Not surprising that this is coming shortly after Kazakhstan's internet access was disrupted [1]. It's a lot easier to murder your citizens if they can't expose such atrocities to the rest of the world.
What should they do, light candles, fast and hold silent protests to revolt against decades-long autocratic government based on nepotism and systemic corruption? Perhaps a couple viral Twitter hashtags might help?
History teaches that revolution is paid in blood, every time. It's quite naive and first-world to assume any extreme political change can be done peacefully.
You need blood to create democracy, and you need blood to tear it down.
I explicitly said any type of revolution, for and against democracy. It is just an observation based upon history.
Please do not use my words to mark me as a, and I quote, supporter of the storming of the Capitol. It is not appreciated, and your comment sounds like flame bait.
And that's not what I was talking about. throwawayacc2 was clearly not trying to paint 1_player as supporting the 1-6 insurrection, but making a meta point about the latter's argument.
Sorry it came across that way, that was not my intention. It is an observation on the form of the comment and how the same sentiment can be seen in different groups.
For what is worth I agree with your observation on history.
Says Reuters, trying to depict common thugs as "protestors".
> defend against Kazakh police following a shoot to kill order
Oh please, stop lionising common armed thugs. They are not "defending", they are THE cause and the target of a shoot to kill order. There are already 19 from "MVD" reported dead. A shoot to kill order would be implied by default in any developed country, as soon as the first serviceman was wounded, especially with a firearm. It's surprising that the government did not respond properly and in time.
Ah, that famous Kazakh tyrany, with all the free trade, open borders, egalitarian education, evilly opressing their citizens by not extending gas subsidies.
Look, I get that you don't take this seriously (why would you, this is just another fun "good folk fighting back against tyrants" narrative for you), but lionising every random psycho shooter, who decided that he is now sovereign and can direct his wrath to fellow human beings, who happen to be in a uniform, is just something really out there. Bet Breivik is your hero.
I think you have a rather Utopian view of Kazakh government. I don't appreciate being called a Breivik worshipper for supporting overthrow of tyranny, but you're entitled to your opinion. For the record I have never supported Breivik.
What's shocking is he said the quiet part out loud, so now anyone going on the streets knows to be armed and ready because their enemy will take no quarter.
I'm no expert on these subjects, but reading the original Reuters post reminds me of a similar pattern of events from Russia's entry into Ukraine. IIRC Russia paid or otherwise clandestinely influenced their own insurgents to start violent protests against the Ukraine government and US military presence, and then used the conflict as an excuse for the Russian state to take over territory. Is this the same concept or am I just being paranoid?
A similar thing happened in Afghanistan in the 80s, then Caucasus post-1989. Notional government appeals for help, Russian tanks appear and don’t leave.
The difference is that the current government is undemocratic, though “legal”, not a new entity.
In this case there is a treaty for help and the kazakh dictator just requested help via this treaty. I guess the russian military will only protect important infrastructure and will try to avoid shooting civilians. Of course there is a lot unknown.
The treaty is against external aggression. In some previous case help was refused citing this reason. This time external aggression looks like a pretense.
Russia has a long history of dealing with rebellions and uprisings. Protecting civilians has never been a priority as far as I am aware, and actively harming civilians has been a goal at times.
It's a rather bad faith statement. What exactly had built your current level of awareness of Russia's peacekeeping practices?
Also, no idea where you got that "long history of dealing with rebellions and uprisings", Russian attitude to riots is very specific and history counts only really a few and only bright moments.
Russians don't even have a culture of riot police, just look at all their protest! Putin forces his servicemen to use use brute force and rubber battons, instead of proper tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons, such as you would see in any developed first-world country.
Basically bias. He or she wasn't aware how USA killed Iraqis (literally for fun - search for that video Iraq video leaked) on a cooked up false premise of WMD (Powell basically died bringing that shame to grave). The entire nation collapse. Same goes with Syria, Agfhan, and maybe Iran+Pakistan given a chance. Russia is still rookie compare to that. And yet, they are evil empire that need to get stopped at all cost. The irony is Nazi Germany the now our western allies was defeated by Russians and to some extend accelerated Imperial Japanese surrenders (the majority the history books in western countries got this part very wrong). Putin is doing it wrong. Western countries expect him to level up his brutality otherwise it makes them look bad.
