77 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] thread
The unrest is due to the Government reducing the subsidizing of LPG purchases. Seems reminiscent of some of the early unrest during the French Revolution where the Royal government did the same thing with grain prices. That too didn't work out too well for the French Government at the time...
you mean the literal "let them eat cake" thing?
Let them burn butane
Good luck as it’s 2 degrees Celsius in Almaty right now, and -15C elsewhere.
Sure, Marie-Antoinette likely never uttered those words, but that phrase aptly captured the sentiment of the people regarding the apathy of the ruling class as evidenced by its contemporary use.
It's a translation problem actually. For the French, there is no mystery there. She said "brioche" but because most cultures didn't have brioches yet, it was usually translated as "cake".

The point was that, price of simple bread was government-regulated, so producing and selling it lost money to bakers and they either didn't do that at all when they could get away with it, or only did in minimum quantities that got quickly sold out. Prices of brioche, as a higher grade product, were not regulated, and brioche was always available.

So really, that comment was more of pun illustrating how lame government price control policies were, rather than an indication of lack of touch with ordinary people's lives.

This is an interesting reading, but it's hardly the generally accepted interpretation. Typically, this is read to reflect the flagrant indifference or ignorance of the ruling class for the plight of the French people.

And ultimately, that common reading is what is being referred to in the comment that spurred this thread. Regardless of the historical minutiae regarding the quote, it's making reference to the anger of a country's people when the cost of living rises and is perceived to be met with indifference.

I don't see any actual rebuttal there. Barring having actual recording equipment in the 18th century, nobody can truly say whether she said or didn't say the words.

Also she was 10 years old at the time, which actually makes it even more likely for her to blurt out something like this. Children are quite naive as I think we all know.

I've read other articles on the topic and emerged unconvinced from them as well because the crux of their "evidence" was basically "a wide consensus". Hrm. "A wide consensus" amongst a small group of scientists where deviating from the accepted opinions of the majority bears an existential threat to one's entire life work and career is... shall we say, not convincing.

> Also she was 10 years old at the time,...

She wasn't 10 years old at the time. Born in 1755, Marie Antoinette would have been ~34 in 1789. Or are you talking about someone else?

According to the article linked above, it may have come from Jean-Jacques Rousseau Michele earlier, when Marie Antoinette was 10, and living in Austria. The actual quote may date back to the 1660’s.
I would not be surprised to see Moscow coordinating/assisting a response to the unrest under the guise of protecting Russians/Russian speakers in the country. These countries that border Russia are all impoverish and ruled buy dictators/old guard just like Russia is ruled by Putin today. It would be wonderful for the people of Kazakhstan to finally be able to enjoy their culture, language, customs without Russian interference and basically a Russian stooge in charge of their country.
Well Putin did say the dissolution of the USSR was a "genuine tragedy".
(comment deleted)
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania disagree with you. So does Ukraine and Georgia.

Also Finland and Norway would like to have few words with you.

The GP didn't express it well, but I understood the comment to be in reference to Eastern and Central European countries that didn't join NATO and other West-aligned organizations as soon as they could.
What in the Hell are you talking about?
(comment deleted)
I wonder when he is going to make that call to Putin to save his behind - read reports of police and soldiers joining the protestors in some towns.
I hope everything turns OK for them.

In these old muslin Soviet republics there are always religious nutheads waiting for a chance to make a move. Kazakhstan is probably the most secular of them but they could very well create a lot of trouble.

Or maybe genocide and "re-education" camps are bad, no matter the context.
Of course. But it is also important to verify such claims -- especially coming from sources with a tremendous conflict of interest -- and not presume guilt.

Or do we suspend justice when we perceive a party to be the current Big Bad?

Is that an argument against "don't believe what people claim about Chinese abuse of Muslims in Xinjiang" or against "don't believe claims that China is just defending itself against Muslim terrorists, supported by foreign imperialists, in Xinjiang", or both?
My argument is literally as stated. Verify media claims and come to your own conclusions. Be aware of what interests are at play and be skeptical of them.
Kazakhstan in recent years has somewhat strengthened the link with Turkey.
I am not sure why this is downvoted, because this is what happened in Iran, the islamists took advantage of the 1979's revolution.
I thought that the former Soviet countries were more moderate Muslims.
The ones in Central Asia, yeah.
Generally yes, but it has been a long time since 1990 and no corner of the Sunni world was entirely spared from Wahhabi influence, which brings radicalism.

You do not need 51 per cent of jihadis to have serious problems. 10 per cent is probably destabilizing enough.

That is a rather simplistic take on things in my opinion.
This glosses over the historical context of the Iranian revolution. Iran's leftist, democratically-elected prime minister (who nationalized the oil fields in 1951 that were originally taken by British Petroleum) was overthrown for a West-backed dictatorship in Iran in 1953 that lead to the mass killings of leftists and pro-democracy advocates. The 1979 revolution led to the restoration of elections.

Good writeup here: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthr...

(comment deleted)
"The 1979 revolution led to the restoration of elections."

Elections where candidates are extensively vetoed by the clergy before being allowed (or not) to run. Even if the population wanted to reduce the role of religion in politics, it isn't allowed to elect people whom the clergy deems too secular.

“Restoration of elections” in the same sense as Russia’s elections.
Kazakhstan is NOT an "muslin republic", never was, and the current unrest has absolutely nothing related to religion.
Interesting. I always thought muslin was weaved into the fabric of Kazakhstan.
I called it "old muslim Soviet republic", which means it was a soviet republic of muslim majority.

