The State of Affairs in Russia

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Hi Gaijin

So what's the general perspective inside Russia on... *gestures vaguely*... all of this....

Kazakhstan, Ukraine, relations with Europe and the US?

Actually... are you in Russia these days?

Hi there Jacob! Nah, I'm in Switzerland these days. Haven't been back to Russia or Japan (which feels more "home") for almost 3 years.

As for the general feeling in Russia, I guess most people watch this latest bout of hysteria with a sort of weary amusement. On one hand, it's not worth more than a couple of sarcastic jokes. On the other hand, they're ready to stand up and fight if the "collective West" loses its marbles and lashes out Kazakhstan is a good example of this, it took only 3 days for the Collective Security forces to move in to stop the violence.

That's just my reading, I could be wrong. *shrug*

[Tamas]

I don't seek to idolise the individual protesters fighting the police, in every revolution/coup/whatever violent scum will always be on the forefront. But consequently, their behaviour cannot be used to judge the validity of the levels of desperation driving a populace to such resistance.

e.g. in Budapest in 1956, plenty of far-right people fought side-by-side with the liberal/moderate left youth against the occupiers and their client regime. No doubt if they had won they would had become fierce rivals (considering all the guns, possibly even enemies) of each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the revolution was for a good cause and it was because of an entire nation pushed to the limit of what it can take.

To me its quite clear a lot of resentment had to boil under the surface in Kazakhstan for this to happen. And the swift "help" of the alliance is no surprise. It's been Russian policy to squash rebellions that could give their own people ideas quickly and forcefully for over a 100 years. (Coming in and defeating freshly independent Hungary in 1849, jumps to mind, not to mention 1956 or 1968).

[Sheilbh]

What the hell is up with the high gas prices at the moment anyway? Quite the big political issue in the UK too right now.

It's a global thing as the fact that it's an issue in the UK and continental Europe shows because I think we've got a slightly more diversified supply than most of Europe (more Norway, domestic production and Gulf States) - so it's not just a Russia thing. It's not clear that Russia is using the "gas weapon" either. The amount of gas flowing to Europe has been low but my understanding is Russia has needed to rebuild domestic stocks at the same time. Prices are now high enough in Europe that US LNG ships are on their way because it's a better deal than Asia.

The big thing driving it, from what I've read, is demand in Asia and the global economy recovering from covid. And I think there's a lot to Adam Tooze's points on the China shock element of various factors specific to China driving very high demand and that we're now in a world where China is the whale when it comes to energy demand so even small shifts in their market will have global effects. Europe is competing with North-East Asia for the same imports (gas supplies to South Asia, Latin America or non gas producing Middle Eastern states have fallen dramatically). And gas storage in Asia is even lower than in Europe so I suspect it'll be quite bumpy - I also think the bumpiness is going to be an inevitable part of energy transition because it's easy to produce more capacity for fossil fuels and fossil fuel power than there is demand, that's what we did in the 20th century. It's going to be very difficult to calibrate winding it down with eventual falling demand so there's no gaps and I think it's more likely we'll see periods like this of price spikes etc.

Welcome back Gaijin!

[Solmyr]

One analysis I've read talks about how as a result of the protests, Nazarbayev has been removed from his position as "lifetime" head of security council, which was supposed to be his way of staying in power indefinitely after leaving the Presidency. Putin will learn from this, which means that a) repressions will become even harder in the coming year, and b) any talk of a successor will now be shelved, because no successor could provide Putin a 100% guarantee that he won't be touched. Furthermore, anyone who even looks like a potential successor is in danger of being "cleansed".

[jimmy olsen]

What the hell is up with the high gas prices at the moment anyway? Quite the big political issue in the UK too right now.

I read that 20% of the world's crypto mining occurs in Kazakhstan and that has jacked up the energy prices

[Gaijin de Moscu]

I don't seek to idolise the individual protesters fighting the police, in every revolution/coup/whatever violent scum will always be on the forefront. But consequently, their behaviour cannot be used to judge the validity of the levels of desperation driving a populace to such resistance.

e.g. in Budapest in 1956, plenty of far-right people fought side-by-side with the liberal/moderate left youth against the occupiers and their client regime. No doubt if they had won they would had become fierce rivals (considering all the guns, possibly even enemies) of each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the revolution was for a good cause and it was because of an entire nation pushed to the limit of what it can take.