The degree of Russian influence, compared to the degree of civil unrest naturally caused by the events in the capital is debatable, especially given spreading rumors of neo-nazis involved.
Given that the "Azov Battalion" is a thing and thus the rumors were somewhat true, it seems that Russia barely had any job to do to tip the scale
Far right attitudes are no less common in Russia, including the Russian armed forces. Given a large number of participants, the chance that neo-nazis (as well as all other kinds of people) are involved is close to 100%.
> Far right attitudes are no less common in Russia, including the Russian armed forces
What is the base of that assertion?
Also, it seems to me that good old, practically a hundred years old meme based, "left-right" model is not really applicable to CIS countries. Nazism and it's symbolics has kind of a very specific set of connotations, at least in eastern slavic culture.
Though we can enjoy diving in moral and statistical relativism, it seems to me that openly endorsing neo-nazism on a governmental level, up to using nazi symbolics in heraldics, is a red flag that is pretty hard to challenge in it's groutesque. Besides, it's not like "Azov" is an isolated incident, just something more flashing. The issue of language is another great thorn, but you really need to understand the context and the sentiment.
In any case, we digress. It's not like this is the issue of Russian armed forces, it's an issue of what and why served as the catalyst for some people not to accept the new government, after the previous one was overthrown.
Besides, the way it was handled is what really sealed the deal. E.g I have a video of this event https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/europe/ukraine-luha... and it's a bloody mess of screaming, blood and just looks like a terrorist attack. This one actually also gives an interesting angle to the MH17 disaster, which happened just after that air strike. In fact, the more I look at the dates, the more I wonder how the hell did the Ukraininan government conduct air-bound military operations on some territory, but still direct civillian planes over this territory.
Azov Batallion may be far-right but I think the real reason why they're mentioned here is because they helped kick Russia's ass in Ukraine and were instrumental in the early fighting all the way up to Donetsk Airport. Russians are butt-hurt their ass were kicked by pathetic neo-nazi ideology.
Like it or not, Azov Battalion is partially responsible for why Ukraine still has as much territory as it does.
...is simply because they are the most evident and universally recognized symbol of influence of neo-nazism on modern Ukraine's politics.
> Like it or not, Azov Battalion is partially responsible for why Ukraine still has as much territory as it does.
I mean, good for them! Not even sure why you call them and their ideology "pathetic". Millitary-wise, it's a great feat, real-world nazis were also quite efficient. It's just that it is still an evidence of what kind of sentiments are a driving force of post-coup Ukraininan government, which gives a rather clear answer to the question of whether Russia needed to do much (or anything at all) for enough people to turn against new government. As simple as that.
So you're saying Russia didn't act because the people that want to (and actually did) kill Russians were who they actually wanted in influence? Why would Azov Battalion be a deciding factor on Russia's desire to influence Ukraine? I would think Russia would not want Azov influence in Ukraine.
>Not even sure why you call them and their ideology "pathetic"
I called their ideology pathetic, not their fighting force. Their fighting force is commendable.
> So you're saying Russia didn't act because the people that want to (and actually did) kill Russians were who they actually wanted in influence?
Erm, no, what specific Russia's action do you have in mind? I am not really sure what you are saying, but it seems completely out of touch with what I meant and the topic generally.
You are missing the point here, Azov is just an undeniable universal evidence of Ukraine's government being in bed with neo-nazis and it's a sentiment enough for people to disaprove and rally against, nothing more is implied here. I could just as well use the examle of language policy, or openly prasing nazi collaborators, or like how the Ukraine voted against heroisation of facism in the UN. But none of this is as simple to google and go "holy shit, how is this a thing?" as Azov, that's all.
This is part of the reason why I’m excited for things like starlink - access that can’t be cut off for media companies in these locations. It’s going to go a long way in changing the power dynamic.
Smuggling of pizza-dish sized things seems reasonable. Also, could deploy thousands of fake transmitters to make it hard to locate real ones without lots of resources.
Right, but Starlink may not serve locations in the country which forbids its use. Would be glad to be wrong here.
