Civil Unrest in Kazakhstan plus Russia sending Troops.
- Thread starter Gergar12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So you genuinely want people to believe that you posted this;
And didn't have any intention that readers would connect it to the topic of the thread that it's posted in? You were just, uhrm, talking about other unrelated movements, apropos of nothing?
K.
No indeed, but I don't think we really know enough about the internal politics of Kazakhstan.
Protestors can be agitated into action by elites, or as very often happens spontaneous outbreaks of dissent are quickly suborned by the needs and desires of political factions, or apolitical, or can have agendas and ideologies that are to us little different from the autocrats they protest against.
Other than the two whole posts I made about it, especially with regards to external pressures that are being assumed to exist in a vacuum, but don't really apply in this situation? Or am I just shouting to the void amidst yet another opportunity to engage in a "Russia bad!" versus "CIA bad!" circle jerk.
Which claims were these? You were the first one to refer to them.
We're on the same page that that was the implication, at least.
Could be, possibly, sure. But the fact we don't know is precisely why I'm objecting strongly to these jumped conclusions.
What we do know is that the state security forces for an authoritarian government have shot numerous protesters in the street, with the President's explicit stated approval. There really doesn't seem to be room for a 'both sides' discussion right now, if it's based on pure speculation.
Last edited:
You certainly made everyone aware of what you think you know about Kazakhstan. My experience is that a lot of people have views, and they do not always precisely describe reality.
Well if either of you have countermanding information about Kazakh oil, gas, coal, and uranium reserves, have proof Russia's fossil fuel arteries to central and east Asia are elsewhere, have proof Kazakhstan isn't in actuality a CSTO member-state, or have information about the allegiances of Kazakh oligarchs to which I'm somehow not privy...be my guest. Otherwise, you just might want to consider who is chiding whom based upon speculation, or whether this is very much a case of glass houses. Because I can't help but notice, I'm the only person in this conversation thus far to have actually brought facts.
But, do go ahead and try to argue Kazakh natural resources, pipeline locations, and treaty organization memberships are just my opinion.
Nope, but I do have an awareness that I'm not an expert, and that random other forumites probably aren't likely to be, either. Scepticism doesn't require one to be personally massively knowledgeable on a subject; just capable of judging sources.
We're are (well, I am at least) not arguing about Kazakh natural resources, pipeline locations, and treaty organisations.
Considering I'm the one and only person in the thread to point out the current state of Kazakhstan's energy industry and the state of central Asian trans-continental oil and gas pipelines, in a thread about political unrest over energy policy -- and Russia's stake in it as an oil and gas exporting country -- if that's your judgment I'd strongly reconsider how good your judgment is on the matter.
In a thread about political unrest kicked off by commercial gas prices in Kazakhstan. In which Russia has been requested to send, and is sending, a military force for nominal peacekeeping as they are obligated to under treaty. To prop up an authoritarian regime of, by, and for oligarchs whose money is in the energy sector.
This is absolutely about Kazakhstan's natural resources, pipeline locations, and treaty memberships.
Especially vis-a-vis Sino-Russian relations, as some forum members were keen enough to intuit on their own, albeit tangentially as it came up before my first post highlighting the exact issue (which, by the way, were the pipelines running through Kazakhstan).
So nothing more substantial than something the OP said, and which even if true, wouldn't indicate the protesters were a front for the CIA or "fascists" anyway?
Is that all we need to smear the victims of state/police/military brutality?
My judgement about how trustworthy a source is doesn't just boil down to whether they're talking about an important topic or not. If it did, I wouldn't have passed my GCSEs.
If true it would indicate that the uprising is backed by, at the very least, neoliberal looters. And yes, typically responses to posts are responses to posts.
From Clint Ehrlich, who's worked as a shill for the Trump campaign & Russian gov. for quite a few years, now-- and even most of his given reasons to justify Russian military intervention come down to, "Russia has military/economic interests in another country". Y'know, the same rationale behind numerous US "interventions".
If true, it would indicate that there were economic liberals among the protesters. To conclude that they must therefore be CIA agents or fascists is bizarre.
And since your claims went so dramatically beyond what was said by the OP, I assumed you must be drawing from somewhere else, yeah.
Not necessarily.
There have been enough uprisings without foreign backing for similar reasons. Because having no economic freedom can be pretty bad as well.
Well, economic liberalism =/= economic freedom.
Which is kind of besides the point, since its the Kazakh government which is the one going full-on for privatisation, and the protesters want the reintroduction of a price cap (EG. regulation). In this equation the government is the one pursuing the free-market, profit-driven, economic-"liberal" approach, and the protesters want the opposite.