To me its quite clear a lot of resentment had to boil under the surface in Kazakhstan for this to happen. And the swift "help" of the alliance is no surprise. It's been Russian policy to squash rebellions that could give their own people ideas quickly and forcefully for over a 100 years. (Coming in and defeating freshly independent Hungary in 1849, jumps to mind, not to mention 1956 or 1968).

Yeah, I see where you're coming from and I share some of your thoughts.

I'd disagree on a couple of points, though.

First, Putin doesn't need to "prevent his own people from having ideas." All we need to do is look at Georgia and Ukraine to see the result of these "peaceful protests": civil war, poverty, mass emigration, broken country with powerless government. So the Russians have been well vaccinated against wanting to overthrow their own government.

Second, while the protests in Kazakhstan did start peacefully, they escalated to murderous violence almost overnight. You see, the local government has accepted the initial demands to lower the gas prices and even resigned. So the peaceful protesters (without quotation marks) have disbanded. What came in their stead were the well armed militants.

Here's a typical story of a well-meaning protester. She's a beauty blogger and she owns a jewellery store. When the protests began, she supported them with her reputation, drove the protesters around in her car, brought food and water to them. In "fucking gratitude" (her words), the militants looted her store, burned and destroyed all the businesses around. She says "the city is fucked." She's now understandably bitter:

https://youtu.be/_4f_2bpiTR8

(Video is in Russian, sorry, but the visuals are telling).

As such, the Security operation is a purely anti-terrorist one.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

What the hell is up with the high gas prices at the moment anyway? Quite the big political issue in the UK too right now.

I read that 20% of the world's crypto mining occurs in Kazakhstan and that has jacked up the energy prices

Yeah, good time to load up on crypto now

[jimmy olsen]

I whatever violent scum will always be on the forefront. But consequently, their behaviour cannot be used to judge the validity of the levels of desperation driving a populace to such resistance.

e.g. in Budapest in 1956, plenty of far-right people fought side-by-side with the liberal/moderate left youth against the occupiers and their client regime. No doubt if they had won they would had become fierce rivals (considering all the guns, possibly even enemies) of each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the revolution was for a good cause and it was because of an entire nation pushed to the limit of what it can take.

To me its quite clear a lot of resentment had to boil under the surface in Kazakhstan for this to happen. And the swift "help" of the alliance is no surprise. It's been Russian policy to squash rebellions that could give their own people ideas quickly and forcefully for over a 100 years. (Coming in and defeating freshly independent Hungary in 1849, jumps to mind, not to mention 1956 or 1968).

First, Putin doesn't need to "prevent his own people from having ideas." All we need to do is look at Georgia and Ukraine to see the result of these "peaceful protests": civil war, poverty, mass emigration, broken country with powerless government. So the Russians have been well vaccinated against wanting to overthrow their own government.

So because revolutions are messy and violent, people should just never rebel against the government?

People don't rebel because they're bored. They rebel because there are systematic problems in society that cannot be solved while working within the system. 

Do revolutions often fail to fix those systematic probelms? Yes, but saying that becasue of that people should nrver try and give up to accept their shitty lot in life is nihilistic in the extreme.

[Tamas]

I don't seek to idolise the individual protesters fighting the police, in every revolution/coup/whatever violent scum will always be on the forefront. But consequently, their behaviour cannot be used to judge the validity of the levels of desperation driving a populace to such resistance.

e.g. in Budapest in 1956, plenty of far-right people fought side-by-side with the liberal/moderate left youth against the occupiers and their client regime. No doubt if they had won they would had become fierce rivals (considering all the guns, possibly even enemies) of each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the revolution was for a good cause and it was because of an entire nation pushed to the limit of what it can take.

To me its quite clear a lot of resentment had to boil under the surface in Kazakhstan for this to happen. And the swift "help" of the alliance is no surprise. It's been Russian policy to squash rebellions that could give their own people ideas quickly and forcefully for over a 100 years. (Coming in and defeating freshly independent Hungary in 1849, jumps to mind, not to mention 1956 or 1968).

Yeah, I see where you're coming from and I share some of your thoughts.

I'd disagree on a couple of points, though.

First, Putin doesn't need to "prevent his own people from having ideas." All we need to do is look at Georgia and Ukraine to see the result of these "peaceful protests": civil war, poverty, mass emigration, broken country with powerless government. So the Russians have been well vaccinated against wanting to overthrow their own government.



https://youtu.be/_4f_2bpiTR8

(Video is in Russian, sorry, but the visuals are telling).

As such, the Security operation is a purely anti-terrorist one.

Yeah, but what you are doing I think is comparing the same system in collapsed states vs a not-yet collapsed state with the same system.