Smuggling and deploying fakes have their own problems. I'd also propose optical channel - with its own pro and contras - or means to cheaply manufacture receivers. It's a big discussion.
Kazakhstan and Russia governments want to end this the faster way possible to avoid another Ukraine situation [1]. They will remove everything, Internet, electricity to calm things down.
The thing that ignited this massive protest was that fuel subsidies were being removed [2]. But they were extended again after this humongous backslash [3]. Still, subsidizing energy is not a good idea when your country economy can't afford it.
I hope this tragic situation gets solved with the least deaths possible (since peacefully sounds unfeasible now).
Is it that much easier than before? The few outsiders among the lay public who knew anything about Kazakhstan in the first place didn't have a particularly favorable view of its rulers anyway.
Putin and Pals, and their apologists, make it sound like people living under these regimes enjoy human rights, fair elections, a free press, no corruption, and a high standard of living, and have no reason at all to revolt if not for “Western meddling”. It makes sense to say that if you’re a mass-murderer like Putin who never believed in human dignity, but the rhetoric of tankies and privileged apologists who live in the West, and have no idea what it’s like to live in a dictatorship, is mind-numbingly hypocritical. If the West is so bad and Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Kazakhstan, etc. are so incredibly better, why do they still live in the West?
Please drop that act, as if you don't understand what I mean. I am not looking to pick a fight and acting stupid doesn't really do you any good.
There were enough photographic evidence of armed bandits attacking the police, trashing and robing property, setting it ablaze, and even a few videos of thugs raiding a police department's armory.
People had died. This is no longer a joking matter, sorry.
None of that sounds like a reason to kill them in the street - not that I think you're wrong, but just that I'm only going off your abbreviated descriptions.
Both of your posts have an aggressive tone that is condoning a government killing citizens with very brief reasoning given for justification relative to the extreme seriousness of that stance. They also contain sarcasm. I'm not merely criticizing you - I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic for you to say "I am not looking to pick a fight".
Edit: It doesn't sound like a reason to kill them because "they did X" can't mean "kill them" for essentially any X, the operative word being "did". I.e. government agents must (morally) reserve lethal force against their own citizens for when they are under immediate threat of an intent to kill, and they are (morally) obligated to avoid that situation in the first place, if at all practical, for admittedly various definitions of "practical".
> None of that sounds like a reason to kill them in the street
Exactly what kind of picture are you imagining? That evil baby-eating Kazakh government is lining up poor peaceful unarmed civillians to shoot them down in the street? Well sorry, that's not what we see on photographic evidence. Unfortunately there is no other practical response to armed mob that threatens actual civillians and is intended to kill anyone affiliated with the government, other than "killing them in the street" if they don't comply with surrender order, don't lay down their weapons and continue their business of turning the city into a war zone, burning property and so on.
> Both of your posts have an aggressive tone that is condoning a government killing citizens
This is merely your impression. Written text has no "tone" except the one you hear in your imagination. Please don't reduce what I had said to a mere "tone that is condoning government killing citizens" -- that is not what I said.
> They also contain sarcasm
Only one contains sarcasm and, in an case, sarcasm does not imply anything in particular. My first posts only epressed frustration with Reuter's quality of journalism. If you see it in a "wrong" tone and interpret it as an invitation for a fight, sorry, but that is completely on you.
> I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic for you to say "I am not looking to pick a fight"
Please don't project your behavioural patterns on me.
> I.e. government agents must (morally) reserve lethal force against their own citizens for when they are under immediate threat of an intent to kill
Then I don't see what is the problem here, or, specifically, I don't see why you insist on acting as if it is not what is currently happening.
> Unfortunately there is no other practical response to armed mob that threatens actual civillians and is intended to kill anyone affiliated with the government, other than "killing them in the street" if they don't comply with surrender order, don't lay down their weapons
But that’s not correct.
“I have given the order to law enforcement and the army to shoot to kill without warning,” Tokayev said.
It completely redifines it's meaning, as it implies a surrender order to comply to?
I mean, it's not that we can safely throw away defining statements and retain the meaning of the message, especially given that we discuss a small quote of a translated text.
I can't wrap my head around why you insist on warning someone who is armed, shooting at you, and clearly is not willing to surrender. No one does that.
