Truly bizarre to ask as the head of state for foreign military intervention in your own country to dump down civil protest. Almost like it’s just a russian puppet state
Understanding geopolitics is an exercise nuance. Kazakhstan has to deal with huge and strong foreign adversaries, and has no strong alliances, yet must protect distant cities which all border China, Russia, and central asian nations, with a large desert in the center. It is militarily indefensible and Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, and the US, all want Kazakhstan's resources and strategically located bases.
Contrary to your sentiment, Kazakhstan has been conducting de-Russianification with the deployment of language police to stop people from using Russian, and switching from the Cyrillic alphabet to the latin one.
Below is an excellent article describing all the different pressures on the country and how it tries to balance foreign influences.
https://globalcomment.com/is-russia-losing-or-tightening-its...
Interestingly, the most violent and organized protests are occurring in the South bordering China and Kyrgystan - a city which has people selling gov't subsidized cheap gas over the border in China on the black market for a 300% profit. That might be a big source for the organized violence. Curbing black market sales was the point of the change that sparked the unrest.
Regardless of the cause, it is likely Russia is going to capitalize on this turmoil and provide continuity for the current President, by extracting some allegiance.
This was actually revealed by the center-right government in Italy in 1990, because they were more scared of the US/NATO involvement in Italian domestic affairs, then their own left leaning working class.
The real terrorists are those who are using army against their own population. Neighboring Kyrgyzstan had multiple revolutions, too. And their army did the right thing every time by not getting involved (except the last one when Kremlin played its part).
You don't need all the "protesters" to be thugs. 1% is enough to make cities dangerous place for everyone, including other protesters.
You know nothing about the country or the people who live there or what exactly going on right now, but automatically side with one of the part of the conflict based on your feelings.
P.S. So funny, you complain you don't get the logic, and I get downvoted for explaining it, rather than calling names.
> A puppet state is a state that is de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power and subject to its orders.
Even though Kazakh president does become dependent on Russian forces to some degree, I don't see how 3000 soldiers can control a country with an army of 100,000, National guard of 32,000 and 86,000 policemen. It may give an upper hand, but against whom? There's even no organized opposition.
If you make paragons Czechoslovakia uprisings in 1968, then USSR sent 500,000 soldiers and 5,000 tanks in a 10 times smaller country.
So it was 3 orders of magnitude larger intervention than this.
Using a military treaty in case of a popular unrest may be illegitimate, but it's nowhere near a puppet state.
I suspect that the president has realised that the police and army are not entirely on his side, so is wanting to have some "loyal" troops to send round and kill the protestors, in a way that the domestic troops are less likely to.