I was born in Kazakhstan. In the 90s, after the USSR fell apart, we witnessed an incredible rise of nationalism that resulted in anti-Russian sentiment. So, like many other families, we escaped Kazakhstan in the late 90s.
Now..The Russian army is sent to quell deadly unrest. If the Kazakhstan army joins protesters, it could end up with a full-scale war between Russian "invaders" and "patriots" driven by the same nationalism.
After covid I just accept we are living in hell. Everything about the systems we exist in is a joke. At the end of the day, just embrace the madness I guess.
Their collective security treaty is… interesting. I wonder how Russian people would react if situation was opposite and Kazakh paratroopers landed in Kazan, for example. Calling civil unrest “foreign terrorism” is not new in history for sure, but not in the age of internet. What to say, no “end of history” in sight
Maybe you can help me here. My reading of the situation is that it was an attempted revolution against a dictator after he made a devastating unilateral decision to raise prices for a critical fuel. Am I missing something?
The raise of fuel prices was an immediate cause but it probably was long burning dissatisfaction with the economic hardships of the masses vs. prosperous kleptocratic elite.
On the other hand it seems that the economy of Kazakhstan was one of the best among other stans. It is possible that prolonged covid restrictions also played the role.
You're right about something. But civil and peaceful protests cannot be so well organized and take place so quickly and occupy so many significant places. It looks too organized and therefore suspicious. Perhaps people are dissatisfied with the authorities and living conditions, but perhaps someone is trying to use the protests to their advantage and manage them.
Fire doesn't need any organization. It just needs oxygen and a spark. And I don't see how these protests are "well organized". People are just running, burning, and disabling government buildings. It's just like fire to me.
The US does that sort of thing, in general. But so far, the US hasn't been terribly subtle about it. Usually when the US government wants to get rid of a government, you'll know it (if you pay attention). Where are the "National Endowment for Democracy"-funded front groups? Where's the immediate condemnation of the couped leader?
Civil and peaceful protests work in democracies, not in tyrannies. If you don't believe me ask Belorussians how peace is going for them. Dictator is called that for a reason, you won't impress him with flashlights, songs, and dances even if the whole country is dancing.
TL;DR: do not bring a flashlight or guitar to a gun fight. Drinks (cocktails in particular) on the other hand...
I don't call other users bots. I understand that people can have an opinion that coincides with what Russian propaganda impose. In this case, the fact that they sound the same as Russian bots is completely unrelated to me, my opinions, or my comments.
Based on what independent media report, my understanding is the same. Protests began after 2x gas prices surge. Local law enforcement was not able and/or was not willing to quell protesters. The president of Kazakstan claimed that protests are "terrorist attacks that sponsored and organized by foreign actors" and asked Putin and co. for military help.
The fuel prices caused protests in one region. The others joined in solidarity. But after seeing how much support the protests have, more people started joining and the protest became political, demanding to change the regime.
In Almaty, the protests got violent with killings and mass looting. A few other cities saw looting and destruction of ex-president's statues, but most of Kazakhstan was peaceful, including the place where the original gas-price protests started. The violence part does not represent the sentiment of the majority, I would bet, it's something organized; I don't know by whom and for what reason.
Another commenter mentioned that due to recent rising gas prices, it's become very profitable for smugglers to transport LPG across the border to Kyrgyzstan and China, selling for up to 3x the price (buy at subsidized Kazakh prices, sell at market rate). This black market is so profitable for the usually low-income Kazakhs, that organized crime has sprung up around it (a la Al Capone). The government decreased the subsidies due to this discrepancy, and organized crime around Almaty is the one encouraging and enflaming the protests to ensure their profitable smuggling.
THe prices were still very low. And the decision was almost immediately reversed.
Any economical problem can't justify violent uprising with takeover of an airport and decapitating of police officers, etc. etc. Never.
Our only source for "decapitation of police officers" are Russian telegram accounts which, there is no question, are 100% trustworthy (they are not; what happened to that poor "little boy in underwear crucified in Ukraine" that never existed). On the other hand, we've got plenty of evidence of police shooting protesters, including in the head. I'm somehow sure relatives of the murdered are not OK with that. I wouldn't even be surprised if they demanded revenge and acted on it (family means more in that part of the world and it's way bigger, too).
No, it is the official Kazakhstan source, not Russian telegram accounts.
The uprising is very vioulent without any doubts.
There are a lot of sources to confirm captures of government buildings and posession of arms.
Speaking of Ukraine, do you remember a "burned AC unit" in Lugansk? That was not media, that was official Ukrainian statement.
Which source? The one that requested Russian intervention? Why there are lots of videos of protests, shootings, killings by the Kazakh army, and looting by unidentified people but only words of the interested party for this one?
I don't remember the "AC unit" but I do remember Russian media's "100% sure version of 2 Ukraine planes downing the Netherlands' jet" a few years ago (with interviews of "experts" all over the place). That was their position for a long time (maybe half a year, until they shamelessly changed it to "Ukraine BUKs did it"). The "beheading story" seems like a fairy tale from the same authors.
You don't remember the AC unit? Really?
You can start from here: https://www.unian.net/politics/924578-luganskie-terroristyi-...
and go on to read all the reactions of Ukrainian officials from this moment and on.
Please do so. It's never too late to do.
BTW, it has nothing to do with Kazakhstan's legitimate goverment, which is free to request military assistance from an organization (not just from Russia, if it matters).
You better answer your own question. This is a very bad comment you've made, both offending and insulting, at the same time completely offtopic. I'm flagging it.
It's very weird to see the President argue 'foreign interests' spark the unrest, and then promptly invites a foreign army to quell it. Who's falling for that?
Not everything in life is a conspiracy, and people often rebel spontaneously against their government. Not every revolution in a country ruled by Putin and Pals is waiting for The White House to give the green light.
Also, did the US tell the regime in Kazakhstan to raise oil prices? That was, obviously, not the people’s only grievance, but it was the spark that lead to the protests and rebellion.
The “US meddling” excuse is a tired cliche, and insulting to the people who put their lives on the line to fight oppressive, corrupt regimes.
It was organized in advance on social media. Some people even had t-shirts printed. It may have been "headless", in that it's difficult to identify organizers, but it wasn't entirely spontaneous.
It remains an open question as to whether any of the posters on social media talking up the idea to protest at the capitol, or the mysterious person with the hoodie and bag of pipe bombs, were sponsored by overseas enemies of the US. There is as yet no hard evidence for this. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jan-mystery-pipe-bombs-night...
You have it backward. The January 6th Riot was not motivated by a desire to oust a dictator. At the time, Donald Trump was President, and he wanted to remain President despite losing the election.
As for corruption in the US, I acknowledge it, but it’s laughable to compare it to what happens in countries run by Putin and Pals. In Russia, Kazakhstan, Syria, etc. the people’s only choice is rebellion. In the US, we (still) have the ballot box.
I have not seen any evidence that they are directly behind it, but I am pretty sure that the various US services jump on oppurtunities as they see them. In particular in the former Soviet union.
There isn't a US-Russia conflict over Ukraine. US had no part of Ukraine's uprising. Late in the Trump presidency long after issues had settled, the US started getting involved with selling supplies.
Absolutely agree. People are downvoting you, because they have problems contemplating that people from poor(er) countries have the ability to think for themselves.
All but one of those articles is from well after 2012 (2019 and 2021). And the earliest one you linked is from 2014, from after the point even when Crimea was annexed. So your sources don't jive with your statement.
Yes, it's that damn CIA who forced Nazarbayev to appoint his son as the head of the national gas company and then forced said son to raise the gas prices. Damn you, CIA! (shakes fist at sky)
> It’s as “foreign” as any NATO country’s army to another.
I don't believe your comparison is even remotely adequate.
Could you point out an example of a NATO member requesting a military intervention from another NATO member in their own country to respond to protests?
Because what we're seeing here is a blatant attempt by Russia to preserve Kazakhstan's regime by having foreign armed forces intervene against the nation's civilian population.
I doubt OP is _condoning_ the CSTO troops (who are more than just russia) coming to the president's aid.
CSTO is not the same as NATO, but it is similar. There is a strategic alliance between Russia and the government of Kazakhstan. It is more than logical for the president to pull in troops to counteract their own troop's defection.
Its not morally correct, but entirely logical, which I think OP was trying to say.
> Could you point out an example of a NATO member requesting a military intervention from another NATO member in their own country to respond to protests?
The US militarily intervened in Europe 75 years ago and has bases in Germany, Italy etc. No need to have military come in for the first time since it is still there.
Italy had NATO violently suppressing protests in Italy for years with Gladio.
ISIS (and Al-Qaeda) are predictable, convenient excuses for keeping dictatorships in the Muslim world. Before ISIS took over Raqqah and other territory in Syria and Iraq, it was the FSA (Free Syrian Army), not Assad, who kicked ISIS out of Aleppo and the Damascus countryside. When Putin intervened in 2015, the overwhelming majority of airstrikes targeted the FSA and civilian areas outside the control of both Assad and ISIS (https://www.newsweek.com/more-90-percent-russian-airstrikes-...). For Putin and Pals, ISIS is the gift that keeps on giving.
Here's a hint:
Stop causing color revolutions in other coutries, that in turn create a power vacuum, which leads to chaos and anarchy.
Seriously, that is not hard. What makes you think FSA are "moderate" headchopers and how are they any better than Assad? Just because they have "Free" in the name? Such naive thinking.
It's pretty telling that several western leaning nations/political groups in Asia have been defeated by non-Western adversaries.
We've now seen this in Armenia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Kazakhstan.
I think the geopolitical message is pretty clear - EU/US will not protect you. Alliances with them cost little, but have little protective value. Russia/Iran/China/Turkey might force you to pay a higher price for their protection, but at the end of the day, they will actually protect you.
Whataboutism anyone? You should've received your updated propaganda field guide by now, currently it is no longer advised to so blatantly point somewhere else.
Sorry, but it sounds like a cheap attempt to accuse the other party of propaganda and use the "whataboutism" card.
I don't see anything whataboutism'y where one accuses a foreign state interfering in another state. (and I personally find Kazahstan's idea that rioters received foreign military training funny, since it's the cheapest excuse ex-USSR governments use when people are tired of the same people ruling the country for 20-30 years and start protesting)
For it to be whataboutism, it should include something along the lines of "What about... ?" that discredits an opponent with their own hypocrisy.
Russia's sending paratroopers and it's somehow the US interfering? Lol? Khazakistan is under Russia's wing. Russia props up the dictatorship to help Russia. This uprising is a popular uprising.
I traveled many post-Soviet countries in the past years with my old camping car. My personal impressions in Kazakhstan were frightening. A deeply corrupt state, much worse than Russia.
Aggressive armed bandits in police uniform tried to rob me several times. Kazakhstan is true mafia state where every part of the regime tries to enrich itself at the expanse of the people.
In contrast to the rich oil elite there are the normal people who often not even have tap water in the villages. And who live often in constant fear of being robbed by the armed forces.
But why is such a dysfunctional dictatorship so stable? Why did it last for three decades?
The situation is very similar to Azerbaijan. I believe the answer is: it is backed by the West because a stable dictator in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan guarantees the oil flow.
In the case of Azerbaijan, my understanding is that western European companies have just blanket bribed more or less every official they interact with up and down the Azeri government for the past few decades, to help them set up contracts that are grossly unfair to the Azeri public. Oil money that does go to Azerbaijan gets embezzled away, with those companies’ knowledge and implicit support.
I haven’t heard of anyone from e.g. BP getting punished for this, though I believe the British government asked it to investigate itself a few times.
"Backed by the west" is a common conspiracy theory pushed by Russian government. You should be asking yourself who's benefiting. The west does not benefit from anything related to those states, all oil they produce first flows through Russia. Russia benefits by having these states as basically feudal subservient states that they can extort for profit.
(I will note that most western oil comes from the middle east with Europe also getting a decent amount from Russia.)
Kazakh elite keeps its money in western banks, flies western planes to western capitals and owns land and property in top western locations. Same for Russian elite.
In the Cold War, dealing with Soviets was unthinkable. Now, the West is complacent, there is even a term for it, Schröderizatsiya. See this opinion piece by the former Estonian president [1].
> Kazakh elite keeps its money in western banks, flies western planes to western capitals and owns land and property in top western locations. Same for Russian elite.