I don't get what you suggest, that their government should treat their servicemen as cannon fodder that is supposed to counter aggressive armed individual with hugs and kisses? Well there are already several dosen killed by thugs, hardly anyone would want to risc their lives for the life of someone with an intent to kill you with a gun.
If you don't want to get shot without warning, then, I guess, just don't attack police, especially don't use firearms when you do that? This is basically a permission to use firearms at will, it's already a given for any servicemen in any developed state as a best practice for officer's survivability.
The guns in the police armory ultimately belong to the people. If their government is corrupt and coerce the people then they not only have the right but the responsibility to raid the armory and act in defense against their agressors. "People had died" isn't supposed to be a joke but a necessary and lethal response of the populace to neutralize government armed bandit murderers.
> The guns in the police armory ultimately belong to the people
Well this is just demagogy and slogans, utlimately boiling down an attempt to depicict it as a yet antother romantic dihotomy of "opressive government" and "brave people".
As awlays, in reality the real civilians are hiding scared at their homes or fleeing the country and it's just a few armed thugs, who think they can represent and talk for "the people", having tasted some blood and lawlessness.
There is enough video evidece to see how "defense against their agressors" turns out to be robbing shops and setting building ablaze. So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government or have some moral high ground.
In your other quote you said they were "thugs who use firearms against police" but here you say they aren't fighting the government (police are government) at all. Your words are contradictions.
"Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight. It sounds dangerously like the Russian propaganda against Chechens when they were simultaneously calling the rebels "foreign influencers" (no real civilian would fight the Russians!) while simultaneously sending secret police to genocide or jail military age males.
> but here you say they aren't fighting the government (police are government) at all
But that is not what I have said, especially not the "at all" part, why are trying to misqoute me? All I have said is that robbing shops doesn't seem like a glorious heroic struggle against the government. Random skirmishes will obviously occur. Not sure what exactly you see as contradictive and where exactly do you imagine a binary mutual exclusion.
> "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight
Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking? Seems to be still be "a person who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a *belligerent group in a conflict*. So I don't get why you insit on using the wrong term, other than to spin a narrative.
Armed belligerents are not civillians, up is not down, war is not peace, words do have specific meanings.
>But that is not what I have said, especially not the "at all" part, why are trying to misqoute me?
> but thugs who use firearms against police [up-thread]
contradicts
>"So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government.
I quote, "So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government." Are police part of government or not? Adding "at all" is merely semantic, it's just the way my part of the US talks. i.e. "Would you like a bag at all with your groceries?" Saying "fighting government" and "fighting government at all" would both mean you are fighting government to some extent, but the latter _could_ be interpreted as slightly weaker if anything.
>Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking
Ok so what you meant was once you fight, you're a belligerent and not a civilian. Your intent was just to help us understand definition of civilian? Yes yes I agree, I thought you were implying something different like they weren't real citizens with genuine honest intent or something. But you've now made clear you were using the standard definition. Although I'm confused why you didn't just say that in the first place.
This is almost a clone repeat of what the Russians said about their ass being kicked by the Chechens in the first war. In reality the Chechens had scant outside support in the first war and got virtually all arms by taking them from killed russian soldiers.
> How do you suggest the removal of a dictator should occurs? A stern letter?
I am not going to suggest how anyone should achieve their political goals, nor am I going to engage another "ends justify the means" argument. I am simply pointing out that calling armed isurgents mere "protestors" and putting them in one cohort with protesting civillians is a very blatant attempt at misinformation.
> Is ‘bandit’ a common translation that gets used
It's a borrowed Itallian word, widely used in both roman and indo-european languages, not a "translation". Please don't accuse me of "parroting" something when you base your assetions on such illiterate mental models.
Thank you for the link, but I don't suppose hackernews crowd really needs some journalist of a state-owned political media explaining complex politics to them.
When I lived in Ukraine, the 'bandits" that the then-pro-Moscow government claimed were running rampant in the streets were the "titushki" (guys hired for $20/night to wandered around with a beer in one hand and a crowbar in the other, beating up anyone who looked like the were protesting against the government). Inside the perimeter of the manifestation was one of the safer parts of the city.
