Kazakh president gives shoot-to-kill order to quell protests
reuters.com
reuters.com
[1]: https://netblocks.org/reports/internet-disrupted-in-kazakhst...
Violent protests had already been going on for some time. At that point the elected Ukrainian government had already been overthrown https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
The degree of Russian influence, compared to the degree of civil unrest naturally caused by the events in the capital is debatable, especially given spreading rumors of neo-nazis involved.
Given that the "Azov Battalion" is a thing and thus the rumors were somewhat true, it seems that Russia barely had any job to do to tip the scale
Like it or not, Azov Battalion is partially responsible for why Ukraine still has as much territory as it does.
...is simply because they are the most evident and universally recognized symbol of influence of neo-nazism on modern Ukraine's politics.
> Like it or not, Azov Battalion is partially responsible for why Ukraine still has as much territory as it does.
I mean, good for them! Not even sure why you call them and their ideology "pathetic". Millitary-wise, it's a great feat, real-world nazis were also quite efficient. It's just that it is still an evidence of what kind of sentiments are a driving force of post-coup Ukraininan government, which gives a rather clear answer to the question of whether Russia needed to do much (or anything at all) for enough people to turn against new government. As simple as that.
>Not even sure why you call them and their ideology "pathetic"
I called their ideology pathetic, not their fighting force. Their fighting force is commendable.
Erm, no, what specific Russia's action do you have in mind? I am not really sure what you are saying, but it seems completely out of touch with what I meant and the topic generally.
You are missing the point here, Azov is just an undeniable universal evidence of Ukraine's government being in bed with neo-nazis and it's a sentiment enough for people to disaprove and rally against, nothing more is implied here. I could just as well use the examle of language policy, or openly prasing nazi collaborators, or like how the Ukraine voted against heroisation of facism in the UN. But none of this is as simple to google and go "holy shit, how is this a thing?" as Azov, that's all.
What is the base of that assertion?
Also, it seems to me that good old, practically a hundred years old meme based, "left-right" model is not really applicable to CIS countries. Nazism and it's symbolics has kind of a very specific set of connotations, at least in eastern slavic culture.
Though we can enjoy diving in moral and statistical relativism, it seems to me that openly endorsing neo-nazism on a governmental level, up to using nazi symbolics in heraldics, is a red flag that is pretty hard to challenge in it's groutesque. Besides, it's not like "Azov" is an isolated incident, just something more flashing. The issue of language is another great thorn, but you really need to understand the context and the sentiment.
In any case, we digress. It's not like this is the issue of Russian armed forces, it's an issue of what and why served as the catalyst for some people not to accept the new government, after the previous one was overthrown.
Besides, the way it was handled is what really sealed the deal. E.g I have a video of this event https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/europe/ukraine-luha... and it's a bloody mess of screaming, blood and just looks like a terrorist attack. This one actually also gives an interesting angle to the MH17 disaster, which happened just after that air strike. In fact, the more I look at the dates, the more I wonder how the hell did the Ukraininan government conduct air-bound military operations on some territory, but still direct civillian planes over this territory.
Russia has a long history of dealing with rebellions and uprisings. Protecting civilians has never been a priority as far as I am aware, and actively harming civilians has been a goal at times.
Also, no idea where you got that "long history of dealing with rebellions and uprisings", Russian attitude to riots is very specific and history counts only really a few and only bright moments.
Russians don't even have a culture of riot police, just look at all their protest! Putin forces his servicemen to use use brute force and rubber battons, instead of proper tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons, such as you would see in any developed first-world country.
The difference is that the current government is undemocratic, though “legal”, not a new entity.
Kazakhstan and Russia governments want to end this the faster way possible to avoid another Ukraine situation [1]. They will remove everything, Internet, electricity to calm things down.
The thing that ignited this massive protest was that fuel subsidies were being removed [2]. But they were extended again after this humongous backslash [3]. Still, subsidizing energy is not a good idea when your country economy can't afford it.
I hope this tragic situation gets solved with the least deaths possible (since peacefully sounds unfeasible now).
[1] Since 2014, one region is part of Russia (Crimea) and 2 of them are under rebel army control (Donetsk and Lugansk). [2] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/kazakhstan-remin... [3] https://www.yahoo.com/now/kazakhstan-unrest-government-resto...
Smuggling and deploying fakes have their own problems. I'd also propose optical channel - with its own pro and contras - or means to cheaply manufacture receivers. It's a big discussion.
History teaches that revolution is paid in blood, every time. It's quite naive and first-world to assume any extreme political change can be done peacefully.
You need blood to create democracy, and you need blood to tear it down.
I am not making any moral judgements either about Kazakstan or January 6th, just an observation on context and how it affects our perception.
Please do not use my words to mark me as a, and I quote, supporter of the storming of the Capitol. It is not appreciated, and your comment sounds like flame bait.
For what is worth I agree with your observation on history.
Really makes you think how stretchable the images of "peaceful protestors" and "dangerous terrorists" can get.
Says who?
> but thugs who use firearms against police, and raid armory's are simply "protestors".
Says who? Those who defend against Kazakh police following a shoot to kill order, I'd call them a hero.
Says CNN and all the opened domestic terrorism cases https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/jason-crow-army-...
> Says who?
Says Reuters, trying to depict common thugs as "protestors".
> defend against Kazakh police following a shoot to kill order
Oh please, stop lionising common armed thugs. They are not "defending", they are THE cause and the target of a shoot to kill order. There are already 19 from "MVD" reported dead. A shoot to kill order would be implied by default in any developed country, as soon as the first serviceman was wounded, especially with a firearm. It's surprising that the government did not respond properly and in time.
Yes I'm aware tyrants don't like it when you fight back.