So does the Russian elite as you say, even Putin himself. The US's currency is the reserve currency of the world and the currency most commerce is done in so western banks are used. They also are much more stable than banks in their own countries where other elites could steal their money. This doesn't mean that the US or the west is somehow controlling their countries.
Don’t bother wasting your time. These trolls just want to make you hate yourself and your country. Of course it’s your fault comrade, if you didn’t buy caviar from Russia then they wouldn’t have to invade Ukraine to feed the workers who make the caviar. It’s always your fault nobody else’s.
The goal with these sorts of comments is to try and get liberal democracies to stop engaging in the rest of the world. If you keep getting told it’s your fault eventually you say “fine I’m done” and then that’s when they win.
> Is there some sense in which this is not a "conspiracy theory
Yes, in the sense that Aleksander Dugins foundations of geopolitics exists and is taught in military schools in Russia. It proposes - among other tactics, exactly this approach. Splitting hairs, gaslighting and exhaustion.
You have colored in some details, but it's still a theory about a secret project of mysterious Russians and Russia sympathizers, only now they're allied with some Russian version of Alex Jones.
It's worth noting that this special book was published during the reign of Yeltsin, a Clinton puppet installed and protected by various Western agencies. That could be a reason there is some consideration of similar actions in the opposite direction.
Although really the question of banking money from unacceptable foreigners is an old one, unresolved throughout the 20th century. It's too convenient for the West to really give up on, so a short list is maintained of the "definitely unacceptable", but there's no systematic criteria for what "unacceptable" really is.
It's quite clear from the lack of UK response to the Salisbury poisonings that the UK is financially compromised into indifference, for example.
Yes some sanctions would be a good idea. We hoped that opening up trade with Russia and China would help them transform into free-market democracies. But that approach has failed so it's time to return to the Cold War policy of containment. Work with our asked to keep our adversaries as weak and isolated as possible.
Besides sanctions, we should also seek to undermine and delegitimize those governments by supporting dissident movements and other covert actions.
I went to school with a young kazak person I don't want to reveal to much about them, but let me just say this. Their parents had direct contact to the state and they were unaccountably rich went to an insanely expensive private school and owned various apartments all across Europe. The west DOES benefit from the corruption related to those states.
> I went to school with a young kazak person (...) Their parents had direct contact to the state and they were unaccountably rich went to an insanely expensive private school and owned various apartments all across Europe.
I don't understand what point you tried to make. Do you believe someone needs deep state contacts and government approval to purchase private property in a European country?
No I'm saying our economies do benefit from people throwing money around. They buy citizenship they buy massive amounts of real estate they spend obscene amounts of money on nightlife, they buy luxury cars it's not just the Russia who benefits....
A couple of rich oligarchs playing around with their money in the west doesn't benefit the western economy much. The money they spend is nothing compared to the economies of those western countries. The ones who benefit from the corruption are the ones who have access to the tax stream.
Mate, research who controls Kazakh natural resources: it's western corporations. It allows them to extract resources and money from Kazakhstan without paying much back. And it's a lot of money and valuable natural resources like copper and uranium.
Same was happening in Russia in 90s: western corporation took control of all Russia's natural resources using phony agreements and corrupt businessmen (like Mikhail Khodorkovsky). E.g. in 90s people in Russia were dying of hunger, but oil was sold to the West by the price of water.
When Putin came to power, first thing he had done is returning control over natural resources. That's exactly the moment when all the West started vilifying him so badly.
Where do you get your oil from? From the free democratic Saudi Arabia? West happily ignores any atrocities as long as the flow of resources is under control.
Not only SA sells oil to US, but it also invests earned money into US government bonds. It's allows them to do whatever they want in their country, no matter how "undemocratic" it is. And the "free" press being oh-so-independent and honest, happily ignores that too, instead always pointing you to more convenient targets.
> But why is such a dysfunctional dictatorship so stable? Why did it last for three decades?
Ceaușescu went from addressing a mass crowd in the square to execution in five days after ruling for about 25 years. Dictatorships are like steam boilers: so long as the pressure is contained, everything looks fine, until suddenly it isn't.
(Interestingly having looked him up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu he's one of the few leaders to have achieved what is now denounced as "neoliberal", the paying down of the country's national debt. It only took starving the country to do it.)
Exactly. The supposed "stability" of authoritarian dictatorships is a complete illusion. They look stable because there's no one exposing how very brittle they are, how much discontent is bubbling below the surface. That's why nothing at all was happening in Tunisia until a fruit stand owner set himself on fire and it all came crushing down. So it is here in Kazakhstan, except Russians come to the rescue to prop up the dictatorship. They probably realize the parallels with their own.
He and his wife were assassinated during a military coup. Assassinations are a pattern during coups.
Neoliberalism also has nothing to do with debt. It attempts to increase profit rates through privatisation, deregulation and austerity measures. Only the latter happened in România in the 80 and it was imposed by the IMF. Suspiciously, the loan had just been paid off in 89 when the coup happened.
> But why is such a dysfunctional dictatorship so stable? (...) I believe the answer is: it is backed by the West because a stable dictator in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan guarantees the oil flow.
And yet, it's Russia and it's strong-arm tactics that are desperately trying to keep Kazakhstan's regime in power.
Think about it: Russia is even sending it's paratroopers to Kazakhstan to stomp out unrest. Not the US. Not the EU. Not Switzerland. No, Russia.
> Do you assume Putin and western corporations are antagonistic?
Please don't try to change the subject. Putin sent Russia's paratroopers to Kazakhstan to use them against Kazakhstan's civilian population to quelsh unrest. It's not the US, Switzerland, Finland, the EU, nothing. This is Russia intervening in Kazakhstan to preserve Russia's interests, and no amount of whataboutism changes this.
> Russia's interests are aligned with western companies interests that buy Russian exports.
Just to be clear you are blaming “the west” (US, UK, Sweden, France, Canada, Switzerland, etc.) for Russian intervention in Kazakhstan because those countries buy Russian products? (Leaving aside all the other countries in the world which do the same but w/e).
Not the OP, I think you misunderstand. The idea is that the West is fine with Russia dispatching troops to Kazakhstan. They share a common interest in wanting to keep the oil flowing, and are not so much interested in how Kazakhstan is governed.
Contrast Kazakhstan with Ukraine. The U.S. would not sit silently by if Russia were to send troops into the Ukraine again.
Just to be clear I'm saying that western companies will benefit from maintaining regime in Kazakhstan. And Putin helping with this, is getting him further on the good side of wealthy people in the west.
I'm not blaming anybody for anything. It's just business.
What makes you feel that economic interests are always the same as political interests? Why doesn't Russia kill all its Sturgeon so American Royalty can't eat Russian caviar?
Maybe things are not as simple as Fox News makes them.
>What makes you feel that economic interests are always the same as political interests?
HN is generally bad at understanding that people will willingly forgo some wealth in exchange for political/ideological/religious goals when the forgoing takes any form other than paying more taxes to fund something you approve of.
They get it when your example is something they all support like the US fighting a civil war over slavery but when you try to generalize that behavior up a step and then use it to explain the actions of people supporting something they don't agree with you get something like this[1].
Just to add on to this, Russia needs support in the region. Most democratically elected governments do not choose to align themselves with Russia. This is why Putin always props up nearby dictators. Without support, Putin’s regime and power would be in danger. You see many examples of trying to strong arm support from weaker regional neighbors: Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Georgia, and now this situation.
Countries like Kazakhstan, serve russia as a buffer state from the Nato influence. If near countries start to align with the west, Russia will start to feel personally attacked.
It is not. If it wouldn't be true, why then US incessantly unleashes "revolutions" in all countries around Russia? Why US invests millions of dollars into rusophobic propaganda in all countries bordering Russia? Why US attempts to build military bases in all the countries that border Russia?
That foreign nations are inciting revolutions is Siloviki rhetoric, used by authoritarian regimes to justify surveillance and arrests of their opposition or at least undermine their support by the public.
And this is exactly what we are seeing in Kazakhstan: people riot over increasing cost of living and the president blames it on foreign agitators. Because that is easier and more convenient than actually engaging with the issue.
> That foreign nations are inciting revolutions is Siloviki rhetoric
Not always.
See for example "US Army Field Manual FM 31-20-3, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces". This one is outdated and was based on US operations in Central/South America.
> It is not. If it wouldn't be true, why then US incessantly unleashes "revolutions" in all countries around Russia? Why US invests millions of dollars into rusophobic propaganda in all countries bordering Russia? Why US attempts to build military bases in all the countries that border Russia?
Complete waste of resources from US side! Russia is very successful at making people in ex-USSR countries hate it as-is, making western propaganda completely redundant! But I know a lot of people who actively participated in Maidan revolution and are still waiting for their dirty CIA $$$. Hopefully Obama will pay his debts some day...
I understand. Russia is no doubt pressuring Ukraine but I don't know if that's because they they want a buffer or they just don't want a stronger NATO.
I don't think Ukraine, Sweden, Finland would significantly strengthen NATO. If anything, Ukraine is a liability (huge border with Russia and practically in war with them, territorial disputes about Crimea, etc.). The way I understand it, Putin doesn't want any more NATO members on Russia's borders, aka a buffer between Russia and NATO.
Which is exactly what is happening in Ukraine now. Their attempts to align with NATO have Putin freaking out, with much saber-rattling & troop movement.
This has been a problem for literally decades, and has not stopped collaboration and discussions in the past. The West is disingenuous with NATO expansion, but the USSR and Russia learned to deal with it.
Now Putin is using it as his great retort as to why he must invade Ukraine, because he cannot trust the West to keep Ukraine in Russia's vice grip. Explain to me how Putin wants a deal with the West to stop NATO expansion, when all previous promises have been broken. What's different this time?
That promise is hearsay. Russia, however, did /sign/ an agreement with NATO in 90s and that agreement declares European countries can take "any measure for security" that they deem fit, including joining NATO. Look up "NATO-Russia Founding ACT".
It is not up to NATO or Russia to decide what the former eastern block and former soviet states accede to. If they want to join NATO (and they do, for very obvious reasons), they can.
Only in the old Cold War mindset is everything centrally determined by the head of state of some power block.
Such a promise, if it existed, which it hasn't, wouldn't be valid anyway. My friend and I can't decide the bookclub is off limits to you. That's between you and the book club.
Okay, let's be open minded for a second and look inside.
>> The catalyst for the crisis today in Ukraine was the 2014 coup. That coup was set up and supported by the US.
Yes, yes, CIA agents orchestrating the coup. A lot of my friends are still waiting for Obama to pay them for their services...
Next 2 paragraph present "proofs": some "intercepted" call discussing future Ukrainian government between Nuland and Pyatt and statement that "Nuland then pressured security forces to stop guarding government buildings and allow the coup protesters in" without further explanation. Mrs. Nuland seems to be a real-life Wonder Woman by single-handedly ordering Ukrainian police and internal forces to just stand down. Can she use some of her superpowers to also order dismissal of Russian troops build up?
>> It was a defensive reaction to the oppression of Russian-speaking people on its borders.
Oppression? As a Russian-speaking person in Ukraine I don't feel oppressed now and didn't feel oppressed back then. That statement is a Russian propaganda trope.
>> Contrary to the portrayal in the media of a people desperate to escape Russian and to run into the arms of NATO, Volodymyr Ishchenko, research associate at the Institute of East European Studies, Freie Universität Berlin, reports that "Ukrainians are far from unified in support of NATO membership."
Oh, self-described marxist that "supports neither side of conflict" is a great neutral source of information /s
Winter war was successful in a sense that it moved Soviet-Finnish border away from Leningrad. A few months later when Germany attacked USSR and Finland joined it, that extra space saved Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) from total destruction.
They do not care if Kazakhstan enter or not NATO. Is enougth if this countries are not stable so they became a Russia problem. I`m not saying this crisis have CIA handprints, but this skirmishs force Russia to put money, manpower and resources to apease it`s allies.
>If Russia is so influential over Kazakhstan, why all natural resources and power plants in Kazakhstan belong to Western companies?
This is false. Kazakhstan retains most oil revenues and its joint ventures with foreign companies for oil exploration and drilling include not just Western, but also for example Chinese companies.
>Why Nazarbaev had replaced Cyrillic alphabet with Latin?