So, when I hear a pro-Moscow autocratic ruler say there are bandits in the streets, I remain highly skeptical until there's hard evidence.
Ahh, yes, those famous "titushkis" allegly paid by Russians, but for some reason also killing journalists critising the new government and also attacking anyone who doesn't understand or can't answer in Ukrainian.
That's not good. But sorry, I don't buy the "upstanding citizens revolt because gas prices went up" narrative that the major news networks are proposing. The real question is; what foreign powers are instigating riots in Kazakhstan, and why. That many people have been discontent with an autocratic regime is no longer enough for me to applaud the possible creation of yet another failed state.
There were gigantic protests in France recently for basically the same reason and no one was accusing a foreign power of instigating riots in France. Why would these riots in Kazakhstan be any different?
Media coverage, mostly. Especially one going from the state-owned (or corporate-owned with political affiliation, in case of US) media. It is really the best litmus paper there is.
Terrorist attacks take a few determined individuals, and would be relatively easy to instigate and pull off. But the suggestion that a foreign power can convince thousands of people with no grievances to come out and protest is laughably unrealistic, not to mention insulting.
All nations have people who have grivances, the trick is to find a proper ignition point and pour in some gas at the right moment. And it's not like it's something momentarlity simplistic, like a terrorist attack. It takes years of builing a foundation.
Indeed. It's probably the dastardly, competent CIA using innocent people's grievances to keep the Russian nation down. I mean, connect the dots! Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics, now Kazakhstan? All suspiciously close to Russia. The CIA's sinister color revolution plot advances even as the Americans deny it!
Of course, it's an entirely unrelated fact that the collapse of the most recent Russian autocratic empire generated a crop of ethno-national, authoritarian kleptocracies in each polity that failed (...wonder why?) to join the Western alliance yet escaped complete vassalage to Moscow.
Unrelated I tell you! All nations have people who have grievances! If the FSB were as evil as the CIA, Canada would be rioting right now!
...Sure, I guess, the CIA could have "instigated" these riots, or acted to exacerbate factionalism within the oligarchy. I doubt it, but I can't deny that a competent intelligence agency could do so. Could do so because the people who "have grievances" are genuinely oppressed: they want freedom, they envy the wealth and liberation of the West. And "they" means a huge majority - not an interest group with a petty grievance, but a _generation_ with a despair of the future.
Shitty oppressive evil kingdoms are doomed to fail (one hopes: god help humanity if they figure out how to be stable in perpetuity - none have yet). If the CIA gives them a shove, good for them, means the USA is still the true vanguard of the people's revolution. When the mob brays for regicide the Kazakh kings may only blame themselves.
The wikipedia article on the CIA lists several ways that the US has employed over the years [0]. We know about them because of the relative freedom of the press in the west. Similar activities by other powers might not be as widely advertised or as frequent, but they surely exist.
It’s certainly the trigger, and the situation is dire, inflation is sky high in many developing nations. If we aren’t seeing Arab Springs springing everywhere it’s because of covid and restriction (either self or state imposed).
As for Kazakhstan, well there’s Chinese, Russian, Turkey and even British as foreign elements. IMO the more plausible reason was the president (Mr Tokaev, aka Number 2 in power) ousting the “Kolbasy” (Mr Nursumbaev, aka First President) who expected the power sharing agreement to give him and his family both protection and relevance over politics forever.
86 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] thread[1]: https://netblocks.org/reports/internet-disrupted-in-kazakhst...
History teaches that revolution is paid in blood, every time. It's quite naive and first-world to assume any extreme political change can be done peacefully.
You need blood to create democracy, and you need blood to tear it down.
I am not making any moral judgements either about Kazakstan or January 6th, just an observation on context and how it affects our perception.
Please do not use my words to mark me as a, and I quote, supporter of the storming of the Capitol. It is not appreciated, and your comment sounds like flame bait.
For what is worth I agree with your observation on history.
Really makes you think how stretchable the images of "peaceful protestors" and "dangerous terrorists" can get.
Says who?
> but thugs who use firearms against police, and raid armory's are simply "protestors".
Says who? Those who defend against Kazakh police following a shoot to kill order, I'd call them a hero.
