Experts - on the events in Kazakhstan: "Moscow put an end to the dual power"

The decision of the member countries of the CSTO to "help" Kazakhstan to suppress the wave of protests began to materialize. The media report that Belarus is sending 500 military personnel to Kazakhstan, Russia - 3000, Tajikistan - 200, Armenia - 70. But Kyrgyzstan has not yet decided whether to send military to Kazakhstan.

Meanwhile, analysts cannot come to a consensus about what exactly is happening in this country and who is behind it.

Sending CSTO troops will turn into disaster

For example, journalist Elmar Huseynov believes that when assessing these events, one should keep in mind:

1. The unrest in Kazakhstan is not the result of a showdown within the Kazakh authorities. The protests are aimed at the complete removal of the Nazarbayev elite from the leadership and financial flows.

2. President Tokayev is part of this elite. He will not agree with the protesters and will have to leave too. He was and remains a dependent figure.

3. With all the mass protests and the huge burden of people's dissatisfaction with the situation in the country, the unrest is based on the organizing actions of powerful forces in the non-Nazarbayev elite of Kazakhstani society.

4. These are certain people and certain clans. Inside Kazakhstan. They are clearly indicated by the very geography of the protests. They began and are most pronounced in the West of Kazakhstan and in Alma-Ata. Therefore, it is possible to say exactly who is behind the protests. Even give names.

5. Kazakhs will not suppress protests by force. Kazakhs will never shoot Kazakhs - not the right people. I mean not only national psychology, but also the organization, the structure of the nation.

6. Any outside intervention - Russia or the CSTO (which is Russia) - will lead to a full-scale colonial war that the invading forces will quickly lose. The result will be disaster for those who dispatch these forces.

7. China will not allow an invasion.

8. Russia needs to grit its teeth and be silent. There is nothing for Russia in Kazakhstan.

9. The level of Russian analysts in Kazakhstan - public analytics - is negligible ... "

Kazakhs will see occupiers in Russian soldiers

Russian politician Leonid Gozman urged compatriots to think about how the decision to send CSTO troops to neighboring Kazakhstan will affect them:

“Inviting foreign troops to fight against their people, in my opinion, is treason to the Motherland.

But with President Tokayev, who made such a request to the CSTO states, and in fact to Russia, let them figure it out in Kazakhstan.

I'm talking about us. What will be the consequences for us of the participation of our fellow citizens in the suppression of protests in Kazakhstan?

1. The protests in Kazakhstan do not threaten Russia in any way, but, perhaps, pose a threat to the power of our current rulers.

This means that our soldiers will not defend the Motherland there, not its security, but, at best, the regime existing in Russia today. It is not the same.

2. Our soldiers will be seen there as invaders, which means that they will die there - Kazakhstanis will resist.

Remember that it was there that in modern times there was an uprising against the USSR, which Moscow suppressed with troops.

3. Part of the military of Kazakhstan will go over to the side of the Resistance.

Someone, without doing this openly, will help with arms and money. The number of victims will increase.

4. Our soldiers will kill there, even if they shoot back.

This will increase hatred for our country and for all of us. And people with the experience of murder will return to us.

5. Our leadership, frightened by what is happening in Kazakhstan, will tighten the screws and toughen up domestic policy.

However, you probably needn't worry about this - they are doing everything possible in this direction. It won't get much worse, but new arrests are inevitable ... "

For 30 years, 95% have been drawing to the only candidate, so no one knows what the people are dissatisfied with

Sociologist Konstantin Sonin sees no political representation in this protest:

"1956-1968-1979-1981 -...

Everywhere, analogies are mentioned with 1956, when Russian (Soviet) troops entered Budapest, and with 1968, when the same troops (formally, the troops of the Warsaw Pact countries) were brought into Prague. You can also remember 1979, when our troops replaced one Afghan dictator with another, and as a result were forced to take the Kabul leadership under their wing for eight long years. Finally, in 1981, the Polish leadership introduced martial law, fearing an invasion of Russian troops to "restore order."

Meanwhile, there is no particular analogy in all these events with the current Kazakh crisis. In all previous cases, there was a clear and deep "elite split" in the countries-victims of interventions. In Hungary, the communist reformers have just replaced the Stalinists. As a result of the introduction of troops, the reform course aimed at radical de-Stalinization and restoration of the market economy was abandoned, but the leadership remained largely the same. Politically, Nagy (deposed during the invasion) and Kadar (brought to power) were one and the same.