Because he saw clearly how Putin is weaponizing language and identity rhetoric to justify wars of aggression and Anschluss-style annexations against its neighbours. The script you use is rather symbolic, but those symbols do matter. Otherwise, Russia itself wouldn't have stamped out the Latin script and forced those minority languages, already few in number, to use Cyrillic in the 2000s.
This line the comment said also is not logical at all
> “ What will US do if in case of civil unrest in Mexico, Russia will send troops to Mexico?”
This makes no sense, no one is alleging Mexico is under Russia’s thumb so this makes no sense. Replace Mexico with Cuba circa 1970 and it would be relevant. And also yes, if Cuba in 1970, I would not be surprised if Russia sent in troops if Castro asked.
> This makes no sense, no one is alleging Mexico is under Russia’s thumb so this makes no sense.
This makes no sense, because no strong independent sovereign country (there're very few of them in the world, about 5-6) will allow foreign troops to land in the neighboring country.
If Russia would send troops under any pretext in any situation to Mexico, USA would start a World War III.
That observation doesnt exactly strengthen the original comment on Mexico but okay. Seems we are in accordance about Cuba for lack of objections anyway.
> Otherwise, Russia itself wouldn't have stamped out the Latin script and forced those minority languages, already few in number, to use Cyrillic in the 2000s.
> But why is such a dysfunctional dictatorship so stable? Why did it last for three decades? The situation is very similar to Azerbaijan
My bet is natural resources.If i remember correctly Kazakhstan is the biggest uranium producer in the world. With big natural resources, you don't need a solid economy supported by a state of law to keep the regime running. Something similar can be said for Azerbaijan.
The trick is to keep regular people calm by letting them have enough of the cake so that they don't revolt, but sometimes the money flow reduces, or the ruling elite becomes too greedy, and the problems starts. That's what may be happening here.
The government lifted price controls on liquefied petroleum gas on January 1st. I assume LPG is used for home heating, hot water, cooking, etc. Prices supposedly doubled overnight.
It's certainly not "backed by the west". These dictatorships exists because they allow the elites to exchange the profits from the sale of natural resources in exchange for dollars and euros. That money then flows into western equities, bonds and real estate. It's the (western) dependence on these natural resources that enables the regimes not the backing by the governments.
it's tolerated by the west. The most effective way to punish regimes would be to:
- take away (arrest, freeze, whatever) the elite's real estate in the west
- same thing with other assets, banc accounts etc
- ban them from living in the west or going to the west on vacation, for medical treatment.
- ban their families from living in the west, their kids from studying there.
this is not my idea, you will find similar suggestions a hundred times in different forms on the Russian-speaking internet.
maybe there is no legal base right now to do it as described, but the alternative is broad sanctions that hit the small people harder then regime collaborators.
This. So much of this. Most of the money that disctatorship regimes steal out of their countries are actually invested into western countries by their family members, friends and their pet oligarchs.
US, EU and UK profit from oppressive regimes and don't have any interest of actually hurting them. And why should they? They have their own people to think of.
Cuba and Iran have been under sanctions for a long time. Dictators are very interested in not losing their jobs. I think, from the comfort of my home, that there are two paths out of a dictatorship: one is military and involves a brutal invasion of the country with the willingness to stay there for decades, the other is a progressive improvement of life conditions and gentle external influence
That's very difficult to do because it will increase prices of said natural resources (for example natural gas). As you've seen in Kazakhstan itself the tolerance for fuel increases is not very high in the population. A very noble thinking government can be ousted very quickly just because it tries to do the "right thing" and punish said exporters. The best thing to do is to reduce reliance on these countries exports, investing in alternative energy sources or develop domestic resources. But there's often an even stronger opposition to develop let's say a domestic natural gas field than to send money to corrupt regimes somewhere far away. So that's where we're at.
True, it's not like the western powers are shouting their support from the rooftops. But they are more than happy to play ball with these regimes (including high-level military cooperation and lucrative trade agreements) as long as it it doesn't get, you know, "too" embarrassing for them to do so.
> it is backed by the West because a stable dictator
Nazarbayev gave up over 1000 nuclear weapons to be disarmed when he came to power. This came with some explicit and implicit guarantees to not be color-revolutioned by the West.
It seems noteworthy that Kazakhstan represents ~22% of Bitcoins hashrate (~45 TWh/year of electricity), at the same time as people are out in the streets rioting over the price of heating their homes.
I’ve read this note about Kazakhstan and BTC a couple of times now but I havnt seen any documentation for the claim. For a crypto novice, what would be a method for validating this claim?
BTC and other crypto seem to gravitate toward less expensive energy sources, yet require a substantial capital investment. Is crypto an emerging method for dictators to expropriate wealth? Are there going to be “blood bits” similar to “blood diamonds” or other commodities tainted by their provenance?
> Is crypto an emerging method for dictators to expropriate wealth
Yes, same for local mafiosi/siloviki who can force the electricity company guy to look the other way (at gunpoint).
> Are there going to be “blood bits” similar to “blood diamonds”
Given the recirculation and tumbling, probably a majority of BTC/Ether went through shady people's hands (just like most $100 bills have coke residue on them...). Bitcoin advocates usually tout this as a feature not a bug.
Isn't there a difference between using a medium of exchange versus creating it? To stretch the analogy, instead of using $100 bills, printing them a la NK superbills?
If dictators/mafiosi contribute a significant amount to the overall hash rate, are they not decreasing transaction costs for whichever blockchain they use?
Part of the stupidity of bitcoin's proof-of-waste algorithm is that increasing the hashrate increases transaction costs. The difficulty level adjusts automatically to maintain N blocks per hour, while the number of transactions in a block is fixed. So adding hashrate just increases the energy cost of blocks.
(The actual transaction cost to the user is driven by congestion and is set unilaterally by the user based on their tolerance for queueing, so it can be zero.)
It can theoretically be zero. When's the last time a zero cost transaction made it? Or more realistically, what's the mean transaction time for a zero cost transaction?
This data is from geolocation of the IP's of miners connecting to the servers of mining pools. Note the obvious flaws in the methodology:
1. IP geolocation data may not accurately represent the location of the mining hardware (e.g. VPNs could be used)
2. The participating mining pools may not be a representative sample of the total hashrate distribution.
So take the data with a grain of salt. Especially since China banned all crypto mining in the past year, going from a reported 35% share to nothing in an instant, it seems plausible some miners are operating underground using a VPN. Some people are saying that up to 20% of total capacity is actually still operating in China.
If Chinese crypto is being IP-washed through Kazakhstan as a sibling comment speculates, would that cause external pressure for Kazakhstan to re-enable Internet?
I took the 22% figure from an article that referenced an overview produced by the University of Cambridge, available here: https://ccaf.io/cbeci/mining_map
I see now that their most recent figure has changed to 18.1%.
> ~22% of Bitcoins hashrate (~45 TWh/year of electricity)
It looks like Kazakh total energy consumption is 861 Kwh [0] and total elecricity is 104 TWh. Is it realistic for 43% of a country's electricity to be going to Bitcoin? If that were true, what sort of infrastructure would be developed? Datacenters colocated with coal plants?
Over less than a year, Kazakh average monthly hashrate share went from 5% to 18%, increase of >260%. Given 2020 utilization of 104 Kwh with 12.5 Kwh going to Btc ((5/18)45=12.5), then current (no pun intended) utilization with 18% hashrate share would be 136 Kwh (104+45-((5/18)45)). Is it reasonable for a country to increase electric generating capacity by 30% to support bitcoin?
You make a valid criticism. The estimates I've used are likely upper range. But even if we're off by a factor of 1/2 (which I don't believe) I feel the point being made still stands.
It also seems the increase in hashrate coincides with China banning Bitcoin mining? That likely puts a skew on the numbers, although I'm not immediately sure which way.
Even though the price of LPG had doubled and that supposedly caused riots, even the new doubled price is way lower than price of LPG in Europe and other parts of the world.
And their average annual household income is little over 3000 USD. And they're currently experiencing temperatures around -15 C. I can only imagine the situation in the countryside. Not difficult to see why they're upset.
> Use of natural gas by households is dependent on the availability of natural gas network
and price (Figure 5, Figure 6). Out of 21 000 surveyed households, 41% were using natural
gas (for all purposes, including for heating, water heating and cooking purposes). The
share of natural users by house type was as follows: 45% of urban apartments, 50% of
urban detached houses, 31% of rural apartments and 31% of rural detached houses.
Majority of the households in the western regions of Kazakhstan rely on natural gas due
to the developed gas pipeline infrastructure and low gas prices.
My own experience in Kazakhstan a few years ago was amazing — kind, generous people. I had the most surreal (but standard) Russian Bath experience: sitting with a bunch of naked folks as they self-flog with branches in rooms so hot you needed wool caps to keep the top of your head from singeing. When I was getting dressed a huge guy next to me said something in Russian, I was certain I had committed some bath faux pas, but then he repeated in heavily accented English: "Those boots, suitable in winter?"
Almaty was surprisingly cosmopolitan, walkable, felt eminently livable.
Took the train to Baikonur. Walked on the launch pad, visited the old control rooms. [0]
The whole way: Kindness and gentleness were the two words that kept bouncing around my head. In the middle of nowhere folks were driving sensibly (as opposed to, say, in Morocco where I felt like every car ride was a dice roll). I saw two cars have an accident in Almaty — the drivers calmly stepped out, shook hands, and discussed the situation.
Nur-Sultan was, however, miserable — built for cars, human antagonistic, artificial layout, depressing architecture.
I'd love to get back to Almaty.
Hoping for swift and peaceful resolution on all this.
Being Eastern European, I can attest to the fact that this kindness and generosity (poorly abstracted as being passionate about things) has a flip side, and you don’t want to be on the opposite side of this treatment.
For example, ex-nomadic and Caucasian “honor culture” is linked to necessity of trust in regions with predominant animal husbandry. If your cattle gets stolen before winter, you die of hunger. That’s why honor killings and hospitality are the flip sides of the same coin — you can’t afford losing trust. Robert Sapolsky gave a lecture about it.
While i can't make absolute statements of what he may or may not have said in every lecture he ever gave, i doubt Sapolsky would claim that honor killings and hospitality are the flip sides of the same coin. In "Behave The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" Sapolsky differentiates "honor killings" as inwards violence, whose victims are usually young women, from "retribution" against animal thieves, and links it to social power structures in families and to religious laws, not ethnicity or nomadic origins.
While it’s possible to differentiate these two things like you mentioned, if you look at honor as a concept, it’s useful function is about curbing higher cost of distrust. And that Sapolsky does explain in the linked video.
Well Sapolsky sure seems to love to make dubious absolute statements and oversimplifications in his lectures, and yet he still says that pastoral nomadic honor cultures foster strict rules of hospitality, which is not the same as hospitality in and of itself, even if it can be an amplyfiyng effect. I would be more inclined to agree that "strict rules (of hospitality)" and "violent enforcement (of subservience)" are flip sides of a coin. Note that "honor killing" is a very loaded term and quite different from domestic violence and retribution.
That is only on camera. He has been kicked off almost every other platform except YouTube. Visa, Uber, PayPal among others all kicked him off. Off camera he has been exposed as a debased sexual predator. Anyone interested can find the whole drama exposing him by searching reddit, his name, and similar terms to what I discussed.
I'm not interested one way or another but if you're going to make claims this extreme the least you can do is provide a link to the evidence yourself. Let's leave making unsubstantiated, outrageous statements to the other social media platforms that do it best.
I used to be a fan. Until as you described, I scratched the surface and found the posts he made. The rape allegations. It doesn’t take long to connect the dots that his trips to poor socioeconomic areas are not because they are interesting. But to find vulnerable women. And his naive audience is how he continues to pay for his predations.
Other than the accusations that the other poster made (which I've heard as well), I wouldn't consider him a model expat. First, he essentially speaks Cave Russian (Morning! Taxi how much?) despite living there for decades.
The other more concerning thing, is this clueless chipper tourist act he does constantly - many times, I've seen him interview desperate, bitter, destitute people who lived in derelict former industrial centers of the USSR, telling stories of how their towns were the centers of industry, culture, activity - only for the factories to shut down, the opportunities disappear, the buildings turn to slums, and the only escape that remained was drinking.
And he just grills them question after question - and grins like a five year old at his first time at the zoo. It made me think something is very wrong with that man.
A random traveller from afar is unlikely to be subject to the worst risk, which is something like sudden bout of sectarian or ethnic violence between neighbours.
