For anyone unaware, earlier this year, Kazakhstan faced protests over gas prices (it was a tipping point, there's a lot of wealth inequality) and this president requested the help of Russian security forces to enter the country and help quell riots, and they ended up killing rioters [1].
Most of my Kazakh friends were rooting for the rioters, wanting a more free Kazakhstan, while one friend close to the government was sharing government-sponsored propaganda against the rioters.
It's interesting to see the Kazakh president now take this stance and say all of this.
Things aren't actually as clear-cut as you say. While protests started out peacefully things quickly escalated into violence, especially in Almaty. Most notably, armed bandits captured the city's airport, burned most of the government buildings, tried to assault multiple law enforcement agency offices, tried to go live on multiple TV channels, robbed ATMs, etc. The government has promised a large-scale investigation into the events, but is is already clear those people didn't want either freedom nor democracy and were quite probably influenced by criminal and illegal armed groups.
In a video from January 5th, people can be seen snatching up rifles offloaded by a truck. Some were likely convinced on the spot to grab one of the firearms being handed out, but who was responsible for acquiring them?
Escalation into violence does not discredit a revolution while it IS extremely regrettable and perhaps discredits the people involved. If escalation into violence was able to discredit a revolution, the regular every-day violence inflicted on the civilian population by bad cops, etc would discredit the government or at least policing.
At the point where rioters are being killed instead of merely arrested it's hard for me to look negatively at the rioters choosing to strike out with violence of their own. They aren't using the tools and backing of the state to oppress.
When there is a major protest that keeps the Police busy, criminals take the opportunity to loot stores while there is no law enforcement to stop them.
According to official sources, Russian forces were dislocated to guard important objects which allowed Kazakh forces to quell the terrorists and take situation under control. So Russian forces did not engage in the actual fight, but rather backed up Kazakh forces.
What really happened is that Kazakh military did not want to obey the President orders when this chaos started. It's speculated that this was act of treason by some high officials in an attempt of coup. That's why Tokaev asked Russia to intervene. After Russia confirmed that they actually do support Tokaev with some symbolic forces sent, Kazakh military started to obey the orders and started to actually do what they must. That's my opinion.
The way you frame the situation is hardly justified, most of what you say doesn't match any of the commonly accepted explanations.
First of all, it's not bad president against good protestors. There were actually two things going on on the streets: peaceful protestors with political and economical demands, and armed organized bandits/terrorists wreaking havoc and destabilising situation as much as they could.
The bandits were killing the police (also going to hospitals to finish any wounded police officers they could find), storming jails trying to set criminals free, burning government buildings, they gave fake calls to firefighters and killed the crews when those arrived.
I leave it to you to read up on who could be orchestrating the bandits. I suggest you focus on local (CIS-based, Russian speaking) news media and telegram channels for that. But one of the important hypotheses is that it was all made by the forces in power opposing Tokaev (the president), and he called the Russians because he didn't trust his own men's loyalty. Russians were protecting some critical infrastructure (which never got attacked, so they didn't fight anyone) including president's headquarters (which was very, very far from the core of riots).
I don't know much about Kazakh politics, but having grown up in an autocratic country, I'd say having a sitting president agree to impose a one term limit is a Pretty Huge Deal.
It's just too often that what they say disagrees with what they do, and too often that they declare reforms. They promised the freedom of speech, and yet, right now, before the presidential elections, they try to shut the mouths of journalists who criticize them (typically, fabricating cases against them).
And, if you didn't know - the first thing Tokayev did in 2019 when Nazarbayev (the first president who ruled almost 30 years) handed the rein to him - is that he proposed to rename the Kazakhstani capital, Astana, to Nur-Sultan (Nazarbayev's first name). And of course, the Parliament unanimously supported the idea. Not a single member objected.
Few months ago it was "proposed" by someone from the Parliament (of course, not as an own initiative, hence quotes) to rename the capital back to Astana, and Tokayev supported. The parliament voted unanimously. Not a single member objected.
I do agree that things seem better in Kazakshtan now than they were even a decade ago, or even than they are now in most other post-Soviet countries. But it's still way too far...
i was born and raised in Kazakhstan, but left after high school. i've been following the situation in Kazakhstan and recent events give me a glimpse of hope.