And I didn't say the protests have anything to do with religion. I said extremists in those countries will take any chance to make a move. Remember the Arab spring? It started as a protests against governments and it didn't end well for some countries.

The thing is, back when Kazakhstan was a Soviet republic, Kazakhs (and other muslims) only accounted for about a half of population, the other half was made of christian Russians, Germans and Ukrainians. [1]

Now demographics has changed and the role of Islam risen, but it is still very far from being a concern, compared to other Central Asia republics:

"As did its predecessor, the 1995 constitution stipulates that Kazakhstan is a secular state; thus, Kazakhstan is the only Central Asian state whose constitution does not assign a special status to Islam." [2]

Of course, some extremist do exist in Kazakhstan (what country they don't?), but their influence is very minor - this is indeed very secular country and not only in constitution, - and I do not think anything close to Arab spring is possible. My biggest concern is Russian intervention, frankly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kazakhstan

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Kazakhstan

Well, the Russian are already there.

I don't think anything like the Arab spring is possible there either, but the islamic groups that wander around can do a lot of damage anyway. That was my only thought, I hope they don't manage to do anything.

None of the old Soviet states are having a good time right now. I bet no one is enjoying the situation more than Putin.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia seem to be doing alright?
They never were truly Soviet. They always considered themselves occupied territories and got out at the first chance they had.
Those are still all Russian "buffer" states. Why would he be enjoying unrest on Russian borders?
Because it gives him an opportunity to increase Russia’s sphere of influence (whether by exerting soft power or outright annexation).
Did you ever consider it might be an attack on his sphere of influence? Putin's not the only bad actor in the world.
Bingo!

And who was getting really friendly with KZ lately? Yes, yes!

He doesn't want to annex Kazakhstan, who needs this trouble? He wants it to be within his sphere of influence, but deal with their own problems by themselves, preferably in a way that doesn't give people of Russia any ideas about freedoms or democracy. So far it worked pretty well, but now something went wrong...
(comment deleted)
The left wing mob (let's face it, HN) blindly hates on Putin. There's probably more to the story (he may be trying to disrupt their oil export deals), but he's definitely concerned about the outcome.
He wouldn't really enjoy it too much if the protestors win. He doesn't need an example of a successful overthrow of a dictator in post-Soviet space. People might get ideas. His whole doctrine is based on the premise that his Benevolent Rule is the best thing that could happen on post-Soviet space and anything else is the road to hell. And he'll try to make it hell for anybody that would try to disprove it - see Ukraine.
"Fun fact": Kazakhstani Internet seems to be completely down last 8 hours. I live in Kazakhstan and at least in 3 cities people report absolute nothingness: no home internet, no mobile internet. I have servers in data centers, it seems they were not responsive as well.

I was surprised by information vacuum caused by lack of Internet. I don't have TV antenna or radio, so I even considered going to meetings despite being a peaceful citizen. I just did not have anything to do.

I got Internet at 0:00. Hopefully it was not a mistake. I definitely would protest out of boredom if they'll continue to cut an Internet.

That's a great point, when my internet was down the other day I was bored out of my mind.

Wouldn't you want people to be able to keep using stuff like Netflix so their placated?

Instead, this appears to have made things much worse, since you have a lot of bored, angry people with nothing better to do. Something strange is going on, why wouldn't you gradually transition people to higher gas prices. I strongly suspect if you saw gas tripling price overnight in America, people wouldn't be so happy here.

Curious... Russia seems jumping at the bit to take over more territory... if there's so much turmoil in your country and discombobulation...what's stopping them from coming in and taking over? You're right there in easy grasp....
Power to the people! Buying popcorn, and turning on CNN tomorrow.
If you want to be informed, turning off CNN would be a better move.
No, I'll just do it for fun and fake tears. Taking a shot to every "insurrection" blowed by Jim Acosta until I pass out. Its like opposite world over there, you just believe the opposite of their current narrative. Kazakhstan and gas prices, will just add to their current panic. For even better entertainment!
reddit.com/r/news is better than Fox or CNN.... so is /r/politics and /r/worldnews ... you get print medium. Print doesn't have emotion-inducing talking heads. If you just 'read' news, you can actually skim and get the pertinent parts and it's easier to tell when the author is using their own biases and what not.

I read news for facts, not for opinions. I don't give a shit what someone thinks going on, I want to figure it out for myself, make my own conclusions, or at least talk it out w/ avg people on here or reddit, rather than some celebrity like Hannity or Cuomo.

The headline doesn't do justice to what's going on.

The government (cabinet) resigned, though the president has asked them to remain on the job until replacements are found. Armed police have fled from armed protestors. There are reports of police having been killed.

So the protestors seem to have both weapons and more determination than the police. It remains to be seen whether they have more staying power than the police, whether the army is going to fight the protestors, and whether Russia is going to take a hand.

> The protests appear to have no identifiable leader or demands.

Good for them.

(comment deleted)
They've set gas prices at .11 cents per liter - that is totally unsustainable I think. The protests over higher gas prices reflect the reality - gas prices are (much) higher than folks have been paying.
(comment deleted)
"Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said he had appealed to a Russia-led security bloc to assist Kazakhstan in overcoming what he called a "terrorist threat".

Tokayev made a second televised speech in the space of a few hours as the Central Asian republic faces the worst unrest in more than a decade, initially triggered by a fuel price rise.

He said he had appealed to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a military alliance of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan."

https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/kazakh-president-appe...