As if people felt the need to compensate for their hospitality and generosity elsewhere.
when an American (or other rich Westerner) shows up in remote area, they are treated like a king,
basically you are treated as people treat ridiculously good looking and popular people around them that they want to be around,
that generosity you feel is nothing more than being popular and center of attention
start living there, all of a sudden that generosity is not so obvious, families are at each other's throats for that bushel of corn one guys grandfather stole from the other fifty years ago, random shit gets stolen, the whole garden is trampled because someone is stealing a few of your tomatoes, trash is thrown over your yard because the neighbor wants to "save" on trash collection fees, people cut ahead of you around in the queues, people have untrained dangerous dogs that are a menace to the whole community ...
>start living there, all of a sudden that generosity is not so obvious, families are at each other's throats for that bushel of corn one guys grandfather stole from the other fifty years ago, random shit gets stolen, the garden is trampled, trash is thrown over your yard because the neighbor wants to "save" on trash collection fees, people cut ahead of you around in the queues,
So basically all the same petty BS that you get in the urbanized inner suburbs HN raves about without the bickering being laundered through lawyers and local officials to give it a veneer of acceptability?
I'm sure if you borrowed some power tool and half broke it he'd be more than happy to call the city on you every time you violate one of the million rules for the next few decades. Of course nobody is fighting over corn but there is no shortage of fairly obvious parallels.
> families are at each other's throats for that bushel of corn one guys grandfather stole from the other fifty years ago, random shit gets stolen, the garden is trampled, trash is thrown over your yard because the neighbor wants to "save" on trash collection fees, people cut ahead of you around in the queues
If this is supposed to be the description of Kazakhstan, I haven't seen a post with more bullshit in my life. Like "bushel of corn ... fifty years ago", "the garden is trampled", "save on trash collection fees", "people cut ahead of you in the queues" gee.
One possible explanation for the pattern of generous hospitality in poor countries I find quite interesting (I'm sure it's only one component of many in the motivational environment) is that hosting the traveler from afar is the closest thing they can do to traveling themselves.
They're tourists in an area where they're uncommon. Outside places where they are very numerous, people always treat tourists well. It's simple, really.
Note that generosity to travelers is a common virtue in many societies throughout history, and violating this can bring severe consequences if only in myth (e.g. a traveling stranger might actually be a god in disguise checking up on you).
And after all, next time it might be you looking for a bite to eat and a place out of the wind and rain for the night. There's not a lot of Holiday Inns on the steppe or in ancient Greece.
A lot of his examples though depend on his observations, as a 3rd party, such as the accident. That wouldn't have any dependency on him being the center of attention. His observation in Morrocco also without his involvement.
There's a really interesting video blogger called "bald and bankrupt" on YouTube who visits all sorts of weird and wonderful locations in Russia and former Soviet Union States:
Reading and watching about these places on YouTube (BaldAndBankrupt) and recently numerous videos about Pakistan, Afghanistan, India.
I can't help but feel modern Western society has lost and forgotten something within. It's hard to describe but easier described as nearest to changes in warmth and compassion.
It's only getting worse and these old places it seems ingrained.
Happiness is an interesting concept. I currently think it's very relative to your neighbors or, to a lesser extent, to people you know about. In modern world information spreads much easier. Ignorance is really a bliss in terms of happiness.
Off topic, but another interesting and tragic story is about the Aral Sea between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. I actually don't know in what state it is now, but it shows perils of modern agriculture and resulting environmental problems which hit the population severely. The issues often fly under the radar because it is said that people are used to environmental hardships, so a sea vanishing wasn't seen as something too catastrophic. I think there are efforts to restore the sea and that might be extremely important for the overall health of the population in the vicinity.
Most probably the OP visited the left bank of River Ishim side of Nur-Sultan which is indeed quite dull and built for cars. OTOH the right bank, the historical city, is much better IMHO, especially the central part. I was born there in 1970 and visited it quite recently in 2019, nothing much have changed there, it is still very approachable by feet and cozy, with lots of great restaurants and shops.
Most likely; the thrust of the trip was Baikonur bookended by Almaty and Nur-Sultan.
Typographically I found it interesting that the country was attempting to shift away from Cyrillic to a more romanized (??) written form; i.e., "Qazaqstan."
I spent a month in Kazakhstan in 2012. I am an American and speak and read decent Russian. I agree that the experience was amazing and agree with your opinions of Almaty and Nur-Sultan. I found the overall experience to be very similar to visiting other post-Soviet Central Asian countries.
Baikonur the city, not the cosmodrome, was an entirely different experience. Baikonur is essentially a Russian military outpost that continues to exist as a place for the personnel and families of Roscosmos and the various entities that exist to operate the cosmodrome, which is several kilometers away. You must pass through a military checkpoint to enter the city and military police patrol the city. Don't stay up late drinking in the central square! You will be helpfully escorted away by the militia.
If you talk to the local non-Russians living in Baikonur, they are not huge fans of the Russian presence. You can observe the youths swearing and yelling at the buses of Roscosmos personnel and tourists returning from launches. They would be glad to see the Russians leave, even though it would be a massive blow to the economy.
One of the first things the native Kazakhs did after the collapse of the Soviet Union was build a mosque right outside of the entrance of the city of Baikonur. It is quite nice and I visited it with no problem. Those who wish to attend mosque that live within city must pass through a checkpoint to leave the city and another to get in. There is no mosque allowed within the city, although there is a Russian Orthodox church, which I also visited with no problem.
The cosmodrome itself is an amazing place worthy of a huge essay, so I will save my observations for a topic relevant to that.
I am hopeful the Kazakh people can find a future free from Russian influence and the Russian-backed strongmen that have controlled the country in post-Soviet times. Other than Russian colonial outposts like Baikonur, the culture and religion of the people there are quite different that those of Russia.
> I am hopeful the Kazakh people can find a future free from Russian influence and the Russian-backed strongmen that have controlled the country in post-Soviet times.
There are still at least a million of ethnic Russians living in the Northern and North-Eastern Kazakhstan who settled there starting from 18th century. What do you propose them to do?
The wealthiest European countries have problems with rising energy prices (remember the French yellow vests?) so I'm interested to see how Kazakhstan thinks they can placate their citizens.
My own government is giving me €400 this winter which is nice.
They already reinstated the subsidies that halve the LPG prices and made a song and dance about firing some ministers. But at this point, the discontent is bigger than that...
When a Dutch finance minister goes on TV to give everyone money you believe him because he has an unlimited creditcard. It's a "look under your seat" moment.
Why did Kazakhstan make this decision in the first place? Because they are in dire financial straits.
Lots of weird extremely Russian-patriot sounding comments in this thread. Russia is sending paratroopers because they don't want another Ukraine situation. They don't want Kazakhstan to break away from Russia because of a popular uprising like Ukraine did. And it's a lot easier for them to prevent it than it was for Ukraine because Ukraine doesn't border Europe so the west won't protest it as much. I expect a whole lot of bloodshed is about to happen and I'm not looking forward to it. Best of luck to the Khazak populace.
On the other hand I see a lot of weird intelligence officer comments around. At the end of the day the regular people will be the ones paying the price for the war between the giants.
> Lots of weird extremely Russian-patriot sounding comments in this thread.
This kind of nonsense comments appear whenever there are people with positive comments on China or Russia. I guess my top level comment on this thread will be one of the "Russia-patriot" ones. For the record, I am an Indian living in Malaysia - I simply choose to read proper sources and be informed of geopolitical events rather than parrot US propaganda. I learned to do so after reading a book by an American, often mentioned in HN (the book is Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman).
Swallowing the American consensus after the Iraq War et al. is more laughable then being a Chomsky fan.
Agree about the Russian media, they do a cheap imitation of Western narrative building journalism and are far more clumsy about telegraphing their agenda.
Yeah its ok to be suspicious of these type of comments, we already know nation states do everything they can to make sure they have the proper PR optics. The US, especially China (genocide), and why not Russia too. The truth is self evident here, Kazak leadership is just another neo-colonial muppet for whoever is calling the shots on natural resources.
These are not Slavs and no they dont belong to Russia in any sense. You can look up the country demographics, the minorities are other former non-Slav soviet nations. Russia has no interest in the rights of the Kazak people, this is just their run up to reverting back to old fashioned imperialism.
The US uses the same play book, just dont get it twisted about Russia's intentions. In any case the whole world will watch and do nothing cause everyone has their own problems ?
If you read Noam Chomsky you will understand that propoganda is used by every country. But if you read enough history you know for damn sure there are no good intentions here, except people asking for their right to a decent way of life.
It's kinda funny to see Chomsky make that point, considering he tolerates totally-not-genocides as long as the perpetrators are politically aligned with his views (or so he thinks).
The nom de guerre Pol Pot didn't appear in the New York Times until August 1976, which was after things calmed down in Cambodia. Which makes your assertion he was doing so at the time unlikely.
Vietnam invaded Cambodia and the US began arming Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in the late 1970s and 1980s, which again the Times covered, although slightly obliquely. Chomsky condemned the US arming Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.
Buzz off with your revisionism. Chomsky said the numerous reports of mass murder were a sea of lies. History has proven him dead wrong. He should have known better but was blinded by his ideology; all too eager to believe America was making it all up, and all too eager to believe leftists wouldn't commit such crimes.
He later did the exact same thing during the Bosnian war and the Srebrenica massacre in particular (where Chomsky among other things defended a publication called "Living Marxism" which published a completely made up article alleging Western media turned a a "refugee center" into a concentration camp including faking photos including that particular photo that looked like a KZ you might remember from that war. Chomsky has defended and assumed the position of LM on this into the 2010s).
Now you might say "surely he has come to his senses", except Chomsky went on to spread lies about the Sarin gas attacks in Syria.
This is what Chomsky wrote about Ponchaud's Cambodia book in June 1977
"Ponchaud’s book is serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the commentary it has elicited. He gives a grisly account of what refugees have reported to him about the barbarity of their treatment at the hands of the Khmer Rouge."
So a book about the barbarity of treatment by the Khmer Rouge is "serious and worth reading". That is what Chomsky actually wrote back then if anyone is actually curious. Does not sound like what you claim he was saying.
I'm an American and can tell you that whatever you think of Trump - the Democrats, MSNBC etc. chose to deal with him by implying, or even saying, that he was a Trojan horse put in by Putin, that the house of representatives was run by "Moscow" Mitch McConnell, that Trump was put in by Moscow fixing the elections etc. With little mention of US/CIA/NED involvement in subverting Russia within Russia, being involved in color revolutions etc. Victoria Neuland and people like her have been doing it almost openly, and she has shown contempt not just for Russia but Western Europe ("Fuck the EU") as well.
So you have upper middle class Europeans, and some upper middle class Europeans living in their media bubble. Other views outside this bubble are heretical and suspicious.
Even YC founder Paul Graham touched on this lightly in his essay about how "submarine" PR articles about men's formal suits make it into the press. Noam Chomsky (who also writes books about the language of Turing machines) covers the corporate media more thoroughly. People who actually talk about what the US is doing like journalist (and former programmer of open source port scanners) Julian Assange are imprisoned.
Also, Kazakhstan has troops coming in from Belarus, Tajikistan, Armenia and Russia. So just mentioning Russia in the headline is already a slant.
>I simply choose to read proper sources and be informed of geopolitical events rather than parrot US propaganda
And yet in your other comment you linked to "Moon of Alabama", anonymous blogger which always takes a pro-Kremlin position. How is that a "proper source"?
No. Yes, he is generally what I would consider "anti-US" but Media Bias Fact Check reports no failed fact check in last 5 years. Also, before people label him as "left-wing", he was a very strong supporter of Kyle Rittenhouse from the beginning (even supposedly good sources like The Intercept lamented the acquittal). I have linked to his article on the day of the verdict below.
What kind of a reply is that? You can search what he wrote on every topic which is sensitive for Kremlin (Crimea, Donbass, MH17, Navalny, Skripals, Syrian chemical attacks) and in every post he would take a "Russia did nothing wrong" position.
I would say that if all facts point to the fact that Russia did nothing wrong, perhaps Russia did nothing wrong. And junk articles in NYT, WSJ, Guardian or BBC are not "evidence" that they did something wrong.
In their quest to be more objective and critical, a lot of people fall into a simple, reflexive anti-American stance. There's a decades old term for these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
HUNGARY 56, and Czechoslovakia 67, Ukraine 2014, Kazakhstan 22, it's the same playbook.