Says CNN and all the opened domestic terrorism cases https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/jason-crow-army-...
> Says who?
Says Reuters, trying to depict common thugs as "protestors".
> defend against Kazakh police following a shoot to kill order
Oh please, stop lionising common armed thugs. They are not "defending", they are THE cause and the target of a shoot to kill order. There are already 19 from "MVD" reported dead. A shoot to kill order would be implied by default in any developed country, as soon as the first serviceman was wounded, especially with a firearm. It's surprising that the government did not respond properly and in time.
Yes I'm aware tyrants don't like it when you fight back.
Look, I get that you don't take this seriously (why would you, this is just another fun "good folk fighting back against tyrants" narrative for you), but lionising every random psycho shooter, who decided that he is now sovereign and can direct his wrath to fellow human beings, who happen to be in a uniform, is just something really out there. Bet Breivik is your hero.
No, I simply don't have a dystopian view.
The difference is that the current government is undemocratic, though “legal”, not a new entity.
Russia has a long history of dealing with rebellions and uprisings. Protecting civilians has never been a priority as far as I am aware, and actively harming civilians has been a goal at times.
Also, no idea where you got that "long history of dealing with rebellions and uprisings", Russian attitude to riots is very specific and history counts only really a few and only bright moments.
Russians don't even have a culture of riot police, just look at all their protest! Putin forces his servicemen to use use brute force and rubber battons, instead of proper tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons, such as you would see in any developed first-world country.
Violent protests had already been going on for some time. At that point the elected Ukrainian government had already been overthrown https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
The degree of Russian influence, compared to the degree of civil unrest naturally caused by the events in the capital is debatable, especially given spreading rumors of neo-nazis involved.
Given that the "Azov Battalion" is a thing and thus the rumors were somewhat true, it seems that Russia barely had any job to do to tip the scale
What is the base of that assertion?
Also, it seems to me that good old, practically a hundred years old meme based, "left-right" model is not really applicable to CIS countries. Nazism and it's symbolics has kind of a very specific set of connotations, at least in eastern slavic culture.
Though we can enjoy diving in moral and statistical relativism, it seems to me that openly endorsing neo-nazism on a governmental level, up to using nazi symbolics in heraldics, is a red flag that is pretty hard to challenge in it's groutesque. Besides, it's not like "Azov" is an isolated incident, just something more flashing. The issue of language is another great thorn, but you really need to understand the context and the sentiment.
In any case, we digress. It's not like this is the issue of Russian armed forces, it's an issue of what and why served as the catalyst for some people not to accept the new government, after the previous one was overthrown.
Besides, the way it was handled is what really sealed the deal. E.g I have a video of this event https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/europe/ukraine-luha... and it's a bloody mess of screaming, blood and just looks like a terrorist attack. This one actually also gives an interesting angle to the MH17 disaster, which happened just after that air strike. In fact, the more I look at the dates, the more I wonder how the hell did the Ukraininan government conduct air-bound military operations on some territory, but still direct civillian planes over this territory.
Like it or not, Azov Battalion is partially responsible for why Ukraine still has as much territory as it does.
...is simply because they are the most evident and universally recognized symbol of influence of neo-nazism on modern Ukraine's politics.
> Like it or not, Azov Battalion is partially responsible for why Ukraine still has as much territory as it does.
I mean, good for them! Not even sure why you call them and their ideology "pathetic". Millitary-wise, it's a great feat, real-world nazis were also quite efficient. It's just that it is still an evidence of what kind of sentiments are a driving force of post-coup Ukraininan government, which gives a rather clear answer to the question of whether Russia needed to do much (or anything at all) for enough people to turn against new government. As simple as that.
>Not even sure why you call them and their ideology "pathetic"
I called their ideology pathetic, not their fighting force. Their fighting force is commendable.
Erm, no, what specific Russia's action do you have in mind? I am not really sure what you are saying, but it seems completely out of touch with what I meant and the topic generally.
You are missing the point here, Azov is just an undeniable universal evidence of Ukraine's government being in bed with neo-nazis and it's a sentiment enough for people to disaprove and rally against, nothing more is implied here. I could just as well use the examle of language policy, or openly prasing nazi collaborators, or like how the Ukraine voted against heroisation of facism in the UN. But none of this is as simple to google and go "holy shit, how is this a thing?" as Azov, that's all.