Kazakhstan, just like any other post-soviet country, suffers from a host of problems inherited from the USSR, such as.
- corruption
- inefficient political system
- erased identity
- soviet mentality
in addition, our geopolitics is quite challenging. not only do we border 2 major powers that often in disputes over territories (Russia and China), but we're also a landlocked country heavily relying on the very same neighbours for exports. i'm not even talking about our water insecurity.
but we also got lucky in some ways.
- Kazakhstan is blessed with natural resources (such as oil), which helped us a lot throughout the early 2000s
- fertility rate is above replacement (2.6-2.9)
- we have direct access to some of the biggest markets (Russia, China)
- our borders were not chopped up to plant disputes with neighbours
in theory, if we play our cards right, we could come out on top. our population is around 19 million, so agriculture, mining and services alone should be enough to provide jobs. Kazakhstan is already moving in the right direction to facilitate business development (ranks 25 for easy doing business [1])
i've been following the youth of Kazakhstan and have to admit that they are way more patriotic and optimistic than my generation. they're fluent in Kazakh, open minded and more politically savvy. our culture is also flourishing (Kazakh songs consistently accumulate more views on youtube than the population of the country) and our national identity is strengthening.
i see there is some criticism over Tokayev's proposals and it's easy to be skeptical after 30 years of a repressive regime. however, i still dare to hope. prosperity is doable and we simply need a better government with a fair justice system and distributed power. if the government manages to stay away from people's business and just provide a solid platform for stable life, i think we can go far. this aligns with the "Just and Fair Kazakhstan" plan proposed by the president and i'm happy to see it.
I think even if he fails to implement a better, more balanced political system, it's still really good that they promote all these as good things. It contrasts with Russian official's rhetoric who give people bs about Russia's own special way with no democracy.
While the recent Tajikistan/Kyrgyzstan conflict is not one of "major powers" this line still felt ill-timed:
"Throughout our history — and particularly since our independence — we’ve always taken the view that disagreements with neighbors must be approached constructively, and they need not lead to a breakdown in communication, cooperation or trust.
As a result, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia more widely, provide a strong case study of major powers’ ability to work in alignment, in pursuit of their interests that are to the benefit of the region’s people. "
Easier said than done in the case of Kazakhstan, a country literally stuck between a very sharp rock (Russia) and a very hard place (China).
Also, re: doublespeak, in times of war ... it is a well known historical fact that both sides are deeply guilty of this specific sin (in times of war, the first victim is truth as the saying goes), so I'm not sure how what you're asking for is even possible.
Step 0: get all those tens (hundreds?) of thousands of mostly highly-educated professionals fleeing the military draft to Kazakhstan, Armenia and Georgia (mostly). Even though Russian government says IT workers are exempt, everyone that can flee the country and haven’t done that earlier, runs now. It could be a huge opportunity for these countries’ economies if managed well.
They are already doing that, they are pivoting to China, in 2023 they are leaving substitute of NATO in east, in which Russia plays a big role, they denied helping Russia with war in Ukraine and after newest China-Kazakhstan meeting it's obvious that China will be a new patron of Kazakhstan and also guarantee their territorial integrity.
Readit News
Most of my Kazakh friends were rooting for the rioters, wanting a more free Kazakhstan, while one friend close to the government was sharing government-sponsored propaganda against the rioters.
It's interesting to see the Kazakh president now take this stance and say all of this.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-59894266
In a video from January 5th, people can be seen snatching up rifles offloaded by a truck. Some were likely convinced on the spot to grab one of the firearms being handed out, but who was responsible for acquiring them?
At the point where rioters are being killed instead of merely arrested it's hard for me to look negatively at the rioters choosing to strike out with violence of their own. They aren't using the tools and backing of the state to oppress.
When there is a major protest that keeps the Police busy, criminals take the opportunity to loot stores while there is no law enforcement to stop them.
Dead Comment
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-57996373
What really happened is that Kazakh military did not want to obey the President orders when this chaos started. It's speculated that this was act of treason by some high officials in an attempt of coup. That's why Tokaev asked Russia to intervene. After Russia confirmed that they actually do support Tokaev with some symbolic forces sent, Kazakh military started to obey the orders and started to actually do what they must. That's my opinion.