Chomsky was an exemplary linguist, but his political writings are one dimensional.
Manufacturing consent correct points out malicious sounding actions by the US, but it never delves into how literally major or minor power in history has done exactly the same. He loves to shut on the US, while turning a blind eye to every other authoritarian nation and having his life's work be funded by Darpa.
Though I'm not supporter of Russian government, and I don't like current suppression of uprisings, it's Kazakhstan government that asked CSTO contries [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org...] to send troopers, not a Russian initiative as one might imagine from the title.
Sure. And that applies here, if you regard your own people as terrorists for being mad at the failures of the government. But if you buy that premise, you're excusing a tyrant who has figured out a new buzzword to justify his tyranny.
I recall a country with "Internal terrorists".
Oh wait, I can't even name that country, right? That's completely different and does not apply in other cases, right?
You should not dismiss these views as just Russian-patriot sounding. These views acknowledge a realpolitik world view. They also acknowledge Russia as a "great power". And of course Russia has interests in the affairs of nations in their immediate periphery. The united states has done the same and would do the same again in a heart beat. I am as American as they come but I think the world would be safer if we were truthful about balance of power politics in international affairs.
I disagree. If not Russia, who do you see as a great power? I would put Russia third on my list, after the US and China. Russia certainly has the political might, intellectual depth, land area, nuclear arsenal, etc that gives them more power over other nations. Their position as a "great power" among all dimensions has certainly not been stable, but that doesn't mean it's not true now.
> Russia is sending paratroopers because they don't want another Ukraine situation.
I think Kremlin doesn't want Russians to have an idea that their detestable government can be overthrown. "Do you want it like in Ukraine" and "we need stability"/"lest there is no war in Russia" are the most common takes (and literal quotes) from their TV coverages of protests or any criticism of Putin & his friends.
The Russian military have been in the Crimea since back when there were British red coats stationed in New York City. If remaining where they have been for centuries is an invasion.
Can't imagine Americans ever saying the US invaded South Vietnam when it's various puppet Saigon governments asked for fraternal assistance.
> The Russian military have been in the Crimea since back when there were British red coats stationed in New York City
By that logic, next time there's a protest or riot in NYC the British should send in some Royal Marines.
Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine respecting Ukrainian sovereignty and borders in 1997. It broke that treaty - and international law - in 2014 with the occupation of Crimea.
You could argue Crimea should never have been ceded to Ukraine back when both nations were part of the USSR and you may well be right. But if we start allowing military invasions to correct an injustice because part of a country was made part of another country, we'd have eternal conflict. Ask the Serbians about Kosovo, the Irish about Ulster, the Germans about East Prussia, on and on.
This looks similar to troops without any signs on their uniforms in Kiev, Ukraine a few years back... So now we can guess which country is using "no-name" troops...
Truly bizarre to ask as the head of state for foreign military intervention in your own country to dump down civil protest. Almost like it’s just a russian puppet state
Kazakhstan asked CSTO contries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org...) to do that, whether we like this or not (I don't). So that's nothing bizzare, and 3000 Russian paratroopers (plus 1000 from other conutries) don't make such a huge country a puppet state.
P.S. So funny, you complain you don't get the logic, and I get downvoted for explaining it, rather than calling names.
It absolutely is bizarre, even if they are military allies. Can you imagine Canada asking for US military on their own grounds to fight civilian protests? Me neither. That’s a definition of puppet state.
No, it's not the definition of puppet state. Wikipedia:
> A puppet state is a state that is de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power and subject to its orders.
Even though Kazakh president does become dependent on Russian forces to some degree, I don't see how 3000 soldiers can control a country with an army of 100,000, National guard of 32,000 and 86,000 policemen. It may give an upper hand, but against whom? There's even no organized opposition.
If you make paragons Czechoslovakia uprisings in 1968, then USSR sent 500,000 soldiers and 5,000 tanks in a 10 times smaller country.
So it was 3 orders of magnitude larger intervention than this.
Using a military treaty in case of a popular unrest may be illegitimate, but it's nowhere near a puppet state.
That's enough for subversive activity. Especially with their previous experience in Ukraine (I'm informed the people, if one can still call them that, from Donbas will help to "bring peace" in Kazakhstan).
True, but Russian government saw current governments of Ukraine and Kazakhstan as allies, and the new Ukrainian one as an enemy. This is because of their belief in conspiracies behind mass protests.
I don't think its a definition of a puppet state, its more an act of desperation.
I suspect that the president has realised that the police and army are not entirely on his side, so is wanting to have some "loyal" troops to send round and kill the protestors, in a way that the domestic troops are less likely to.
Kazakhstan is part of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) similar to Nato which comprises of ex-Soviet countries. I'm sure CSTO has an obligation to help.
NATO doesn’t have any obligation to “help” break down civilian protests by sending out paratroopers from one of its members to another member state so no it’s not similar.
NATO not only has this obligation, with Gladio it was active in violently breaking down civilian protests in Italy.
This was actually revealed by the center-right government in Italy in 1990, because they were more scared of the US/NATO involvement in Italian domestic affairs, then their own left leaning working class.
Don’t you think that an global intelligence operation is a bit different than officially asking for foreign military intervention in your own country against civilians?
Hi user who signed up specifically to leave this comment (which is not suspicious at all). No, they don't. CSTO is for external threats only. To circumvent this limitation the old farts call people taking part in the protest terrorists (this reminds me of something by the way).
They are actually terrorists by definition. I mean those taking over the airport, police stations etc. There are peaceful protesters, but the troops are not after them
You mean that definition that prescribes hoi polloi to be subservient and sing/dance the way Belorussians did while being literally raped/murdered by the monarch's squad? There are no peaceful ways to stop totalitarianism. And there is nothing sacral about public buildings.
The real terrorists are those who are using army against their own population. Neighboring Kyrgyzstan had multiple revolutions, too. And their army did the right thing every time by not getting involved (except the last one when Kremlin played its part).
Apparently they do not have such an obligation - after all, CSTO refused to help Armenia in the recent Azerbaijan-Armenia war, so from that perspective it's a bit surprising now CSTO including Armenia itself seems to consider that it's an obligation given that this case is obviously much less applicable than that war.
They don't ask to bring troops to fight on the streets. The help could be in the form of putting security checkpoints and guarding critical infrastructure, constructions. Which would release military and police forces currently occupied by these tasks to fight the marauders and other criminals. There is no "protest" at this point.
Alright, the civilian protesters are now “criminals” who are getting shot down by government forces. I guess these “terrorists” deserve what they get. Thanks for enlightening me.
If the government is "bad" it doesn't make everyone who stands against it "good". It doesn't make everyone who is against the government unified body with one positive goal.
You don't need all the "protesters" to be thugs. 1% is enough to make cities dangerous place for everyone, including other protesters.
You know nothing about the country or the people who live there or what exactly going on right now, but automatically side with one of the part of the conflict based on your feelings.
This comment lacks nuance and is brim with sarcasm.
Understanding geopolitics is an exercise nuance. Kazakhstan has to deal with huge and strong foreign adversaries, and has no strong alliances, yet must protect distant cities which all border China, Russia, and central asian nations, with a large desert in the center. It is militarily indefensible and Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, and the US, all want Kazakhstan's resources and strategically located bases.
Contrary to your sentiment, Kazakhstan has been conducting de-Russianification with the deployment of language police to stop people from using Russian, and switching from the Cyrillic alphabet to the latin one.
Below is an excellent article describing all the different pressures on the country and how it tries to balance foreign influences.
Interestingly, the most violent and organized protests are occurring in the South bordering China and Kyrgystan - a city which has people selling gov't subsidized cheap gas over the border in China on the black market for a 300% profit. That might be a big source for the organized violence. Curbing black market sales was the point of the change that sparked the unrest.
Regardless of the cause, it is likely Russia is going to capitalize on this turmoil and provide continuity for the current President, by extracting some allegiance.
I found the explanation of this article quite convincing.
The key takes is: Tokayev, the Kazakhstan's president, does not completely trust his own forces and is afraid they might be more loyal to the old president, or the elites might see him as weak and try to plot against him. Therefore, he asks Putin for his armed forces to assist in stabilizing the situation. This is good for both of them: Tokayev stabilizes his position and gets some time to fire or prosecute the officials he doesn't trust, and Putin gains more influence over Tokayev in the future — Tokayev becomes dependent on Putin's support.
Over the last two days, Tokayev has made some big changes in the government structure. For example, he fired the old president Nazarbayev from his current position of The Chairman of the Security Council (which he technically wasn't authorized to do). The old president hasn't made any public response to that, and is rumored to have escaped to Europe with his whole family (flightradar has shown a few private jets leaving the country as the riots got violent). Tokayev has also removed some of the Nazarbayev's people (people who served under Nazarbayev for a long time) from their positions yesterday; one big example is Massimov, the head of Kazakhstan's National Security Committee, the country's main intelligence service.
Watching the local news closely these last days, I'm getting convinced that someone is orchestrating the violence and shooting on the streets. There's a footage of people handing out firearms to the protestors (it looks more like hunting rifles and shotguns, so it must be the loot from the firearm stores; but some of them have combat AKs they captured from the police, one video shows them having an RPG grenade). And those armed people with no uniforms are too organized: they give actual armed fights to the police and army forces — not something you could expect from a spontaneously gathered crowd. The organization and determination are shocking: they move from one government building to another, seizing things, burning cars and buildings, focusing on important ones (firearm stores, police offices, city administration) in the situation where mobile broadband is off. Yesterday, the government has withdrawn its forces from the city (friends of my friends who are in the police say they were ordered not to wear uniforms) and evacuated the main buildings. Today they are entering back and fighting the bandits, they report that a few groups were already eliminated.
Having said this, obviously not everyone who's out on the streets now is one of those organized bandits. There are many people who genuinely came for a peaceful protest before it was hijacked into what it is now, and there's also people who are seizing the opportunity to loot and wreak havoc unpunished and drunk (what comes to mind is the video of a guy trying to set a traffic light on fire using a gas burner).
Disclaimer: I'm not in Kazakhstan right now, but I'm watching the situation closely through media and my friends there
EDIT: Removed the news of TV broadcast tower being stormed, it turned out to be fake
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
This is all over TV news.
I get that it’s newsworthy, but it’s Reddit newsworthy not HN newsworthy. What am I missing?
I wonder if there's a political version of HN that with actual experts in geopolitical analysis.
Social media is just everyone pushing their own agenda and guessing without providing any evidence or meaningful analysis, and when it comes to HN - it's pretty much the same.
It's nothing but anti-Russian sentiment and conspiracy theories in this thread. Nothing of substance, because no one here is an expert in this field.
It is always a surreal experience to see the sheer scale at which western media outlets deploy propaganda and rewrite history.
Attempts to overthrow governments in Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan are "protests." So are attacks on the residence of the President of Kazakhstan with rifles and grenades, and burning down the office of the mayor of Almaty.[1]
The same outlets described the mild violence by a congregation of Trump supporters near the Capitol last year as a "coup," "attack" and "riot."
In another tab I have a Meduza article open listing how the rhetorics of President of Kazakhstan has shifted from using words like "a demonstration" to "an international terrorist group". Assuming that Meduza's compilation is accurate, and if Kazakhstan keeps redefining the narrative, what is so strange about many foreign media outlets not keeping up with that?
> Kazakhstan keeps redefining the narrative, what is so strange about many foreign media outlets not keeping up with that?
What Kazakh politicians say is not very relevant here. The media outlets themselves are reporting that presidential residences and mayoral offices have been attacked and set on fire by "protesters."
My very rough interpretation of the last few days is as follows:
Economic events (including increase of gas prices) triggered local social unrest, which the government attempted to suppress and failed as it escalated and resulted in at least some breakdown of government power (some police refusing to suppress protesters and joining them, protesters seizing government buildings and setting them on fire, looting of weapons from police stations, etc). The local military seems largely not involved (but there are some cases) and apparently it's not expected to be fully loyal to the leadership if asked to suppress revolts.
After that ruler offered a back down on the changes and a rotation of the government, but the protesters apparently want a full change of leadership. This was not acceptable to the leadership, who invited neighbouring militaries to support them against the revolt, which can be used more freely/reliably than local army.