Most people are quite ok indeed to make their peace with autocratic regimes (which often turn out to be kleptocracies especially in the East where that sort of feudalism has a long history) in exchange of relative stability, not too overt regime meddling in their daily lives, and assuredly getting back some scraps of the meat stolen from them. Especially if the only way to get rid of said regime is via violence. That definitely was the unsaid compromise between regime and people in post-1956 Hungary, seems to be the same unsaid deal in Russia, and I am quite convinced neither Ukrainians nor Kazakhs have less tolerance for having humiliating feudal overlords than Russians and Hungarians do.

For such strong revolutions/unrest you need that unsaid deal to break down, usually by the economic aspect (stability of subsistence) failing. That's nothing new, that's how peasant rebellions in the middle ages happened as well.

There are no non-violent ways left open in these countries (Kazakhstan, Russia, and I'd assume the other members of the intervening alliance) for regime change, so the only question is what will be the boiling point where people feel like they can risk protesting and pushing for regime change by violence.

Even if Russia is stable at the moment, the Kazakhstan way of getting rid of a hated regime cannot be shown as viable. I am sure there are "geopolitical" reasons for Russia intervening as well (oligarchs must have business interests there which would be up to redistribution if the revolution succeeded), but as I said Russia stepping in to maintain legitimacy of their own regime is just such a historically standard SOP for them, it's hard not to see it into this one.


EDIT: Timmy said largely the same thing just better.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

So because revolutions are messy and violent, people should just never rebel against the government?

People don't rebel because they're bored. They rebel because there are systematic problems in society that cannot be solved while working within the system. 

Do revolutions often fail to fix those systematic probelms? Yes, but saying that becasue of that people should nrver try and give up to accept their shitty lot in life is nihilistic in the extreme.
[/quote]

Do you honestly believe what's happening in Kazakhstan now is a "revolution"?

My country (Russia) has had more than a fair share of revolutions. We know what happens every time: a hostile force such as communists or nationalists intercepts the agenda. Life ALWAYS worsens after a revolution. It's just a fact... at least for my country. So we've had enough.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from and I share some of your thoughts.

I'd disagree on a couple of points, though.

First, Putin doesn't need to "prevent his own people from having ideas." All we need to do is look at Georgia and Ukraine to see the result of these "peaceful protests": civil war, poverty, mass emigration, broken country with powerless government. So the Russians have been well vaccinated against wanting to overthrow their own government.

Although, from what I've read, the big fear/thing Putin and his circle want to prevent is a situation where they are facing their own colour revolution. For example, if the election results have to be very noticeably falsified and that provokes mass protests (and they've had some tasters) because there is a body of the discontented with the system in Russia.

I think the Putin wanting to stop people form having ideas has probably two sides which are whether they can improve living standards again which is the big issue because it's stagnated for the last few years. The other is how they manage the party system of an opposition that is legitimate enough to be credible, but not enough to represent a real threat - my understanding is the perception of that has declined in recent years.

But I don't think that's linked to this type of intervention - or the one in Belarus or the one in Syria - I think those are driven by an autocratic state that is close to Russia being pushed. Russia has then been able to intervene in quite a low-cost way to buttress that regime, which ties them closer to Russia and increases its influence - possibly at the expense of internal legitimacy which acts to drive them even closer to Russia. In the long run I'd suggest this might end up pushing those states away from Russia because they're associated with propping up what are seen as illegitimate regimes - see Ukraine.

Second, while the protests in Kazakhstan did start peacefully, they escalated to murderous violence almost overnight. You see, the local government has accepted the initial demands to lower the gas prices and even resigned. So the peaceful protesters (without quotation marks) have disbanded. What came in their stead were the well armed militants.

Here's a typical story of a well-meaning protester. She's a beauty blogger and she owns a jewellery store. When the protests began, she supported them with her reputation, drove the protesters around in her car, brought food and water to them. In "fucking gratitude" (her words), the militants looted her store, burned and destroyed all the businesses around. She says "the city is fucked." She's now understandably bitter:

https://youtu.be/_4f_2bpiTR8

(Video is in Russian, sorry, but the visuals are telling).

As such, the Security operation is a purely anti-terrorist one.

Although I think that is a common narrative around all protests that either challenge or get rid of state/police power. That typical story for example was one we also saw in BLM protests (as is the idea which I'm not sure about of it moving from well-meaning peaceful protesters to organised groups) - all of that is stuff we saw especially in the right-wing media in the US.