Likewise, in Czechoslovakia-1968, the introduction of troops stopped the reforms of the previous years and led to some change at the top, but this was again a course correction while representatives of the same forces retained power. Those in the leadership of Czechoslovakia who actively advocated the introduction of troops did not come to power. And, of course, in both cases there was NO legitimate government that "requested" the invasion - in both cases the troops were brought in against the will of the top leadership of the countries.

So far, something completely different is happening in Kazakhstan. No split of the elites, whatever that means, is taking place, and no political alternative to the "nominal successor" Tokayev has yet been observed. Analogous to the invasions of 1956 and 1968 (and the non-occurring 1981) would be the introduction of troops at the request of the "Nazarbayev heirs" to stop "Tokayev's reforms." But none of this is in sight.

You can, of course, think of that Tokayev's appeal to the CSTO (to Russia) for help is a "turn to Moscow," that is, a break with Nazarbayev's course, which has always been about building an independent nation. But it is impossible to imagine that this, the renunciation of the sovereignty that has been built for so many years, was an elite consensus ... That is, to draw an analogy with 1956 or 1968, you still need some very specific interpretation of events. This is not to mention the fact that the policy pursued by the Hungarian reformers in 1956 and the Czechoslovak reformers in 1968 was directed against socialism and against Russian control, and there is nothing connected with Russia either in the course of the government or in the protests.

I do not say - and I specifically emphasize this - that I understand well what is happening there in Kazakhstan. If you paint 95% of the only candidate in elections for thirty years, no one knows exactly what people are unhappy with. But the fact is that this protest has no political representation at all and no one is trying to become such a representative ... "

Unlike archaic Belarus, Kazakhstan still has a chance for the future

Political scientist Alexander Morozov leaves a chance to President Tokayev

They write that Tokayev insidiously removed Nazarbayev from the post of head of the Security Council. In my opinion, on the contrary, in agreement with Nazarbayev, he removed him from responsibility for further bloodshed, keeping Nazarbayev as a "great elder over the battle." And the fact that Nazarbayev does not make any public statements confirms this.

The blind continue to stupidly oppose the Belarusians who "took off their shoes" to the Kazakhs who "successfully defeated everything." Unfortunately, no matter how many political analysts explain that the victory of the Maidan in Ukraine was an accident caused by the flight of Yanukovych, and that the street violence in most of such uprisings in the last decade ended only in the establishment of control by the military, and after that, the restoration of the same governance practices. as before, many in our lands, unfortunately, continue to think no further than "burning tires." And no comparative political science is able to open their eyes. It is salutary that the Belarusians did not burn anything and did not storm anything with fittings.

Although everything instantly cleared to zero on January 5 in connection with the introduction of the CSTO troops, one must still remember: Tokayev was "the president of modernization and the expected reforms." Will he still be able to return to the "pre-insurrection" situation? Now it’s very hard. Because all the balances have been destroyed, and the expectations of the population have fallen off the brakes. However, one should proceed from the fact that Tokayev would like to be not an "archaic dictator", but a "president of the XXI century", i.e. hello Singapore and Malaysia. And unlike Belarus, where Lukashenka is a "deaf archaic", the Kazakh society may retain the opportunity after the state of emergency ends on January 19 and the ODBK contingent leaves (or even remains, it's not so important) to participate in open elections. I would not rule it out. Now, if the uprising ended immediately as in Egypt or Burma, i.e. immediately the transfer of power into the hands of the Kazakh military and the conditional "minister of defense" or "head of the general staff" - then - yes - the end of all modernization. But I would give Tokayev a chance (analytically).

It must be remembered that this is a terrible event. This uprising is not a harbinger of "democratization", not part of the "fourth wave" (in the theories of democratization). This event is more likely in the series of "expectations of a war in Eurasia", expectations of a further catastrophic collapse of everything and "a war of all against all." And now it is impossible to say: the Kremlin receives bonuses from this, or it rolls along with the whole situation in Eurasia - further into the same black funnel into which it was opened by the annexation of Crimea ... "

It was a special operation, as a result of which Kazakhstan ceased to be a country for them. Nazarbayeva

Political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky believes that these events could have been provoked by the Kremlin:

The whole big meaning of the Kazakh drama on January 5, 2022 became clear in less than 24 hours.

What was it?

Quite possibly - a special operation by the Kremlin to transform the Republic of Kazakhstan into an unambiguous military-political satellite of the Russian Federation. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, is firmly considered a master of special operations - and by no means a great one.