There are also theories, like the current president’s orders were sabotaged by those loyal to (or afraid of) the older one, so that he had no choice other than disbanding whole cabinet of ministers and asking for military support from Russia and other allies
Anecdote: My martial arts gym hosted a Kazakh olympic wrestler for a few months. He was won of the nicest and friendliest people I have ever met, even though we had a serious language barrier.
I'm sure the troops are there only for their vacation.
Jokes aside, this is as if the NATO (especially the USA) would send troops to France against the yellow west protests. Or as if the NATO would be sending troops against the Catalonian separation movement. The NATO also didn't send troops to Turkey during the Turkish coup d'état attempt.
What the CSTO is doing here can only be compared with the Warsaw Pact sending troops to suppress the Prague Spring. It shows that the CSTO is basically the successor of the Warsaw pact.
329 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 261 ms ] threadNow..The Russian army is sent to quell deadly unrest. If the Kazakhstan army joins protesters, it could end up with a full-scale war between Russian "invaders" and "patriots" driven by the same nationalism.
PS. 2022 is gonna be fun(not).
On the other hand it seems that the economy of Kazakhstan was one of the best among other stans. It is possible that prolonged covid restrictions also played the role.
(this is what every russian bot is saying)
TL;DR: do not bring a flashlight or guitar to a gun fight. Drinks (cocktails in particular) on the other hand...
In Almaty, the protests got violent with killings and mass looting. A few other cities saw looting and destruction of ex-president's statues, but most of Kazakhstan was peaceful, including the place where the original gas-price protests started. The violence part does not represent the sentiment of the majority, I would bet, it's something organized; I don't know by whom and for what reason.
Which source? The one that requested Russian intervention? Why there are lots of videos of protests, shootings, killings by the Kazakh army, and looting by unidentified people but only words of the interested party for this one?
I don't remember the "AC unit" but I do remember Russian media's "100% sure version of 2 Ukraine planes downing the Netherlands' jet" a few years ago (with interviews of "experts" all over the place). That was their position for a long time (maybe half a year, until they shamelessly changed it to "Ukraine BUKs did it"). The "beheading story" seems like a fairy tale from the same authors.
BTW, it has nothing to do with Kazakhstan's legitimate goverment, which is free to request military assistance from an organization (not just from Russia, if it matters).
I think he meant the US
Also, did the US tell the regime in Kazakhstan to raise oil prices? That was, obviously, not the people’s only grievance, but it was the spark that lead to the protests and rebellion.
The “US meddling” excuse is a tired cliche, and insulting to the people who put their lives on the line to fight oppressive, corrupt regimes.
Isn't the US lobiying another word for corruption?
It remains an open question as to whether any of the posters on social media talking up the idea to protest at the capitol, or the mysterious person with the hoodie and bag of pipe bombs, were sponsored by overseas enemies of the US. There is as yet no hard evidence for this. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jan-mystery-pipe-bombs-night...
As for corruption in the US, I acknowledge it, but it’s laughable to compare it to what happens in countries run by Putin and Pals. In Russia, Kazakhstan, Syria, etc. the people’s only choice is rebellion. In the US, we (still) have the ballot box.
I don't know if they did, but it wouldn't exactly be out of character for the US to encourage a country to do market liberalization reforms.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/us-ukraine-security-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to...
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/788874844/how-u-s-military-ai...
...and I won't get into the donations from Ukraine to the Clinton Foundation at the same time.
It’s as “foreign” as any NATO country’s army to another.
Wouldn't this be more like Taiwan asking China to send in the army to help with a protest?
Or Iraq asking Iran?
I don't believe your comparison is even remotely adequate.
Could you point out an example of a NATO member requesting a military intervention from another NATO member in their own country to respond to protests?
Because what we're seeing here is a blatant attempt by Russia to preserve Kazakhstan's regime by having foreign armed forces intervene against the nation's civilian population.
I doubt OP is _condoning_ the CSTO troops (who are more than just russia) coming to the president's aid.
CSTO is not the same as NATO, but it is similar. There is a strategic alliance between Russia and the government of Kazakhstan. It is more than logical for the president to pull in troops to counteract their own troop's defection.
Its not morally correct, but entirely logical, which I think OP was trying to say.
The US militarily intervened in Europe 75 years ago and has bases in Germany, Italy etc. No need to have military come in for the first time since it is still there.
Italy had NATO violently suppressing protests in Italy for years with Gladio.
Using the military against one's own people is already a "nope", getting foreign assistance sounds exactly like a foreign invasion.
Seriously, that is not hard. What makes you think FSA are "moderate" headchopers and how are they any better than Assad? Just because they have "Free" in the name? Such naive thinking.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29822573
https://globalcomment.com/is-russia-losing-or-tightening-its...
about US looking into getting an airbase and Tokayev trying to play it both sides. That probably won't happen anymore
We've now seen this in Armenia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Kazakhstan.
I think the geopolitical message is pretty clear - EU/US will not protect you. Alliances with them cost little, but have little protective value. Russia/Iran/China/Turkey might force you to pay a higher price for their protection, but at the end of the day, they will actually protect you.
It's more important to have few close allies than appeasing everyone.
I don't see anything whataboutism'y where one accuses a foreign state interfering in another state. (and I personally find Kazahstan's idea that rioters received foreign military training funny, since it's the cheapest excuse ex-USSR governments use when people are tired of the same people ruling the country for 20-30 years and start protesting)
For it to be whataboutism, it should include something along the lines of "What about... ?" that discredits an opponent with their own hypocrisy.
Click the first link, it writes that Americans attempted a regime change in Belarus, and instigated a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Aggressive armed bandits in police uniform tried to rob me several times. Kazakhstan is true mafia state where every part of the regime tries to enrich itself at the expanse of the people.
In contrast to the rich oil elite there are the normal people who often not even have tap water in the villages. And who live often in constant fear of being robbed by the armed forces.
But why is such a dysfunctional dictatorship so stable? Why did it last for three decades? The situation is very similar to Azerbaijan. I believe the answer is: it is backed by the West because a stable dictator in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan guarantees the oil flow.
I haven’t heard of anyone from e.g. BP getting punished for this, though I believe the British government asked it to investigate itself a few times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_laundromat
https://www.dw.com/en/how-german-politicians-have-aided-the-...
(I will note that most western oil comes from the middle east with Europe also getting a decent amount from Russia.)
In the Cold War, dealing with Soviets was unthinkable. Now, the West is complacent, there is even a term for it, Schröderizatsiya. See this opinion piece by the former Estonian president [1].
[1] https://news.err.ee/1608362130/toomas-hendrik-ilves-alexei-n...
So does the Russian elite as you say, even Putin himself. The US's currency is the reserve currency of the world and the currency most commerce is done in so western banks are used. They also are much more stable than banks in their own countries where other elites could steal their money. This doesn't mean that the US or the west is somehow controlling their countries.
The goal with these sorts of comments is to try and get liberal democracies to stop engaging in the rest of the world. If you keep getting told it’s your fault eventually you say “fine I’m done” and then that’s when they win.
Yes, in the sense that Aleksander Dugins foundations of geopolitics exists and is taught in military schools in Russia. It proposes - among other tactics, exactly this approach. Splitting hairs, gaslighting and exhaustion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
It's worth noting that this special book was published during the reign of Yeltsin, a Clinton puppet installed and protected by various Western agencies. That could be a reason there is some consideration of similar actions in the opposite direction.
What about China, should they be sanctioned too?
[Many make the claim that sanctions mostly affect civilians so for example are against Iran Sanctions, etc.]
Although really the question of banking money from unacceptable foreigners is an old one, unresolved throughout the 20th century. It's too convenient for the West to really give up on, so a short list is maintained of the "definitely unacceptable", but there's no systematic criteria for what "unacceptable" really is.
It's quite clear from the lack of UK response to the Salisbury poisonings that the UK is financially compromised into indifference, for example.
Besides sanctions, we should also seek to undermine and delegitimize those governments by supporting dissident movements and other covert actions.
https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/new-icij-i...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-international-anti-money-lau...
Enforcement of course is a perpetual cat-and-mouse game in which the cats are underfunded and the mice have money to burn.
I don't understand what point you tried to make. Do you believe someone needs deep state contacts and government approval to purchase private property in a European country?
They don't have to, benefiting just the right people is enough. Schröder & friends say hi.
Same was happening in Russia in 90s: western corporation took control of all Russia's natural resources using phony agreements and corrupt businessmen (like Mikhail Khodorkovsky). E.g. in 90s people in Russia were dying of hunger, but oil was sold to the West by the price of water.
When Putin came to power, first thing he had done is returning control over natural resources. That's exactly the moment when all the West started vilifying him so badly.
Not only SA sells oil to US, but it also invests earned money into US government bonds. It's allows them to do whatever they want in their country, no matter how "undemocratic" it is. And the "free" press being oh-so-independent and honest, happily ignores that too, instead always pointing you to more convenient targets.
Ceaușescu went from addressing a mass crowd in the square to execution in five days after ruling for about 25 years. Dictatorships are like steam boilers: so long as the pressure is contained, everything looks fine, until suddenly it isn't.
(Interestingly having looked him up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu he's one of the few leaders to have achieved what is now denounced as "neoliberal", the paying down of the country's national debt. It only took starving the country to do it.)
Neoliberalism also has nothing to do with debt. It attempts to increase profit rates through privatisation, deregulation and austerity measures. Only the latter happened in România in the 80 and it was imposed by the IMF. Suspiciously, the loan had just been paid off in 89 when the coup happened.
And yet, it's Russia and it's strong-arm tactics that are desperately trying to keep Kazakhstan's regime in power.
Think about it: Russia is even sending it's paratroopers to Kazakhstan to stomp out unrest. Not the US. Not the EU. Not Switzerland. No, Russia.
How do you fit that into your mental model?
Please don't try to change the subject. Putin sent Russia's paratroopers to Kazakhstan to use them against Kazakhstan's civilian population to quelsh unrest. It's not the US, Switzerland, Finland, the EU, nothing. This is Russia intervening in Kazakhstan to preserve Russia's interests, and no amount of whataboutism changes this.
Also I'm not changing the subject because we have a whole branching forum here, not a single coversation that can talk only about one thing at a time.
If you are not interested in that branch of the discussion simply skip it.
Just to be clear you are blaming “the west” (US, UK, Sweden, France, Canada, Switzerland, etc.) for Russian intervention in Kazakhstan because those countries buy Russian products? (Leaving aside all the other countries in the world which do the same but w/e).
Contrast Kazakhstan with Ukraine. The U.S. would not sit silently by if Russia were to send troops into the Ukraine again.
I'm not blaming anybody for anything. It's just business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der
What these countries has to do in Kazakhstan? Russia and Kazakhstan has a treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org...
Also, significant percent of population of Kazakhstan is Russian.
So what? They are citizens of Kazakhstan. Russia does not have some sort of "claim" over every person in the world who is of Russian descent.
Maybe things are not as simple as Fox News makes them.
HN is generally bad at understanding that people will willingly forgo some wealth in exchange for political/ideological/religious goals when the forgoing takes any form other than paying more taxes to fund something you approve of.
They get it when your example is something they all support like the US fighting a civil war over slavery but when you try to generalize that behavior up a step and then use it to explain the actions of people supporting something they don't agree with you get something like this[1].
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/patrick-stars-wallet
If it's all just a "cold war mindset".
And this is exactly what we are seeing in Kazakhstan: people riot over increasing cost of living and the president blames it on foreign agitators. Because that is easier and more convenient than actually engaging with the issue.
Not always.
See for example "US Army Field Manual FM 31-20-3, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces". This one is outdated and was based on US operations in Central/South America.
I'm sure Russians have something similar.
Complete waste of resources from US side! Russia is very successful at making people in ex-USSR countries hate it as-is, making western propaganda completely redundant! But I know a lot of people who actively participated in Maidan revolution and are still waiting for their dirty CIA $$$. Hopefully Obama will pay his debts some day...
I participated in both (2004 and 2014). Where do I register for the "dirty CIA $$$"? I somehow missed it during the original briefing.
Now Putin is using it as his great retort as to why he must invade Ukraine, because he cannot trust the West to keep Ukraine in Russia's vice grip. Explain to me how Putin wants a deal with the West to stop NATO expansion, when all previous promises have been broken. What's different this time?
Only in the old Cold War mindset is everything centrally determined by the head of state of some power block.
