On May 29, 1992, by decree of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, the units and parts of the Armed Forces of the USSR stationed on the territory of the republic were placed under the jurisdiction of Kyrgyzstan, and the creation of national armed forces was announced. The impetus for the establishment of its own armed forces was not the prospects of negative developments in the military-political situation and the possibility of threats to the military security of Kyrgyzstan, but the obligations of the Kyrgyz Republic within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty of the states participating in the Commonwealth of Independent States. Initially, they were perceived merely as a mandatory attribute of statehood, which was due to several reasons.
Firstly, Kyrgyzstan, having become an independent state, faced the necessity of institutional construction.
Secondly, the rupture of previous economic ties provoked a deep economic crisis in the country, which led to a sharp decline in the population's standard of living and brought to the forefront the tasks of maintaining socio-economic stability.
Thirdly, Central Asia continued to be perceived as a single economic and political space.
Fourthly, the long-standing political and economic community within the USSR excluded military threats from neighboring states.
Fifthly, the country's leadership lacked experience in managing and governing the military sphere.
Sixthly, the conclusion of the Collective Security Treaty generated confidence that military security could be ensured through collective security systems. The military-defense concept of 1994 states: "The Kyrgyz Republic believes that its security is inseparable from the security of other states of the Commonwealth. The defense of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Commonwealth of Independent States as a whole can be most effectively ensured through the joint efforts of the states participating in the Commonwealth."
In these conditions, the choice of the country's leadership to prioritize institutionalization and ensure socio-economic stability was somewhat justified.
The armed forces were reduced from 18,500 to 12,000 personnel. Nevertheless, their maintenance became a heavy economic burden for the crumbling economy. The President of the country, A. Akayev, stated that Kyrgyzstan could very well do without armed forces.
In an atmosphere of general complacency regarding military security, the military did not strive to defend their interests, let alone conflict with politicians. In some cases, they even contributed to the reduction of defense potential. For example, two squadrons of the most combat-ready fighters were illegally sent to Russia.
The conflict that began in neighboring Tajikistan put an end to the notion of the possibility of doing without armed forces. The emergence of a potential military threat stimulated military activities aimed at ensuring military security. The main headquarters assumed that the development of armed conflict in Tajikistan could lead to the infiltration of armed formations of opposing sides into the territory of Kyrgyzstan, and in the event of one side's victory in the Tajik conflict, part of the defeated would not accept defeat and would seek refuge outside Tajikistan. At the same time, China was excluded, as it was still perceived as an unfriendly state, and it was clear that the Chinese authorities would not allow another destabilizing factor in the problematic Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Uzbekistan completely closed its border with Tajikistan due to increasing contradictions between them and in connection with the activation of religious extremist organizations within the country. Afghanistan was an undesirable refuge due to its civil war. The most convenient territory remained the mountainous areas of southern Kyrgyzstan, which could become a springboard for continuing the struggle. Subsequent events confirmed these assumptions.
Considering the lack of its own forces and means, the Main Headquarters proposed to involve other law enforcement agencies, some civil organizations, and regional administrations for defense preparation. The military initiative received support from the political leadership. In May 1994, the first joint exercises of the Ministries of Defense, National Security, Internal Affairs, Ecology, and Emergency Situations took place in the city of Osh and the Chon-Alai district of the Osh region, involving the national airline "Aba Zholdoru" and the regional administration. The exercises practiced joint actions for securing the state border, neutralizing armed formations, and organizing the reception and accommodation of refugees.
A series of joint exercises over two years allowed for the organization and practical rehearsal of interaction between civil authorities and law enforcement agencies. A corresponding action plan was developed and approved. This later played a role in neutralizing illegal armed formations in 1999 and 2000.
Unfortunately, after the departure of General I. Isakov from the position of Chief of the General Staff in 1995, not only was the work on improving interaction between law enforcement agencies curtailed, but also the preparation of management bodies and troops to perform their tasks. One of the main reasons for the situation was insufficient funding. However, the decisive factor was the personal factor, primarily the professional qualities and level of practical skills of the new Chief of the General Staff, E. Topoev. For example, conducting surprise inspections of units and parts did not require significant financial expenses. Being one of the few accessible forms of training for management bodies and troops at that time, surprise inspections were overlooked by the Chief of the General Staff, and the plan for their implementation was systematically not fulfilled. A similar attitude was observed towards the training process as a whole. The five-day command-staff exercise planned for spring 1996 with a motorized rifle brigade was conducted in one day in a tactical classroom.
It should be noted that the exercise plan developed by the head of the operational management of the general staff, V. Dyaur, provided for the rehearsal of issues related to countering armed formations in those areas that became arenas for fighting against illegal armed formations of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan in 1999 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the Tajik conflict did not extend beyond state borders. At the same time, border disputes with the strongest military neighbor—China—were settled.
In 1996, a bilateral agreement was signed between the Kyrgyz Republic and the People's Republic of China regarding the Kyrgyz-Chinese state border, and a 100-kilometer "trust zone" was created along the border. In 1997, a five-party agreement on mutual reduction of armaments of the "Shanghai Five" states was signed. In 1998, the process of activating economic cooperation between them began.
All this gave rise to a new surge of pacifist sentiments among politicians. At the same time, social and economic tension was growing within the country. The budget of the Ministry of Defense was steadily decreasing: from 0.68% of GDP in 1995, it dropped to 0.5% of GDP in 1998.
In dollar terms, the budget decreased by 22.5% over four years. The requests of the Ministry of Defense were satisfied by less than 50%. In 1998, this figure fell below 30%. On July 28, 1998, issues of preparing and conducting military reform were discussed at a meeting of the Security Council of the Kyrgyz Republic. The main goal of military construction was declared to be the alignment of the military organization of the state with the new political system and economy, the military-political situation, and the nature of modern armed struggle. Transformations in the defense sphere were to be carried out along three intersecting directions: improving the political foundations of military construction; military-economic activity; reform of the armed forces. The focus was on creating a compact and mobile army.
However, the state program for military reform was planned without economic justification and was not provided with the necessary resources. It also ignored the fact that disintegration processes began to prevail in the region. This automatically led to military-political tension. Warnings from the military about the growth of potential military threats and the lack of mechanisms for implementing agreements on ensuring collective security both within the CIS and within the Central Asian Economic Community were not taken into account.
As a result, military reform was reduced to structural reform of the management bodies, units, and parts of the Ministry of Defense. No military or military-political doctrine was developed, the system of leadership and management of the defense and security system was not established, tasks were not specified, and the functions of law enforcement agencies were not delineated. The defense and security provision system did not become a cohesive organism capable of autonomously solving the tasks before it.
In 1998, in order to form a progressive state production-organizational structure of military-economic potential that maximally meets the needs of the Armed Forces and the population of the Kyrgyz Republic in peacetime and wartime, a Military-Economic Concept of the Kyrgyz Republic for the period until 2005 was developed. Among the main priorities in reforming the economic foundations of defense were the identification of the state's military needs in potential armed conflicts and guaranteed financial support for all defense activities. However, this did not change the attitude towards defense issues. According to the National Statistical Committee, defense spending decreased in relative terms by 0.14% of GDP compared to 1997, and in absolute terms fell below the level of 1996.
Military policy continued to remain outside the main interests of the political establishment of the Kyrgyz Republic. As a result, the military organization of the state did not meet even the minimal needs of national defense. This was vividly demonstrated by the Batken crisis of 1999-2000.