By Nikolay Zamikula

Firstly, the protests in Kazakhstan are caused by socio-economic reasons.  The main cause was the sharp rise in fuel prices. However, the protests were further exacerbated by the long-standing contradictions on the basis of insufficient well-being of the population and a significant gap in income and living standards between ordinary people and a narrow circle of people controlling the state. 

In my view, the issue of turnover and renewal of power for Central Asian societies is rather peripheral. These principles are not the purpose of the political process (in this case, it is wrong to project a Western view of events without considering the specifics of the region). If the population feels that the regime in one or another way effectively works for people’s welfare, then they will not demand its change just because a leader has been running the country for a long time.

However, it seems that effective work was not observed in the case of Kazakhstan. Living conditions did not meet the standards and expectations although the country owned rich reserves of natural resources (which should have ensured adequate well-being).

The protests started in the Mangystau region in Western Kazakhstan, which is rich in uranium, oil, and gas. The population of that region sees the wealth of the country with their own eyes. However, they do not receive expected dividends in the form of higher living standards and increased income. In this context, rising fuel prices could be perceived as a kind of demonstrative defiance of the authorities for the interests of the ordinary people. The fact that even the increased price remained lower compared to other countries could not calm people.

Despite the existence of objective reasons for the protests, the possibility of their feeding and coordination from outside cannot be ruled out. Perhaps the unrest started as spontaneous protests and then were used by external forces. Or we are dealing with a special operation of hybrid influence aimed at destabilising Kazakhstan. In this case, the protests could initially have been organised by agents.

However, I do not see the western trace here. I doubt that the West has enough resources and influence in Kazakhstan to carry out such an operation. Central Asia is located between Russia and China, while the United States and Europe have limited access to the region. After the fiasco in Afghanistan, part of the Western political elite could well have developed a kind of "allergy" to Central Asian issues.

The destabilisation of Kazakhstan is not beneficial to the West. It does not bring any dividends. On the contrary, it opens up additional opportunities for other players.

In my opinion, if someone looks for those responsible for the crisis outside the borders of Kazakhstan, they will rather be the geopolitical opponents of the West - namely, the Russian Federation. Moscow is pursuing a course of revival of the Russian Empire / USSR in one or another form. Speaking about Russian expansionary policy, the first thing to remember is the aggression against Ukraine and the gradual absorption of Belarus. However, it should not be forgotten that Russia's plans are not limited to the western direction. And Kazakhstan may become their victim as well.

Without directly entering into confrontation with the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan nevertheless pursued a specific policy (especially an internal one), which did not always match Russia’s expectations. Alteration of the alphabet, the widespread promotion of the Kazakh language gradually created a threat to Russian influence in the long term. Under these conditions, Moscow could intensify its activities in this direction to suppress any tendencies towards the real sovereignization of Kazakhstan and its departure from the Russian geopolitical orbit.

Besides, it is necessary to note that Russia has special interests in Kazakhstan. The Baikonur cosmodrome and the Sary-Shagan training ground are objects of strategic importance for Moscow. Apart from that, the existence of a large Russian diaspora on the territory of Kazakhstan, especially in the northern regions of the state has a special role. For supporters of the Russian imperial idea, these territories are like an analog of Crimea.

The appeal of Kazakh President Tokayev for military assistance to the CSTO partners is obviously in the interests of Russia. It directly contradicts the interests of independent Kazakhstan. In fact, the Kazakh authorities acknowledged their inability to resolve the crisis on their own and turned to external forces to settle the problem. In my view, this is a betrayal to people and the state. If we accept this point of view, then Tokayev's initiative is a logical next step in terms of Russian involvement aimed at establishing control over Kazakhstan. 

It is not significant whether Tokayev was forced to do this or he was in collusion with the Kremlin. The main thing is the result, and it obviously threatens the real independence of Kazakhstan.

Speaking about the fact that peacekeepers from the Russian Federation and Belarus will soon arrive in Kazakhstan, it is doubtful that the situation in Kazakhstan objectively requires external intervention. In the end, if we talk about a popular protest, then it must be settled through an internal dialogue between the people and the authorities.

External forces among the protesters should be neutralised by the Kazakh security sector. They can take control of strategically important objects in Kazakhstan, as well as provide assistance in maintaining order in certain regions and cities (by the way, the very fact of the protest amid the temporary connivance of the Kazakh security forces also raises many questions).

However, no matter how their activities are disguised, the result is still the same. We are aware of the reputation of Russian "peacekeepers". Wherever they were located, nowhere did they act in the interests of the local population and did not work to stabilise the situation. This was the case in Georgia and Moldova. And on the territory of Azerbaijan, in Karabakh, the Russian contingent is not playing a positive role at all. In fact, they cover up the Armenian occupying forces and postpone the process of the final liberation of the region.

There are many options for the development of events. The majority of them lead to the weakening of Kazakhstan as an independent player. Considering its position in the region, it is an important result in itself, opening up direct or indirect opportunities for strengthening other players in Central Asia.

The best option for the development of events is to resolve the crisis without involving external forces. However, Tokayev's appeal to the CSTO practically excludes this option. The entry of the Russian contingent into the territory of Kazakhstan will mean the consolidation of Moscow in the region. This can bring about irrecoverable consequences. Moreover, I wouldn’t rule out the worst scenario - the split of the country and the possible annexation of the northern territories of Kazakhstan by Russia (under the guise of slogans "protecting the interests of the Russian population" and "ensuring stability").

These events may imply a negative meaning for the ideas of Turkic integration. Recently, work in this direction has intensified, and it also threatens Russian interests in the region. Kazakhstan plays a vital role in Turkic projects. However, its destabilisation by internal unrest and the possible establishment of Russian control significantly disrupts the processes of real unification of the Turkic World as a separate influential geopolitical player.

Nikolay Zamikula is a senior researcher at the National Institute for Strategic Studies of Ukraine.

AzVision.az

More about: