Civil Unrest in Kazakhstan plus Russia sending Troops.

[Gergar12]

Kazakhstan unrest: Dozens killed in crackdown

Police say rioters were killed in an operation to restore order in the main city, Almaty.

www.bbc.com

Russia sends troops to put down Kazakhstan uprising as fresh violence erupts

Fresh violence erupted in Kazakhstan's main city of Almaty on Thursday as Russia sent in paratroopers to put down a countrywide uprising in one of Moscow's closest former Soviet allies.

www.reuters.com

So there's a country in Central Asia called Kazakhstan where there have been protests over the price of energy, and there are food shortages due to the lockdown. Much of this has been directed at the former president Nazarbayev who along with his family still rules the security forces despite leaving office in 2019 and handpicking a successor. So Putin worried about another democratic revolution like in Ukraine or in Armenia who would be less friendly to him and could ally with the west giving the US the ability to station troops near its border decided to send troops to keep the country from falling into crisis, and likely guard its assets like oil production facilities, resource extraction, and the Russian spaceport.

The good news is that it gives the US, and EU breathing room with Ukraine because it forces Russia to choose. Do you pick Ukraine to invade, or do you pick Kazakhstan to invade if they get a civil war? And if they do both they are splitting resources which limit their effectiveness, and doing this too long could impose more domestic costs on Russia like the Afgan-Soviet War.

I don't think the CIA had anything to do with it since they have to deal with China, and the US itself falling into civil unrest, BUT IF they did this it's pretty smart of them.

I would argue the main takeover is that old people and most likely old men need to pass the torch, and not just assign someone similar to them to transfer power. Give it to someone new who has a plan to deal with inflation, high food prices, Covid, and so fore.

The protesters however did not get that during 2019 as mentioned, and now want economic liberalization, which I hope they do like the Czech Republic vs Russia IF they succeed.

Edit: spelling, and grammar errors.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I don't think the CIA had anything to do with it

The protestors... now want economic liberalization

Well which is it?

Anyway, "democratic revolutions" supported by the United States tend to just be thinly veiled excuses to perpetrate a right-wing takeover that will murder unionists, communists, reformers, and disfavored ethnic groups, and then parcel off and privatize all the valuable resources in the finest liberal tradition. Media in "democratic" countries participate in this up-is-down branding exercise because they are owned by the likely beneficiaries of such privatization.

 

[Gergar12]

Well which is it?

Anyway, "democratic revolutions" supported by the United States tend to just be thinly veiled excuses to perpetrate a right-wing takeover that will murder unionists, communists, reformers, and disfavored ethnic groups, and then parcel off and privatize all the valuable resources in the finest liberal tradition. Media in "democratic" countries participate in this up-is-down branding exercise because they are owned by the likely beneficiaries of such privatization.

The CIA is not behind everything, where is your evidence they are behind this, the Biden Admin isn't even publically criticizing Putin deploying his military in the country. I hate to break it to you but capitalism is the meta for high aggregate quality of life and economic growth, and if I were a country I would rather join the US or EU than join Russia. Maybe being allies with China could make you rich, but the evidence is against this right now, but it could change in the future, so unless Pakistan becomes rich overnight there is no evidence joining these so-called lefty countries makes you rich.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The CIA is not behind everything

 

[Satinavian]

Anyway, "democratic revolutions" supported by the United States tend to just be thinly veiled excuses to perpetrate a right-wing takeover that will murder unionists, communists, reformers, and disfavored ethnic groups, and then parcel off and privatize all the valuable resources in the finest liberal tradition. Media in "democratic" countries participate in this up-is-down branding exercise because they are owned by the likely beneficiaries of such privatization.

Considering people are revolting about shortages and prices, that has nothing to do with the CIA.

The CIA is not behind everything, where is your evidence they are behind this, the Biden Admin isn't even publically criticizing Putin deploying his military in the country. I hate to break it to you but capitalism is the meta for high aggregate quality of life and economic growth, and if I were a country I would rather join the US or EU than join Russia. Maybe being allies with China could make you rich, but the evidence is against this right now, but it could change in the future, so unless Pakistan becomes rich overnight there is no evidence joining these so-called lefty countries makes you rich.

Being a poor country with a failing economy and opening extensive relations to the US or EU mostly means that you get exploited for ressources and workforce and as debt-fueled market for decades while all wealth creation happens elsewhere. Capitalism leads to capital concentration. Being a newcomer in the club won't make you rich. However, capitalism does do several things better and you could profit from this as well. But it would be a long and painfull route getting anywhere pleasant. Still might be worth it if your previous system is just unsustainable.

 

[Silvanus]

I hate to break it to you but capitalism is the meta for high aggregate quality of life and economic growth, and if I were a country I would rather join the US or EU than join Russia.

I hate to break it to you, but Russia is capitalist.

Anyway, "democratic revolutions"

Remember all, protests and civil uprisings against entrenched authority are righteous expressions of the people's will. If they take place in America.

If they take place in a geopolitical opponent of America though, then they're subversive upstarts and should be put down.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Remember all, protests and civil uprisings against entrenched authority are righteous expressions of the people's will. If they take place in America.

Some of them.

If they take place in a geopolitical opponent of America though, then they're subversive upstarts and should be put down.

It is almost as if there is a pattern about what sort of countries the United States will treat with belligerence and what regimes it will treat with friendship. All these fascists around the world are so friendly to us! Why is that?

It's almost as if a world hegemony has structural reasons to prefer to deal with friendly dictatorships, has a record of materially supporting right-wing and fascist opposition parties, and enjoys foreseeable benefits to its ruling class when one of those right-wing authoritarian parties succeeds at gaining control of a state by whatever means are available.
E.G. Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Afghanistan, Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Congo, Ethiopia, Libya, Yugoslavia, Russia, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Guatemala, Nicaragua have all been at various stages of or completed that process. Some multiple times. And that's hardly an exhaustive list.

Indeed, it is almost as if the most powerful state in the world at the behest of the richest international ruling class in the history of the world not only finds use in fending off the legitimately democratic aspirations of its own people but in manufacturing helpful 'democratic' aspirations in whatever markets they don't yet have their fingers dug well in. And if you take the claims made by its media (which are typically simple restatements of the claims made by its Department of State) at face value, then you're a mark. Reflexively believing the opposite has a better track record.

"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest—why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs. They were enemies who only waited to fall on the Roman people."

History may not repeat, but it does rhyme.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Considering people are revolting about shortages and prices, that has nothing to do with the CIA.

"Economic liberalization" is precisely the sort of thing wanted by those who seek to loot a country and sell its parts to the highest bidder.

 

[Satinavian]

"Economic liberalization" is precisely the sort of thing wanted by those who seek to loot a country and sell its parts to the highest bidder.

That might be true.

But none of that is any argument behing the CIA being somehow relevant to the Khazak uprising.



Your argument basically boils done to "The US has done a lo of shit so just let us assume that every shit happening everywhere is the US fault". That is not particularly convincing.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That might be true.

But none of that is any argument behing the CIA being somehow relevant to the Khazak uprising.



Your argument basically boils done to "The US has done a lo of shit so just let us assume that every shit happening everywhere is the US fault". That is not particularly convincing.

Taking this approach, you'll never have the slightest inclination about anything the CIA does until decades later when it is finally declassified.

 

[Agema]

The CIA is not behind everything,

The Russian government might disagree with you.

In fact, I suspect there are few organisations in the world with as much faith in the competency and reach of the CIA as the Russian government. Or as it could be called, paranoia.

 

[Agema]

I personally think Russia is run by a bunch of Cold War dinosaurs who, as postwar Britain has to contend with and the USA is beginning to, are deeply struggling to come to terms with the realisation their country is no longer the global colossus it once was.

Russia has had centuries believing that nothing east of the Oder and north of Iran occurs without it's approval, and its decline has suddenly meant its leaders can barely even retain influence over chunks of the world their forerunners de facto ruled just over a generation ago. The EU dominates Eastern Europe, Turkey is nipping away at the Caucasus, and China is encroaching on Central Asia.

Russia's leaders struggle to accept that for all its geographical size, Russia has a population no more than Germany and France combined (plus a similar age problem) and an economy about the size of Canada. All they have are a lot of troops and gas reserves, and thus their foreign policy is fuel security, and where that fails military intervention. Because Russia has nothing else to offer. Russia would probably be a lot more successful ceasing to think of itself as a first order power, and instead aligning as an (ultimately junior) partner of the EU or China. It will not under current management - nor I suspect for a long time, because the legacy of once being a great power creates a national delusion that's hard to break. The tragedy for Russia is that its military interventions are probably long-term counterproductive, because they create a legacy of bitterness that alienate the countries it would hope as allies, leaving it nothing but coercion.

 

[MrCalavera]

For consideration:

What Kazakhstan Isn't - Craig Murray

Knowledge of Kazakhstan in the West is extremely slim, particularly among western media, and many responses to events there have been wildly off-beam. The narrative on the right is that Putin is looking to annex Kazakhstan, or at least the majority ethnic Russian areas in the north. This is...

www.craigmurray.org.uk

 

[Hawki]

Russia would probably be a lot more successful ceasing to think of itself as a first order power, and instead aligning as an (ultimately junior) partner of the EU or China.

It's arguably academic, but isn't it fair to say that the EU and China are in a similar position as Russia? All three are dealing with greying populations. And the EU (or at least the western part of it) has shrunk from being a global power to a regional one (I guess you could point to France and maybe the UK, granted), while China might be regaining its place in the sun to some extent, but there's doubts as to whether it can really emerge as a major power considering its looming demographic crisis.

 

[Satinavian]

It's arguably academic, but isn't it fair to say that the EU and China are in a similar position as Russia? All three are dealing with greying populations. And the EU (or at least the western part of it) has shrunk from being a global power to a regional one (I guess you could point to France and maybe the UK, granted), while China might be regaining its place in the sun to some extent, but there's doubts as to whether it can really emerge as a major power considering its looming demographic crisis.

China is significantly more powerful than Russia and arguable more powerful than it has ever been in modern time. There are problems on the horizon, but that is no decline.

The EU never was a global power as such. And there is a serious lack of ambition to become one.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Oh, good lord.

Kazakhstan was already a right-wing oligarchy masquerading as a Western liberal democracy, much like most other former Soviet republics. Post-Cold War unregulated, unmoderated, trade liberalization made it the way it is, much like most other former Soviet republics. This entire shitshow is because of trade liberalization.

The government lifted price caps on LPG, which caused the price to double practically overnight and massive short-term runs on the domestic market. Which was done in the middle of winter, y'know, the season people need LPG not just for transportation and cooking but also heating. No kidding, people who've been hit hard by lockdowns, economic seizures, and shortages -- and now this -- to enrich their oligarchs are pissed.

The deeper story is Kazakhstan actually sits on some of the biggest natural gas reserves in the world, 3% of global proven oil reserves, and nearly 4% of proven coal reserves. It has the biggest oil field remaining in the world outside the Middle East, but the bigger story than that is it's light, sour, crude which makes it a hell of a lot more valuable than the pasty garbage we're importing from Canada and Mexico at premium prices. I'll explain how crude oil works later.

Oh and by the way, it's the biggest producer and exporter of uranium ore on the planet. Not that big a deal, until you realize Kazakhstan is a major fossil fuels transit country between eastern Europe and Asia, due to being sandwiched between the Ural and Tarbagatai mountains, not to mention bordering the Caspian Sea. That makes it Russia's -- and most of the former eastern bloc countries' -- key fossil fuel gateway to China. And that would be two nuclear superpowers with a vested interest in having influence over the biggest producer and exporter of uranium ore on the planet, which happens to be situated at one of the most strategically-important regions between Europe and Asia.

So needless to say, Kazakhstan's oligarchs all have their hands in the energy sector. And, we loop back to the immediate cause of the unrest in Kazakhstan. Basically, we have another Iran situation on our hands, except substitute "Britain" for "Kazakh oligarchs", and "USA" for "Russia".

And that's why Kazakh oligarchs have requested Russian intervention, why as posited it's not a "choice between Ukraine and Kazakhstan", and why the US is going to ultimately do fuck-all.

 

[Silvanus]

It is almost as if there is a pattern about what sort of countries the United States will treat with belligerence and what regimes it will treat with friendship. All these fascists around the world are so friendly to us! Why is that?

OK, but this is just grandiose broad-strokes pontificating without any actual detail or direct reference to what's happening in Kazakhstan. Do you have anything at all to suggest that the US has fomented the protests, or that the protesters are "fascists", aside from... uhrm, the fact that the government is opposed to the US?

What we actually have here is an example of an authoritarian right-wing government, and its police force, murdering protesters in the streets.

"Economic liberalization" is precisely the sort of thing wanted by those who seek to loot a country and sell its parts to the highest bidder.

Indeed, it was particularly useful for Nur Otan in their aggressive push towards privatisation.

 

[Eacaraxe]

OK, but this is just grandiose broad-strokes pontificating without any actual detail or direct reference to what's happening in Kazakhstan. Do you have anything at all to suggest that the US has fomented the protests, or that the protester are "fascists"...

They're almost certainly not, as the protests are a response to and against the lifting of LPG price caps. Pretty much the opposite of US global economic interest status quo. If this were the case of, say, a brazenly astroturf protest movement against a democratically-elected government making economic reforms to protect its people and guard against foreign plundering of natural resources, then yeah it'd be a safe bet the CIA was behind it. But it's not.

 

[Silvanus]

Kazakhstan president says he gave order to ‘open fire with lethal force’

Kassym-Jomart Tokayev calls protesters ‘bandits and terrorists’ and says use of force will continue

www.theguardian.com

Here we have the President of Kazakhstan openly and proudly stating that he personally gave the order to open fire, and use lethal force without warning, on protesters.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Here we have the President of Kazakhstan openly and proudly stating that he personally gave the order to open fire, and use lethal force without warning, on protesters.

OK, but this is just grandiose broad-strokes pontificating without any actual detail or direct reference to what's happening in Kazakhstan.

Quite like this post:

Remember all, protests and civil uprisings against entrenched authority are righteous expressions of the people's will. If they take place in America.

If they take place in a geopolitical opponent of America though, then they're subversive upstarts and should be put down.

Anyway, the description of protestors as wanting "economic liberalization" is a red flag. It sounds like, to the extent this is an organic response to fuel prices, that the people are disorganized. All sorts will attempt to capitalize.