Such a promise, if it existed, which it hasn't, wouldn't be valid anyway. My friend and I can't decide the bookclub is off limits to you. That's between you and the book club.
Okay, let's be open minded for a second and look inside.
>> The catalyst for the crisis today in Ukraine was the 2014 coup. That coup was set up and supported by the US.
Yes, yes, CIA agents orchestrating the coup. A lot of my friends are still waiting for Obama to pay them for their services...
Next 2 paragraph present "proofs": some "intercepted" call discussing future Ukrainian government between Nuland and Pyatt and statement that "Nuland then pressured security forces to stop guarding government buildings and allow the coup protesters in" without further explanation. Mrs. Nuland seems to be a real-life Wonder Woman by single-handedly ordering Ukrainian police and internal forces to just stand down. Can she use some of her superpowers to also order dismissal of Russian troops build up?
>> It was a defensive reaction to the oppression of Russian-speaking people on its borders.
Oppression? As a Russian-speaking person in Ukraine I don't feel oppressed now and didn't feel oppressed back then. That statement is a Russian propaganda trope.
>> Contrary to the portrayal in the media of a people desperate to escape Russian and to run into the arms of NATO, Volodymyr Ishchenko, research associate at the Institute of East European Studies, Freie Universität Berlin, reports that "Ukrainians are far from unified in support of NATO membership."
Oh, self-described marxist that "supports neither side of conflict" is a great neutral source of information /s
In reality here is actual sociological data https://razumkov.org.ua/uploads/article/2021-nato-ukr.pdf (to save you the click: 53,6% support NATO membership, 31,0% opposes and 15,2% are still undecided).
Besides that the linked article is full of manipulations and outright bullshit. Please don't post your propaganda here. Thanks!
Gorbachev personally said it's a fake. Besides, in 1990, Soviet Union had much more troubles to handle than dealing with NATO borders.
This article provides some details more: https://mltoday.com/new-document-us-promised-not-to-expand-n...
Do they still need Finland as a "buffer state" [1]?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Yes and no. Had the Winter war not happened, Finland wouldn't have joined the German attack.
If Russia is so influential over Kazakhstan, why all natural resources and power plants in Kazakhstan belong to Western companies?
Why Nazarbaev had replaced Cyrillic alphabet with Latin? It was clearly a jab at Russia.
Kazakhstan was/is clearly under heavy western influence.
> Think about it: Russia is even sending it's paratroopers to Kazakhstan to stomp out unrest. Not the US. Not the EU. Not Switzerland. No, Russia.
What will US do if in case of civil unrest in Mexico, Russia will send troops to Mexico?
This is false. Kazakhstan retains most oil revenues and its joint ventures with foreign companies for oil exploration and drilling include not just Western, but also for example Chinese companies.
>Why Nazarbaev had replaced Cyrillic alphabet with Latin?
Because he saw clearly how Putin is weaponizing language and identity rhetoric to justify wars of aggression and Anschluss-style annexations against its neighbours. The script you use is rather symbolic, but those symbols do matter. Otherwise, Russia itself wouldn't have stamped out the Latin script and forced those minority languages, already few in number, to use Cyrillic in the 2000s.
This makes no sense, no one is alleging Mexico is under Russia’s thumb so this makes no sense. Replace Mexico with Cuba circa 1970 and it would be relevant. And also yes, if Cuba in 1970, I would not be surprised if Russia sent in troops if Castro asked.
This makes no sense, because no strong independent sovereign country (there're very few of them in the world, about 5-6) will allow foreign troops to land in the neighboring country.
If Russia would send troops under any pretext in any situation to Mexico, USA would start a World War III.
What languages are you talking about?
My bet is natural resources.If i remember correctly Kazakhstan is the biggest uranium producer in the world. With big natural resources, you don't need a solid economy supported by a state of law to keep the regime running. Something similar can be said for Azerbaijan.
The trick is to keep regular people calm by letting them have enough of the cake so that they don't revolt, but sometimes the money flow reduces, or the ruling elite becomes too greedy, and the problems starts. That's what may be happening here.
Edit: Apparently most cars use LPG there as well.
- take away (arrest, freeze, whatever) the elite's real estate in the west
- same thing with other assets, banc accounts etc
- ban them from living in the west or going to the west on vacation, for medical treatment.
- ban their families from living in the west, their kids from studying there.
this is not my idea, you will find similar suggestions a hundred times in different forms on the Russian-speaking internet.
maybe there is no legal base right now to do it as described, but the alternative is broad sanctions that hit the small people harder then regime collaborators.
edit: formatting
US, EU and UK profit from oppressive regimes and don't have any interest of actually hurting them. And why should they? They have their own people to think of.
This characterization is simply naive.
True, it's not like the western powers are shouting their support from the rooftops. But they are more than happy to play ball with these regimes (including high-level military cooperation and lucrative trade agreements) as long as it it doesn't get, you know, "too" embarrassing for them to do so.
Nazarbayev gave up over 1000 nuclear weapons to be disarmed when he came to power. This came with some explicit and implicit guarantees to not be color-revolutioned by the West.
BTC and other crypto seem to gravitate toward less expensive energy sources, yet require a substantial capital investment. Is crypto an emerging method for dictators to expropriate wealth? Are there going to be “blood bits” similar to “blood diamonds” or other commodities tainted by their provenance?
Yes, same for local mafiosi/siloviki who can force the electricity company guy to look the other way (at gunpoint).
> Are there going to be “blood bits” similar to “blood diamonds”
Given the recirculation and tumbling, probably a majority of BTC/Ether went through shady people's hands (just like most $100 bills have coke residue on them...). Bitcoin advocates usually tout this as a feature not a bug.
If dictators/mafiosi contribute a significant amount to the overall hash rate, are they not decreasing transaction costs for whichever blockchain they use?
(The actual transaction cost to the user is driven by congestion and is set unilaterally by the user based on their tolerance for queueing, so it can be zero.)
This data is from geolocation of the IP's of miners connecting to the servers of mining pools. Note the obvious flaws in the methodology:
1. IP geolocation data may not accurately represent the location of the mining hardware (e.g. VPNs could be used) 2. The participating mining pools may not be a representative sample of the total hashrate distribution.
So take the data with a grain of salt. Especially since China banned all crypto mining in the past year, going from a reported 35% share to nothing in an instant, it seems plausible some miners are operating underground using a VPN. Some people are saying that up to 20% of total capacity is actually still operating in China.
I see now that their most recent figure has changed to 18.1%.
The electrical power figure was then calculated based on the total global power consumption published in the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
It looks like Kazakh total energy consumption is 861 Kwh [0] and total elecricity is 104 TWh. Is it realistic for 43% of a country's electricity to be going to Bitcoin? If that were true, what sort of infrastructure would be developed? Datacenters colocated with coal plants?
Over less than a year, Kazakh average monthly hashrate share went from 5% to 18%, increase of >260%. Given 2020 utilization of 104 Kwh with 12.5 Kwh going to Btc ((5/18)45=12.5), then current (no pun intended) utilization with 18% hashrate share would be 136 Kwh (104+45-((5/18)45)). Is it reasonable for a country to increase electric generating capacity by 30% to support bitcoin?
0. https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/kazakhstanIt also seems the increase in hashrate coincides with China banning Bitcoin mining? That likely puts a skew on the numbers, although I'm not immediately sure which way.
Even though the price of LPG had doubled and that supposedly caused riots, even the new doubled price is way lower than price of LPG in Europe and other parts of the world.
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a064b82a-4e4c-41ce-...
> Use of natural gas by households is dependent on the availability of natural gas network and price (Figure 5, Figure 6). Out of 21 000 surveyed households, 41% were using natural gas (for all purposes, including for heating, water heating and cooking purposes). The share of natural users by house type was as follows: 45% of urban apartments, 50% of urban detached houses, 31% of rural apartments and 31% of rural detached houses. Majority of the households in the western regions of Kazakhstan rely on natural gas due to the developed gas pipeline infrastructure and low gas prices.
Almaty was surprisingly cosmopolitan, walkable, felt eminently livable.
Took the train to Baikonur. Walked on the launch pad, visited the old control rooms. [0]
The whole way: Kindness and gentleness were the two words that kept bouncing around my head. In the middle of nowhere folks were driving sensibly (as opposed to, say, in Morocco where I felt like every car ride was a dice roll). I saw two cars have an accident in Almaty — the drivers calmly stepped out, shook hands, and discussed the situation.
Nur-Sultan was, however, miserable — built for cars, human antagonistic, artificial layout, depressing architecture.
I'd love to get back to Almaty.
Hoping for swift and peaceful resolution on all this.
[0]: https://craigmod.com/ridgeline/036/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz3hBuq-Huk
While it’s possible to differentiate these two things like you mentioned, if you look at honor as a concept, it’s useful function is about curbing higher cost of distrust. And that Sapolsky does explain in the linked video.
How high is the risk, if you make an effort to behave well?
https://www.reddit.com/r/internetdrama/comments/d4zo17/1_mil...
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldAndBaldrDossier/comments/judnlm...
The other more concerning thing, is this clueless chipper tourist act he does constantly - many times, I've seen him interview desperate, bitter, destitute people who lived in derelict former industrial centers of the USSR, telling stories of how their towns were the centers of industry, culture, activity - only for the factories to shut down, the opportunities disappear, the buildings turn to slums, and the only escape that remained was drinking.
And he just grills them question after question - and grins like a five year old at his first time at the zoo. It made me think something is very wrong with that man.
As if people felt the need to compensate for their hospitality and generosity elsewhere.
when an American (or other rich Westerner) shows up in remote area, they are treated like a king,
basically you are treated as people treat ridiculously good looking and popular people around them that they want to be around,
that generosity you feel is nothing more than being popular and center of attention
start living there, all of a sudden that generosity is not so obvious, families are at each other's throats for that bushel of corn one guys grandfather stole from the other fifty years ago, random shit gets stolen, the whole garden is trampled because someone is stealing a few of your tomatoes, trash is thrown over your yard because the neighbor wants to "save" on trash collection fees, people cut ahead of you around in the queues, people have untrained dangerous dogs that are a menace to the whole community ...
etc
So basically all the same petty BS that you get in the urbanized inner suburbs HN raves about without the bickering being laundered through lawyers and local officials to give it a veneer of acceptability?
Humans gonna human.
If this is supposed to be the description of Kazakhstan, I haven't seen a post with more bullshit in my life. Like "bushel of corn ... fifty years ago", "the garden is trampled", "save on trash collection fees", "people cut ahead of you in the queues" gee.
It is about the rich westerner's naive gushing when visiting African, Eastern European, Central American remote villages etc
"Everybody is so nice and generous around here ... not like back home in the civilized world"
They confuse how people treat them in particular with what it is like living there.
And after all, next time it might be you looking for a bite to eat and a place out of the wind and rain for the night. There's not a lot of Holiday Inns on the steppe or in ancient Greece.
https://www.youtube.com/c/baldandbankrupt/featured
Doesn't look like he's been to Kazakhstan yet though...
I can't help but feel modern Western society has lost and forgotten something within. It's hard to describe but easier described as nearest to changes in warmth and compassion.
It's only getting worse and these old places it seems ingrained.
The presence of peace, or the absence of war is indeed a big plus, but doesn't mean automatic happiness for everyone.
https://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-natu...
Typographically I found it interesting that the country was attempting to shift away from Cyrillic to a more romanized (??) written form; i.e., "Qazaqstan."
Baikonur the city, not the cosmodrome, was an entirely different experience. Baikonur is essentially a Russian military outpost that continues to exist as a place for the personnel and families of Roscosmos and the various entities that exist to operate the cosmodrome, which is several kilometers away. You must pass through a military checkpoint to enter the city and military police patrol the city. Don't stay up late drinking in the central square! You will be helpfully escorted away by the militia.
If you talk to the local non-Russians living in Baikonur, they are not huge fans of the Russian presence. You can observe the youths swearing and yelling at the buses of Roscosmos personnel and tourists returning from launches. They would be glad to see the Russians leave, even though it would be a massive blow to the economy.
One of the first things the native Kazakhs did after the collapse of the Soviet Union was build a mosque right outside of the entrance of the city of Baikonur. It is quite nice and I visited it with no problem. Those who wish to attend mosque that live within city must pass through a checkpoint to leave the city and another to get in. There is no mosque allowed within the city, although there is a Russian Orthodox church, which I also visited with no problem.
