Reason for protests in Kazakhstan

[rupol2000]

As practice has shown, the rise in gas prices was only a formal reason. The protests did not stop after the price freeze.

Rumor has it that the real reason is that "tycoon" Nazarbayev and his clan have seized all the levers of power and built a totalitarian society. What do you think about it?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

As practice has shown, the rise in gas prices was only a formal reason. The protests did not stop after the price freeze.

Rumor has it that the real reason is that "tycoon" Nazarbayev and his clan have seized all the levers of power and built a totalitarian society. What do you think about it?

They are as corrpt as fuck. But who cares ?

 

[Donald H]

As practice has shown, the rise in gas prices was only a formal reason. The protests did not stop after the price freeze.

Of course you have a good point there to consider.

Rumor has it that the real reason is that "tycoon" Nazarbayev and his clan have seized all the levers of power and built a totalitarian society. What do you think about it?

No, the point is that there is a struggle between Russia wanting to keep Kazakhstan within their sphere of influence and the US/Nato wanting to bring another country into the Nato fold. This is the same situation as in the Ukraine, only Russia has reacted proactively on Kazahkstan by sending in peacekeepers. Or probably more correctly, what is supposed to be seen as peacekeepers.

There's the real picture for you without coming to any conclusion on which side is right or wrong. I hope it can form the basis of a discussion?

 

[rupol2000]

Of course you have a good point there to consider.

No, the point is that there is a struggle between Russia wanting to keep Kazakhstan within their sphere of influence and the US/Nato wanting to bring another country into the Nato fold. This is the same situation as in the Ukraine, only Russia has reacted proactively on Kazahkstan by sending in peacekeepers. Or probably more correctly, what is supposed to be seen as peacekeepers.

There's the real picture for you without coming to any conclusion on which side is right or wrong. I hope it can form the basis of a discussion?

This reminds me of events during the Obama era. Then there were also many rumors that they wanted to strengthen NATO, but in fact they agreed to all the conditions of Moscow and canceled the deployment of missile defense in Europe.

 

[Donald H]

This reminds me of events during the Obama era. Then there were also many rumors that they wanted to strengthen NATO, but in fact they agreed to all the conditions of Moscow and canceled the deployment of missile defense in Europe.

Which country are you referring to and did Moscow not make concessions too? De-escalation and disarmament are good things.

Your comment reminds of the Cuba standoff that was portrayed as a US victory over the Soviets, when in fact it was Kruschev's victory over America's similar plan.

 

[rupol2000]

Which country are you referring to and did Moscow not make concessions too? De-escalation and disarmament are good things.

Your comment reminds of the Cuba standoff that was portrayed as a US victory over the Soviets, when in fact it was Kruschev's victory over America's similar plan.

When leftists get power in the United States, they start licking the ass of the Kremlin and Europe, while portraying a confrontation with Russia.

In the aftermath of the Cuban crisis, Khrushchev was swept away along with the American right.
After that, the era of drunken pigs began in Russia, and the era of acid pigs in the USA

 

[rupol2000]

Kruschev's victory

Khrushchev did not fight the United States until leftist Kennedy came.
The Americans greeted him with flowers and honors, and he was delighted with America.

He fought not with America, but with the left filth

 

[Donald H]

Khrushchev did not fight the United States until leftist Kennedy came.

No need to agree or disagree, your point is moot.
Did you have something to offer on the topic?

 

[rupol2000]

Did you have something to offer on the topic?

Probably these are riots initiated by the Kazakh authorities themselves with some secret purpose.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

As practice has shown, the rise in gas prices was only a formal reason. The protests did not stop after the price freeze.

Rumor has it that the real reason is that "tycoon" Nazarbayev and his clan have seized all the levers of power and built a totalitarian society. What do you think about it?

Neither Nazarbaev Nor Putin Will Be Defeated by the Weakling Treason of Rules of Engagement

Like the Arab Spring, it's a protest that appeals to the ignorant infidels which will soon be taken over by the Taliban and other jihadis.

 

[rupol2000]

The impetus to the start of the riots was a 2-fold increase in gas prices, and gas in Kazakhstan is under the control of the Nazarbayev clan. Therefore, it was he who provoked these unrest. This is logical

 

[rupol2000]

your point is moot.

This is not a point but a fact.

 

[rupol2000]

There is some information about the possible involvement of Nazarbayev in the pogroms in Alma-Ata.

(in Russian)

«РÐазаÑÑÑане Ð¸Ð´ÐµÑ ÑоÑг по Ð¿Ð¾Ð²Ð¾Ð´Ñ ÑемÑи ÐазаÑбаева»

Президент Казахстана Токаев заявил, что его страна пережила самый масштабный кризис за всю свою историю. По его словам, террористы попытались захватить власть в республике. Но пока официальная версия выглядит слишком абстрактной. Главный редактор информационного агентства «Фергана» Даниил Кислов...

www.mk.ru