Smuggling and deploying fakes have their own problems. I'd also propose optical channel - with its own pro and contras - or means to cheaply manufacture receivers. It's a big discussion.
Kazakhstan and Russia governments want to end this the faster way possible to avoid another Ukraine situation [1]. They will remove everything, Internet, electricity to calm things down.
The thing that ignited this massive protest was that fuel subsidies were being removed [2]. But they were extended again after this humongous backslash [3]. Still, subsidizing energy is not a good idea when your country economy can't afford it.
I hope this tragic situation gets solved with the least deaths possible (since peacefully sounds unfeasible now).
[1] Since 2014, one region is part of Russia (Crimea) and 2 of them are under rebel army control (Donetsk and Lugansk). [2] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/kazakhstan-remin... [3] https://www.yahoo.com/now/kazakhstan-unrest-government-resto...
So, "Putin and Pals" live in the West? Ayy, lmao.
What a typical headline manipulation. And the article barely mentions all the armed banditry, nice. Way to paint a dramatic picture, Reuters.
There were enough photographic evidence of armed bandits attacking the police, trashing and robing property, setting it ablaze, and even a few videos of thugs raiding a police department's armory.
People had died. This is no longer a joking matter, sorry.
Both of your posts have an aggressive tone that is condoning a government killing citizens with very brief reasoning given for justification relative to the extreme seriousness of that stance. They also contain sarcasm. I'm not merely criticizing you - I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic for you to say "I am not looking to pick a fight".
Edit: It doesn't sound like a reason to kill them because "they did X" can't mean "kill them" for essentially any X, the operative word being "did". I.e. government agents must (morally) reserve lethal force against their own citizens for when they are under immediate threat of an intent to kill, and they are (morally) obligated to avoid that situation in the first place, if at all practical, for admittedly various definitions of "practical".
Exactly what kind of picture are you imagining? That evil baby-eating Kazakh government is lining up poor peaceful unarmed civillians to shoot them down in the street? Well sorry, that's not what we see on photographic evidence. Unfortunately there is no other practical response to armed mob that threatens actual civillians and is intended to kill anyone affiliated with the government, other than "killing them in the street" if they don't comply with surrender order, don't lay down their weapons and continue their business of turning the city into a war zone, burning property and so on.
> Both of your posts have an aggressive tone that is condoning a government killing citizens
This is merely your impression. Written text has no "tone" except the one you hear in your imagination. Please don't reduce what I had said to a mere "tone that is condoning government killing citizens" -- that is not what I said.
> They also contain sarcasm Only one contains sarcasm and, in an case, sarcasm does not imply anything in particular. My first posts only epressed frustration with Reuter's quality of journalism. If you see it in a "wrong" tone and interpret it as an invitation for a fight, sorry, but that is completely on you.
> I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic for you to say "I am not looking to pick a fight"
Please don't project your behavioural patterns on me.
> I.e. government agents must (morally) reserve lethal force against their own citizens for when they are under immediate threat of an intent to kill
Then I don't see what is the problem here, or, specifically, I don't see why you insist on acting as if it is not what is currently happening.
But that’s not correct.
“I have given the order to law enforcement and the army to shoot to kill without warning,” Tokayev said.
https://apnews.com/article/kazakhstan-law-enforcement-agenci...
> “I have given the order to law enforcement and the army to shoot to kill without warning,”
> “Those who don’t surrender will be eliminated.”
I mean, it's not that we can safely throw away defining statements and retain the meaning of the message, especially given that we discuss a small quote of a translated text.
I don't get what you suggest, that their government should treat their servicemen as cannon fodder that is supposed to counter aggressive armed individual with hugs and kisses? Well there are already several dosen killed by thugs, hardly anyone would want to risc their lives for the life of someone with an intent to kill you with a gun.
If you don't want to get shot without warning, then, I guess, just don't attack police, especially don't use firearms when you do that? This is basically a permission to use firearms at will, it's already a given for any servicemen in any developed state as a best practice for officer's survivability.
