Hacker News Reader

Comment by brnt | Hacker News Reader

It's very weird to see the President argue 'foreign interests' spark the unrest, and then promptly invites a foreign army to quell it. Who's falling for that?

View on HN

Foreign army in this context is just using a treaty you signed with an ally to request assistance.

It’s as “foreign” as any NATO country’s army to another.

> It’s as “foreign” as any NATO country’s army to another.

I don't believe your comparison is even remotely adequate.

Could you point out an example of a NATO member requesting a military intervention from another NATO member in their own country to respond to protests?

Because what we're seeing here is a blatant attempt by Russia to preserve Kazakhstan's regime by having foreign armed forces intervene against the nation's civilian population.

I think you are missing the point

I doubt OP is _condoning_ the CSTO troops (who are more than just russia) coming to the president's aid.

CSTO is not the same as NATO, but it is similar. There is a strategic alliance between Russia and the government of Kazakhstan. It is more than logical for the president to pull in troops to counteract their own troop's defection.

Its not morally correct, but entirely logical, which I think OP was trying to say.

> Could you point out an example of a NATO member requesting a military intervention from another NATO member in their own country to respond to protests?

The US militarily intervened in Europe 75 years ago and has bases in Germany, Italy etc. No need to have military come in for the first time since it is still there.

Italy had NATO violently suppressing protests in Italy for years with Gladio.

It'd be very strange if the French government asks Germany or Nato to quell the gilet-jaunes demo, wouldn't it?

Aren't most people from Kazakhstan pretty anti Russia?

Wouldn't this be more like Taiwan asking China to send in the army to help with a protest?

Or Iraq asking Iran?

And yet intelligence agencies routinely spy for one another to get around those pesky warrant and probable cause requirements.

It's almost like intelligence work and active military operations aren't the same thing...

Assistance against their own people. That's a big "nope".

Using the military against one's own people is already a "nope", getting foreign assistance sounds exactly like a foreign invasion.

Except that NATO countries are not run by tzars in their 70-ies whose only hope is to die quietly in bed, surrounded by elite killers.

I'm not a fan of NATO, but usually they are a bit more subtle than inviting each other to quell each other's rebellions.

>foreign interests

I think he meant the US

Well, given the US-Russia conflict over Ukraine, this conflict is awfully well-timed for the US.

Yes, it's that damn CIA who forced Nazarbayev to appoint his son as the head of the national gas company and then forced said son to raise the gas prices. Damn you, CIA! (shakes fist at sky)

Not everything in life is a conspiracy, and people often rebel spontaneously against their government. Not every revolution in a country ruled by Putin and Pals is waiting for The White House to give the green light.

Also, did the US tell the regime in Kazakhstan to raise oil prices? That was, obviously, not the people’s only grievance, but it was the spark that lead to the protests and rebellion.

The “US meddling” excuse is a tired cliche, and insulting to the people who put their lives on the line to fight oppressive, corrupt regimes.

> Also, did the US tell the regime in Kazakhstan to raise oil prices?

I don't know if they did, but it wouldn't exactly be out of character for the US to encourage a country to do market liberalization reforms.

I have not seen any evidence that they are directly behind it, but I am pretty sure that the various US services jump on oppurtunities as they see them. In particular in the former Soviet union.

Pray tell, what exactly happened on 6th of January outside the Capitol? Why some people are allowed to fight corruption, but others aren't?

Isn't the US lobiying another word for corruption?

That was another spontaneous rebellion. If anything it proves grandparent's point.

It was organized in advance on social media. Some people even had t-shirts printed. It may have been "headless", in that it's difficult to identify organizers, but it wasn't entirely spontaneous.

It remains an open question as to whether any of the posters on social media talking up the idea to protest at the capitol, or the mysterious person with the hoodie and bag of pipe bombs, were sponsored by overseas enemies of the US. There is as yet no hard evidence for this. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jan-mystery-pipe-bombs-night...

You have it backward. The January 6th Riot was not motivated by a desire to oust a dictator. At the time, Donald Trump was President, and he wanted to remain President despite losing the election.

As for corruption in the US, I acknowledge it, but it’s laughable to compare it to what happens in countries run by Putin and Pals. In Russia, Kazakhstan, Syria, etc. the people’s only choice is rebellion. In the US, we (still) have the ballot box.

There isn't a US-Russia conflict over Ukraine. US had no part of Ukraine's uprising. Late in the Trump presidency long after issues had settled, the US started getting involved with selling supplies.

This is very much untrue. The US began getting involved Ukraine the moment Russia began sowing discontent and violence in Ukraine - as early as 2012.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/us-ukraine-security-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to...

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/788874844/how-u-s-military-ai...

...and I won't get into the donations from Ukraine to the Clinton Foundation at the same time.

All but one of those articles is from well after 2012 (2019 and 2021). And the earliest one you linked is from 2014, from after the point even when Crimea was annexed. So your sources don't jive with your statement.

Absolutely agree. People are downvoting you, because they have problems contemplating that people from poor(er) countries have the ability to think for themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com