutions, and citizens from military threats, preventing aggression or the outbreak of armed conflicts, and creating conditions for the sustainable development of the Kyrgyz Republic.” At the same time, “the Kyrgyz Republic ensures military security with the totality of forces, means, and resources at its disposal. In the event of aggression, the defense of the state implies armed protection, mobilization of all military and economic potential, implementation of civil and territorial defense, as well as joint actions with the armed forces of other states in accordance with international treaties.”
Unlike the Military-Defense Concept, the Military Doctrine already identifies the main threats to military security:
• military-political instability, existing and potential hotspots of armed conflicts in the Central Asian region;
• the ongoing probability of the penetration of illegal armed formations into the territory of the republic;
• the likelihood of weakening regional stability due to excessive quantitative and qualitative buildup of military power by neighboring states and illegal armed formations at the borders of the Kyrgyz Republic;
• the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Central Asia and neighboring regions, as well as the possibility of their use by terrorist organizations;
• reconnaissance, sabotage, and information-propaganda activities by foreign state security services, international extremist and terrorist organizations aimed at undermining the defense capability of the Kyrgyz Republic;
• attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic.
In the context of the issue under consideration, it is particularly important to recognize the existence of internal threats to military security:
• the mismatch between the military-economic potential of the state and the state of the AF to the necessary level of defensive sufficiency for timely and adequate counteraction to emerging military threats;
• the imperfection of legislation in the field of defense;
• dependence on other states in matters of supplying the AF with weapons and military equipment;
• the inadequacy of mobilization preparation of the economy, underdevelopment of the defense-industrial complex, and insufficient mobilization reserves to ensure military security;
• illegal proliferation of weapons, ammunition, explosives, chemical and biological agents;
• the spread of religious and political extremism within the state;
• unresolved issues of social protection for military personnel, low levels of their financial and material support;
• lack of provision for military reform, low levels of population and territory preparedness for armed defense;
• the persistence of a significant level of crime and offenses within the AF.
To counter external threats, the creation of a unified military security assurance system is envisaged, with the main priorities being the creation and maintenance of the necessary readiness of corresponding structures for preparing mobilization resources and ensuring the mobilization deployment of the AF, staffing, equipping, comprehensive support, and training of units, parts, and subdivisions.
The procedure for organizing armed defense, the rights and responsibilities of state authorities, local self-government bodies, enterprises, institutions, organizations, officials, and citizens of the Kyrgyz Republic are defined by the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On Defense.” According to its requirements, the organization of defense includes:
• legal regulation in the field of defense;
• forecasting and assessment of military threats;
• development of military policy and military concept of the Kyrgyz Republic;
• construction, preparation, and maintenance of the Armed Forces of the Kyrgyz Republic in the necessary readiness, as well as planning their application, operational equipment of the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic;
• procurement, development, production, and improvement of weapons and military equipment;
• mobilization preparation of the economy, state bodies, and management systems to function in wartime, as well as preparation of the population, territory, and communications for defense;
• creation of material reserves in state and mobilization reserves;
• planning and implementation of civil and territorial defense activities;
• ensuring and preserving state and military secrets;
• development of military science;
• coordination of the activities of state authorities and local self-government bodies in the field of defense;
• civil control over defense expenditures and the activities of the Ministry of Defense to an extent not limited by law;
• international cooperation for collective security and joint defense;
• implementation of environmental protection measures in connection with military activities;
• other activities in the field of defense.
Overall, the existing legislative framework reflects the peaceful policy of Kyrgyzstan while also recognizing the state's right to defend against threats to military security. The legislative acts of the Kyrgyz Republic define the main threats to military security, provide for the organization of armed defense, and outline the directions for the development of the military security assurance system, taking into account national specifics and the characteristics of the theater of military operations. However, the practice of military construction has significantly diverged from the declared goals and needs of national defense. The process of developing the military organization of the state reflected substantial differences in the approaches of politicians and military leaders to defense issues.