The cosmodrome itself is an amazing place worthy of a huge essay, so I will save my observations for a topic relevant to that.
I am hopeful the Kazakh people can find a future free from Russian influence and the Russian-backed strongmen that have controlled the country in post-Soviet times. Other than Russian colonial outposts like Baikonur, the culture and religion of the people there are quite different that those of Russia.
There are still at least a million of ethnic Russians living in the Northern and North-Eastern Kazakhstan who settled there starting from 18th century. What do you propose them to do?
My own government is giving me €400 this winter which is nice.
Our government (UK) is not changing the existing single payment of £140 (means tested).
On top of that, the PM “misspoke” and told Parliament it was £140 a week…
When a Dutch finance minister goes on TV to give everyone money you believe him because he has an unlimited creditcard. It's a "look under your seat" moment. Why did Kazakhstan make this decision in the first place? Because they are in dire financial straits.
This kind of nonsense comments appear whenever there are people with positive comments on China or Russia. I guess my top level comment on this thread will be one of the "Russia-patriot" ones. For the record, I am an Indian living in Malaysia - I simply choose to read proper sources and be informed of geopolitical events rather than parrot US propaganda. I learned to do so after reading a book by an American, often mentioned in HN (the book is Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman).
Treating anything by Noam Chomsky as a good thing to follow is pretty laughable though.
Also it appears your post was flagged and deleted.
Agree about the Russian media, they do a cheap imitation of Western narrative building journalism and are far more clumsy about telegraphing their agenda.
These are not Slavs and no they dont belong to Russia in any sense. You can look up the country demographics, the minorities are other former non-Slav soviet nations. Russia has no interest in the rights of the Kazak people, this is just their run up to reverting back to old fashioned imperialism.
The US uses the same play book, just dont get it twisted about Russia's intentions. In any case the whole world will watch and do nothing cause everyone has their own problems ?
If you read Noam Chomsky you will understand that propoganda is used by every country. But if you read enough history you know for damn sure there are no good intentions here, except people asking for their right to a decent way of life.
Even Russian speakers do not always want to associated themselves with Russia.
You cannot speak for all of us.
To those who aren't aware, Noam Chomsky vehemently denied Pol Pot's mass murder of millions in Cambodia.
Vietnam invaded Cambodia and the US began arming Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in the late 1970s and 1980s, which again the Times covered, although slightly obliquely. Chomsky condemned the US arming Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.
Now you might say "surely he has come to his senses", except Chomsky went on to spread lies about the Sarin gas attacks in Syria.
There's probably more.
"Ponchaud’s book is serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the commentary it has elicited. He gives a grisly account of what refugees have reported to him about the barbarity of their treatment at the hands of the Khmer Rouge."
So a book about the barbarity of treatment by the Khmer Rouge is "serious and worth reading". That is what Chomsky actually wrote back then if anyone is actually curious. Does not sound like what you claim he was saying.
So you have upper middle class Europeans, and some upper middle class Europeans living in their media bubble. Other views outside this bubble are heretical and suspicious.
Even YC founder Paul Graham touched on this lightly in his essay about how "submarine" PR articles about men's formal suits make it into the press. Noam Chomsky (who also writes books about the language of Turing machines) covers the corporate media more thoroughly. People who actually talk about what the US is doing like journalist (and former programmer of open source port scanners) Julian Assange are imprisoned.
Also, Kazakhstan has troops coming in from Belarus, Tajikistan, Armenia and Russia. So just mentioning Russia in the headline is already a slant.
And yet in your other comment you linked to "Moon of Alabama", anonymous blogger which always takes a pro-Kremlin position. How is that a "proper source"?
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-is-no...
What kind of a reply is that? You can search what he wrote on every topic which is sensitive for Kremlin (Crimea, Donbass, MH17, Navalny, Skripals, Syrian chemical attacks) and in every post he would take a "Russia did nothing wrong" position.
Another relatively neutral source on reporting on Central Asia is https://www.indianpunchline.com/about-me/ if you are interested.
HUNGARY 56, and Czechoslovakia 67, Ukraine 2014, Kazakhstan 22, it's the same playbook.
Manufacturing consent correct points out malicious sounding actions by the US, but it never delves into how literally major or minor power in history has done exactly the same. He loves to shut on the US, while turning a blind eye to every other authoritarian nation and having his life's work be funded by Darpa.
I think Kremlin doesn't want Russians to have an idea that their detestable government can be overthrown. "Do you want it like in Ukraine" and "we need stability"/"lest there is no war in Russia" are the most common takes (and literal quotes) from their TV coverages of protests or any criticism of Putin & his friends.
Can't imagine Americans ever saying the US invaded South Vietnam when it's various puppet Saigon governments asked for fraternal assistance.
By that logic, next time there's a protest or riot in NYC the British should send in some Royal Marines.
Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine respecting Ukrainian sovereignty and borders in 1997. It broke that treaty - and international law - in 2014 with the occupation of Crimea.
You could argue Crimea should never have been ceded to Ukraine back when both nations were part of the USSR and you may well be right. But if we start allowing military invasions to correct an injustice because part of a country was made part of another country, we'd have eternal conflict. Ask the Serbians about Kosovo, the Irish about Ulster, the Germans about East Prussia, on and on.
P.S. So funny, you complain you don't get the logic, and I get downvoted for explaining it, rather than calling names.
> A puppet state is a state that is de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power and subject to its orders.
Even though Kazakh president does become dependent on Russian forces to some degree, I don't see how 3000 soldiers can control a country with an army of 100,000, National guard of 32,000 and 86,000 policemen. It may give an upper hand, but against whom? There's even no organized opposition.
If you make paragons Czechoslovakia uprisings in 1968, then USSR sent 500,000 soldiers and 5,000 tanks in a 10 times smaller country.
So it was 3 orders of magnitude larger intervention than this.
Using a military treaty in case of a popular unrest may be illegitimate, but it's nowhere near a puppet state.
I suspect that the president has realised that the police and army are not entirely on his side, so is wanting to have some "loyal" troops to send round and kill the protestors, in a way that the domestic troops are less likely to.
This was actually revealed by the center-right government in Italy in 1990, because they were more scared of the US/NATO involvement in Italian domestic affairs, then their own left leaning working class.
The real terrorists are those who are using army against their own population. Neighboring Kyrgyzstan had multiple revolutions, too. And their army did the right thing every time by not getting involved (except the last one when Kremlin played its part).
You don't need all the "protesters" to be thugs. 1% is enough to make cities dangerous place for everyone, including other protesters.
You know nothing about the country or the people who live there or what exactly going on right now, but automatically side with one of the part of the conflict based on your feelings.
Understanding geopolitics is an exercise nuance. Kazakhstan has to deal with huge and strong foreign adversaries, and has no strong alliances, yet must protect distant cities which all border China, Russia, and central asian nations, with a large desert in the center. It is militarily indefensible and Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, and the US, all want Kazakhstan's resources and strategically located bases.
Contrary to your sentiment, Kazakhstan has been conducting de-Russianification with the deployment of language police to stop people from using Russian, and switching from the Cyrillic alphabet to the latin one.
Below is an excellent article describing all the different pressures on the country and how it tries to balance foreign influences.
https://globalcomment.com/is-russia-losing-or-tightening-its...
Interestingly, the most violent and organized protests are occurring in the South bordering China and Kyrgystan - a city which has people selling gov't subsidized cheap gas over the border in China on the black market for a 300% profit. That might be a big source for the organized violence. Curbing black market sales was the point of the change that sparked the unrest.
Regardless of the cause, it is likely Russia is going to capitalize on this turmoil and provide continuity for the current President, by extracting some allegiance.
I found the explanation of this article quite convincing.
The key takes is: Tokayev, the Kazakhstan's president, does not completely trust his own forces and is afraid they might be more loyal to the old president, or the elites might see him as weak and try to plot against him. Therefore, he asks Putin for his armed forces to assist in stabilizing the situation. This is good for both of them: Tokayev stabilizes his position and gets some time to fire or prosecute the officials he doesn't trust, and Putin gains more influence over Tokayev in the future — Tokayev becomes dependent on Putin's support.
Over the last two days, Tokayev has made some big changes in the government structure. For example, he fired the old president Nazarbayev from his current position of The Chairman of the Security Council (which he technically wasn't authorized to do). The old president hasn't made any public response to that, and is rumored to have escaped to Europe with his whole family (flightradar has shown a few private jets leaving the country as the riots got violent). Tokayev has also removed some of the Nazarbayev's people (people who served under Nazarbayev for a long time) from their positions yesterday; one big example is Massimov, the head of Kazakhstan's National Security Committee, the country's main intelligence service.
Watching the local news closely these last days, I'm getting convinced that someone is orchestrating the violence and shooting on the streets. There's a footage of people handing out firearms to the protestors (it looks more like hunting rifles and shotguns, so it must be the loot from the firearm stores; but some of them have combat AKs they captured from the police, one video shows them having an RPG grenade). And those armed people with no uniforms are too organized: they give actual armed fights to the police and army forces — not something you could expect from a spontaneously gathered crowd. The organization and determination are shocking: they move from one government building to another, seizing things, burning cars and buildings, focusing on important ones (firearm stores, police offices, city administration) in the situation where mobile broadband is off. Yesterday, the government has withdrawn its forces from the city (friends of my friends who are in the police say they were ordered not to wear uniforms) and evacuated the main buildings. Today they are entering back and fighting the bandits, they report that a few groups were already eliminated.
Having said this, obviously not everyone who's out on the streets now is one of those organized bandits. There are many people who genuinely came for a peaceful protest before it was hijacked into what it is now, and there's also people who are seizing the opportunity to loot and wreak havoc unpunished and drunk (what comes to mind is the video of a guy trying to set a traffic light on fire using a gas burner).
Disclaimer: I'm not in Kazakhstan right now, but I'm watching the situation closely through media and my friends there
EDIT: Removed the news of TV broadcast tower being stormed, it turned out to be fake
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
This is all over TV news.
I get that it’s newsworthy, but it’s Reddit newsworthy not HN newsworthy. What am I missing?
Social media is just everyone pushing their own agenda and guessing without providing any evidence or meaningful analysis, and when it comes to HN - it's pretty much the same.
It's nothing but anti-Russian sentiment and conspiracy theories in this thread. Nothing of substance, because no one here is an expert in this field.
Attempts to overthrow governments in Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan are "protests." So are attacks on the residence of the President of Kazakhstan with rifles and grenades, and burning down the office of the mayor of Almaty.[1]
The same outlets described the mild violence by a congregation of Trump supporters near the Capitol last year as a "coup," "attack" and "riot."
[1] Russia-led alliance sending peacekeepers to Kazakhstan (https://apnews.com/article/business-kazakhstan-almaty-9da423...)
What Kazakh politicians say is not very relevant here. The media outlets themselves are reporting that presidential residences and mayoral offices have been attacked and set on fire by "protesters."
It's in every their article. It's a trashcan of the worst and dumbest pro-West propaganda, I don't know how any sane person would refer to it.
It's not a journalism, they don't even have journalists. They're producing anti-Russian fake news.
BTW, even that they do poorly, I know people that unsubscribed from Meduza because they're tired from it's paranoid rusophobic hatred.
Economic events (including increase of gas prices) triggered local social unrest, which the government attempted to suppress and failed as it escalated and resulted in at least some breakdown of government power (some police refusing to suppress protesters and joining them, protesters seizing government buildings and setting them on fire, looting of weapons from police stations, etc). The local military seems largely not involved (but there are some cases) and apparently it's not expected to be fully loyal to the leadership if asked to suppress revolts.
After that ruler offered a back down on the changes and a rotation of the government, but the protesters apparently want a full change of leadership. This was not acceptable to the leadership, who invited neighbouring militaries to support them against the revolt, which can be used more freely/reliably than local army.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/3/15/saudi-soldiers-sent...
Reading this, I will definitely reach out to him.
Jokes aside, this is as if the NATO (especially the USA) would send troops to France against the yellow west protests. Or as if the NATO would be sending troops against the Catalonian separation movement. The NATO also didn't send troops to Turkey during the Turkish coup d'état attempt.
What the CSTO is doing here can only be compared with the Warsaw Pact sending troops to suppress the Prague Spring. It shows that the CSTO is basically the successor of the Warsaw pact.