Well this is just demagogy and slogans, utlimately boiling down an attempt to depicict it as a yet antother romantic dihotomy of "opressive government" and "brave people".
As awlays, in reality the real civilians are hiding scared at their homes or fleeing the country and it's just a few armed thugs, who think they can represent and talk for "the people", having tasted some blood and lawlessness.
There is enough video evidece to see how "defense against their agressors" turns out to be robbing shops and setting building ablaze. So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government or have some moral high ground.
"Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight. It sounds dangerously like the Russian propaganda against Chechens when they were simultaneously calling the rebels "foreign influencers" (no real civilian would fight the Russians!) while simultaneously sending secret police to genocide or jail military age males.
But that is not what I have said, especially not the "at all" part, why are trying to misqoute me? All I have said is that robbing shops doesn't seem like a glorious heroic struggle against the government. Random skirmishes will obviously occur. Not sure what exactly you see as contradictive and where exactly do you imagine a binary mutual exclusion.
> "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight
Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking? Seems to be still be "a person who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a *belligerent group in a conflict*. So I don't get why you insit on using the wrong term, other than to spin a narrative.
Armed belligerents are not civillians, up is not down, war is not peace, words do have specific meanings.
> but thugs who use firearms against police [up-thread]
contradicts
>"So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government.
I quote, "So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government." Are police part of government or not? Adding "at all" is merely semantic, it's just the way my part of the US talks. i.e. "Would you like a bag at all with your groceries?" Saying "fighting government" and "fighting government at all" would both mean you are fighting government to some extent, but the latter _could_ be interpreted as slightly weaker if anything.
>Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking
Ok so what you meant was once you fight, you're a belligerent and not a civilian. Your intent was just to help us understand definition of civilian? Yes yes I agree, I thought you were implying something different like they weren't real citizens with genuine honest intent or something. But you've now made clear you were using the standard definition. Although I'm confused why you didn't just say that in the first place.
The language used is interesting - eg "an invasion of bandit formations trained from abroad".
Is ‘bandit’ a common translation that gets used, or some state propaganda that’s being parroted?
It could be both I suppose.
https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-59894266
I am not going to suggest how anyone should achieve their political goals, nor am I going to engage another "ends justify the means" argument. I am simply pointing out that calling armed isurgents mere "protestors" and putting them in one cohort with protesting civillians is a very blatant attempt at misinformation.
> Is ‘bandit’ a common translation that gets used
It's a borrowed Itallian word, widely used in both roman and indo-european languages, not a "translation". Please don't accuse me of "parroting" something when you base your assetions on such illiterate mental models.
Thank you for the link, but I don't suppose hackernews crowd really needs some journalist of a state-owned political media explaining complex politics to them.
So, when I hear a pro-Moscow autocratic ruler say there are bandits in the streets, I remain highly skeptical until there's hard evidence.
Of course, it's an entirely unrelated fact that the collapse of the most recent Russian autocratic empire generated a crop of ethno-national, authoritarian kleptocracies in each polity that failed (...wonder why?) to join the Western alliance yet escaped complete vassalage to Moscow.
Unrelated I tell you! All nations have people who have grievances! If the FSB were as evil as the CIA, Canada would be rioting right now!
...Sure, I guess, the CIA could have "instigated" these riots, or acted to exacerbate factionalism within the oligarchy. I doubt it, but I can't deny that a competent intelligence agency could do so. Could do so because the people who "have grievances" are genuinely oppressed: they want freedom, they envy the wealth and liberation of the West. And "they" means a huge majority - not an interest group with a petty grievance, but a _generation_ with a despair of the future.
Shitty oppressive evil kingdoms are doomed to fail (one hopes: god help humanity if they figure out how to be stable in perpetuity - none have yet). If the CIA gives them a shove, good for them, means the USA is still the true vanguard of the people's revolution. When the mob brays for regicide the Kazakh kings may only blame themselves.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency
As for Kazakhstan, well there’s Chinese, Russian, Turkey and even British as foreign elements. IMO the more plausible reason was the president (Mr Tokaev, aka Number 2 in power) ousting the “Kolbasy” (Mr Nursumbaev, aka First President) who expected the power sharing agreement to give him and his family both protection and relevance over politics forever.