I think the two complications is that there have also been over 20 deaths among protesters and thousands have been detained (I believe three thousand was the last estimate) - I'm not sure of the timing on that but deaths and mass detention can be something that changes the mood of a protests like a switch. The other thing is I wonder if there is a bit of a class element here - these are not and have never been student protests from what I've read. From my understanding they started with miners and oil workers who are - bluntly - probably a little bit more robust and willing to fight the police than students, but also more likely to be organised and have their own networks either through unions or work. My instinct would be that any protest that's led by workers like that is more likely to have violence and confrontation than, say, student/middle class protests.

For such strong revolutions/unrest you need that unsaid deal to break down, usually by the economic aspect (stability of subsistence) failing. That's nothing new, that's how peasant rebellions in the middle ages happened as well.

Also the French revolution, 1848, the 1905 and 1979 revolutions in Iran and arguably the Arab Spring. There are loads of protests/revolutionary moments prompted by food prices especially but also fuel, sustenance etc. There's areas of the world where the main thing the state provides is subsidies so that their people can have enough food, fuel etc.

I don't think it's inevitable but I think it is a really important factor - and in the last year as the economy bounces back from covid we're seeing global inflation, spikes in eneregy costs and, I believe, for many staples the highest food prices in decades. So it wouldn't surprise me if we see more protests or possible revolutions elsewhere in the world. They might take a different form than in Kazakhstan but I'd be surprised if this is the last outbreak in 2022.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Yeah, but what you are doing I think is comparing the same system in collapsed states vs a not-yet collapsed state with the same system.

Most people are quite ok indeed to make their peace with autocratic regimes (which often turn out to be kleptocracies especially in the East where that sort of feudalism has a long history) in exchange of relative stability, not too overt regime meddling in their daily lives, and assuredly getting back some scraps of the meat stolen from them. Especially if the only way to get rid of said regime is via violence. That definitely was the unsaid compromise between regime and people in post-1956 Hungary, seems to be the same unsaid deal in Russia, and I am quite convinced neither Ukrainians nor Kazakhs have less tolerance for having humiliating feudal overlords than Russians and Hungarians do.

For such strong revolutions/unrest you need that unsaid deal to break down, usually by the economic aspect (stability of subsistence) failing. That's nothing new, that's how peasant rebellions in the middle ages happened as well.

There are no non-violent ways left open in these countries (Kazakhstan, Russia, and I'd assume the other members of the intervening alliance) for regime change, so the only question is what will be the boiling point where people feel like they can risk protesting and pushing for regime change by violence.

Even if Russia is stable at the moment, the Kazakhstan way of getting rid of a hated regime cannot be shown as viable. I am sure there are "geopolitical" reasons for Russia intervening as well (oligarchs must have business interests there which would be up to redistribution if the revolution succeeded), but as I said Russia stepping in to maintain legitimacy of their own regime is just such a historically standard SOP for them, it's hard not to see it into this one.


EDIT: Timmy said largely the same thing just better.

I would suggest that what's happening now in Kazakhstan is not a "revolution against a hated regime", but an internal strife between three Kazakh Hordes (Zhuz's) fuelled by external militant forces who are explicitly anti-Russian.

The legitimate agenda of the original protests has been discarded and forgotten. Now it's an anti-terrorist operation against armed insurgents, not all of them local.

The South, traditionally, is a weak underbelly of Russia's security. To call this (unsuccessful) takeover attempt a revolution against the current regime... it amuses me

[Gaijin de Moscu]

... lots of good content - removed for brevity...

I agree with a lot of what you say.

I'll just add that the gun violence seems to originate from the insurgents, in Kazakhstan's case. They killed at least 18 policemen and wounded several hundred. The losses from looting are estimated to be US$ 100 million - not much for a European country or for the US, but a lot for Kazakhstan.

Real gunfights took place in the cities. Some of the murdered policemen have been beheaded, some were "finished off" with wooden spears.

It's no surprise that dozens of insurgents have been also shot dead. Would a Western country react differently?

[Tamas]

Gaijin, so as I understand what you are claiming is that the civilian protesters largely concluded it was mission completed when the gas subsidies were restored and went home, but armed tribe militias reinforced by foreign agents remained on the streets to stage a coup?

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Gaijin, so as I understand what you are claiming is that the civilian protesters largely concluded it was mission completed when the gas subsidies were restored and went home, but armed tribe militias reinforced by foreign agents remained on the streets to stage a coup?

That's one possible scenario, yes. I believe it's the most likely one, but I could be wrong.

We don't have enough info to conclude anything yet.