First of all, it's not bad president against good protestors. There were actually two things going on on the streets: peaceful protestors with political and economical demands, and armed organized bandits/terrorists wreaking havoc and destabilising situation as much as they could.
The bandits were killing the police (also going to hospitals to finish any wounded police officers they could find), storming jails trying to set criminals free, burning government buildings, they gave fake calls to firefighters and killed the crews when those arrived.
I leave it to you to read up on who could be orchestrating the bandits. I suggest you focus on local (CIS-based, Russian speaking) news media and telegram channels for that. But one of the important hypotheses is that it was all made by the forces in power opposing Tokaev (the president), and he called the Russians because he didn't trust his own men's loyalty. Russians were protecting some critical infrastructure (which never got attacked, so they didn't fight anyone) including president's headquarters (which was very, very far from the core of riots).
And, if you didn't know - the first thing Tokayev did in 2019 when Nazarbayev (the first president who ruled almost 30 years) handed the rein to him - is that he proposed to rename the Kazakhstani capital, Astana, to Nur-Sultan (Nazarbayev's first name). And of course, the Parliament unanimously supported the idea. Not a single member objected.
Few months ago it was "proposed" by someone from the Parliament (of course, not as an own initiative, hence quotes) to rename the capital back to Astana, and Tokayev supported. The parliament voted unanimously. Not a single member objected.
I do agree that things seem better in Kazakshtan now than they were even a decade ago, or even than they are now in most other post-Soviet countries. But it's still way too far...
When providing such strong contrarian opinion, it is customary, or even expected to provide some sort of backing rationale ...
Kazakhstan, just like any other post-soviet country, suffers from a host of problems inherited from the USSR, such as.
- corruption
- inefficient political system
- erased identity
- soviet mentality
in addition, our geopolitics is quite challenging. not only do we border 2 major powers that often in disputes over territories (Russia and China), but we're also a landlocked country heavily relying on the very same neighbours for exports. i'm not even talking about our water insecurity.
but we also got lucky in some ways.
- Kazakhstan is blessed with natural resources (such as oil), which helped us a lot throughout the early 2000s
- fertility rate is above replacement (2.6-2.9)
- we have direct access to some of the biggest markets (Russia, China)
- our borders were not chopped up to plant disputes with neighbours
in theory, if we play our cards right, we could come out on top. our population is around 19 million, so agriculture, mining and services alone should be enough to provide jobs. Kazakhstan is already moving in the right direction to facilitate business development (ranks 25 for easy doing business [1])
i've been following the youth of Kazakhstan and have to admit that they are way more patriotic and optimistic than my generation. they're fluent in Kazakh, open minded and more politically savvy. our culture is also flourishing (Kazakh songs consistently accumulate more views on youtube than the population of the country) and our national identity is strengthening.
i see there is some criticism over Tokayev's proposals and it's easy to be skeptical after 30 years of a repressive regime. however, i still dare to hope. prosperity is doable and we simply need a better government with a fair justice system and distributed power. if the government manages to stay away from people's business and just provide a solid platform for stable life, i think we can go far. this aligns with the "Just and Fair Kazakhstan" plan proposed by the president and i'm happy to see it.
1. https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings
Nope, feels like bullshit.
"Throughout our history — and particularly since our independence — we’ve always taken the view that disagreements with neighbors must be approached constructively, and they need not lead to a breakdown in communication, cooperation or trust.
As a result, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia more widely, provide a strong case study of major powers’ ability to work in alignment, in pursuit of their interests that are to the benefit of the region’s people. "
Easier said than done in the case of Kazakhstan, a country literally stuck between a very sharp rock (Russia) and a very hard place (China).
Also, re: doublespeak, in times of war ... it is a well known historical fact that both sides are deeply guilty of this specific sin (in times of war, the first victim is truth as the saying goes), so I'm not sure how what you're asking for is even possible.
Look at the map, the only other border they have is with a litany of failed states with zero infrastructure or freedom.
[1] https://www.occrp.org/en/suisse-secrets/the-offshore-secrets...