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.
BTW I'm French and I'm used to this kind of rhetoric. Every time there's a demonstration (and we do a lot of them) the newspaper and "the other side" will use the minority of distractor to discredit the movement. It's so common I wish there was a name for this strategy. Perhaps we should call that a "misrepresenting minority fallacy".
I went to dozens of BLM protests in 2020, including the one in SoHo that got the most publicity. The number of looters from among the protestors rounds to zero.
It is sure easy to make political comments on countries that you know so little about, know no one from and have never been to. fyi, I am from Almaty and been in the city in January. Can you even imagine how it felt here, waking up from gunfire in the night, having no internet and mobile connection, no means of getting in touch with people you care about, wondering if tomorrow you will still have running water, electricity and heating? Exactly. This was no people's protest, but one of a small bunch of barbaric radicalists, a shock and a fever dream for all of the citizens of the country.
Yeah that's definitely what it was. I'm no westerner, so I know what this looks like and what local fascists interpret it as. Tell your stories to someone else.
Also, quoting your link:
"According to the Alma-Ata police, on the morning of January 6, dozens of rioters were killed during the storming of administrative buildings in the city and its environs."
The top comment implies that the protestors who demanded lower gas (propane, not gasoline) prices and later political reforms were the ones responsible for violence, or involved in it. There's plenty of evidence that this isn't the case.
People who started the violence were clearly trained for this and very organized, they were shooting police on the streets, looting firearm stores, giving away firearms to random people to encourage chaos. Also the government ordered police and SWAT teams to leave the cities for 1-2 days which hints at some officials being involved in this.
Russian army wasn't involved in fighting on the streets and certainly wasn't "killing" anyone. Russians were invited mainly for a political and morale effect.
I don't know what the top commenter was reading to get these conclusions, but they are clearly not representing any of the mainstream hypotheses explaining the events. I'm saying this as someone who has his family there when it happened and followed every single piece of news from there full time. And after everything was over I went there and talk to some people who witnessed the events.
> The top comment implies that the protestors who demanded lower gas (propane, not gasoline) prices and later political reforms were the ones responsible for violence, or involved in it.
What section are you refering to? Must have lost something
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.
Infrastructure in largest cities, especially Moscow, is world-class. The public transportation is (was?) one of the best globally, most services are digital, banking is very modern with good mobile apps and instantaneous operations. And I really miss the reliable centralized hot water supply and heating.
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.
Kazakhstan, paradoxically, as it stands today is the most successful and prosperous country of ex-USSR. Baltic states have larger GDP/person but also a slew of other issues.
I'd try to not ruin that when taking any reforms into account.
Good luck with the reform but without approval voting or similar electoral reform, they risk getting stuck with a polarized political system and electorate (much like the US now).
The bigger problem so far have been restrictions on which parties are allowed to run in the first place. (Hence Tokayev's statement that "We’re ushering in a new era of pluralism by abolishing constraints on the registration and formation of political parties.")
Yeah hence my original comment. Imho proportional rep doesn't actually solve the issue, it punts it towards the other end of the power spectrum where you get eternally deadlocked governments because no one has enough power to push through meaningful changes. Approval voting is the simplest way of fairly building that support base.
There is simply no viable alternative to globalization, interdependence and the international rules-based order
Sounds like the check cleared!
Really, though, it's just one paragraph after another of pablum. Does it amount to, "All our Uranium reserves belong to WEF!" Anyone know the real story? With this much avoiding-the-topic, there just has to be something nefarious going on.
I believe they want to signal to the rest of the world that they are still a stable alternative for western nuclear fuel buyers. Uranium is the spice, and the spice must flow. Of course they also export coal, gas and oil too.
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