Look, I get that you don't take this seriously (why would you, this is just another fun "good folk fighting back against tyrants" narrative for you), but lionising every random psycho shooter, who decided that he is now sovereign and can direct his wrath to fellow human beings, who happen to be in a uniform, is just something really out there. Bet Breivik is your hero.
No, I simply don't have a dystopian view.
So, "Putin and Pals" live in the West? Ayy, lmao.
As for Kazakhstan, well there’s Chinese, Russian, Turkey and even British as foreign elements. IMO the more plausible reason was the president (Mr Tokaev, aka Number 2 in power) ousting the “Kolbasy” (Mr Nursumbaev, aka First President) who expected the power sharing agreement to give him and his family both protection and relevance over politics forever.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency
Of course, it's an entirely unrelated fact that the collapse of the most recent Russian autocratic empire generated a crop of ethno-national, authoritarian kleptocracies in each polity that failed (...wonder why?) to join the Western alliance yet escaped complete vassalage to Moscow.
Unrelated I tell you! All nations have people who have grievances! If the FSB were as evil as the CIA, Canada would be rioting right now!
...Sure, I guess, the CIA could have "instigated" these riots, or acted to exacerbate factionalism within the oligarchy. I doubt it, but I can't deny that a competent intelligence agency could do so. Could do so because the people who "have grievances" are genuinely oppressed: they want freedom, they envy the wealth and liberation of the West. And "they" means a huge majority - not an interest group with a petty grievance, but a _generation_ with a despair of the future.
Shitty oppressive evil kingdoms are doomed to fail (one hopes: god help humanity if they figure out how to be stable in perpetuity - none have yet). If the CIA gives them a shove, good for them, means the USA is still the true vanguard of the people's revolution. When the mob brays for regicide the Kazakh kings may only blame themselves.
What a typical headline manipulation. And the article barely mentions all the armed banditry, nice. Way to paint a dramatic picture, Reuters.
So, when I hear a pro-Moscow autocratic ruler say there are bandits in the streets, I remain highly skeptical until there's hard evidence.
There were enough photographic evidence of armed bandits attacking the police, trashing and robing property, setting it ablaze, and even a few videos of thugs raiding a police department's armory.
People had died. This is no longer a joking matter, sorry.
Both of your posts have an aggressive tone that is condoning a government killing citizens with very brief reasoning given for justification relative to the extreme seriousness of that stance. They also contain sarcasm. I'm not merely criticizing you - I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic for you to say "I am not looking to pick a fight".
Edit: It doesn't sound like a reason to kill them because "they did X" can't mean "kill them" for essentially any X, the operative word being "did". I.e. government agents must (morally) reserve lethal force against their own citizens for when they are under immediate threat of an intent to kill, and they are (morally) obligated to avoid that situation in the first place, if at all practical, for admittedly various definitions of "practical".
Exactly what kind of picture are you imagining? That evil baby-eating Kazakh government is lining up poor peaceful unarmed civillians to shoot them down in the street? Well sorry, that's not what we see on photographic evidence. Unfortunately there is no other practical response to armed mob that threatens actual civillians and is intended to kill anyone affiliated with the government, other than "killing them in the street" if they don't comply with surrender order, don't lay down their weapons and continue their business of turning the city into a war zone, burning property and so on.
> Both of your posts have an aggressive tone that is condoning a government killing citizens
This is merely your impression. Written text has no "tone" except the one you hear in your imagination. Please don't reduce what I had said to a mere "tone that is condoning government killing citizens" -- that is not what I said.
> They also contain sarcasm Only one contains sarcasm and, in an case, sarcasm does not imply anything in particular. My first posts only epressed frustration with Reuter's quality of journalism. If you see it in a "wrong" tone and interpret it as an invitation for a fight, sorry, but that is completely on you.
> I'm just pointing out that it's unrealistic for you to say "I am not looking to pick a fight"
Please don't project your behavioural patterns on me.
> I.e. government agents must (morally) reserve lethal force against their own citizens for when they are under immediate threat of an intent to kill
Then I don't see what is the problem here, or, specifically, I don't see why you insist on acting as if it is not what is currently happening.
But that’s not correct.
“I have given the order to law enforcement and the army to shoot to kill without warning,” Tokayev said.
https://apnews.com/article/kazakhstan-law-enforcement-agenci...
> “I have given the order to law enforcement and the army to shoot to kill without warning,”
> “Those who don’t surrender will be eliminated.”
I mean, it's not that we can safely throw away defining statements and retain the meaning of the message, especially given that we discuss a small quote of a translated text.
I don't get what you suggest, that their government should treat their servicemen as cannon fodder that is supposed to counter aggressive armed individual with hugs and kisses? Well there are already several dosen killed by thugs, hardly anyone would want to risc their lives for the life of someone with an intent to kill you with a gun.
If you don't want to get shot without warning, then, I guess, just don't attack police, especially don't use firearms when you do that? This is basically a permission to use firearms at will, it's already a given for any servicemen in any developed state as a best practice for officer's survivability.
Well this is just demagogy and slogans, utlimately boiling down an attempt to depicict it as a yet antother romantic dihotomy of "opressive government" and "brave people".
As awlays, in reality the real civilians are hiding scared at their homes or fleeing the country and it's just a few armed thugs, who think they can represent and talk for "the people", having tasted some blood and lawlessness.
There is enough video evidece to see how "defense against their agressors" turns out to be robbing shops and setting building ablaze. So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government or have some moral high ground.
"Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight. It sounds dangerously like the Russian propaganda against Chechens when they were simultaneously calling the rebels "foreign influencers" (no real civilian would fight the Russians!) while simultaneously sending secret police to genocide or jail military age males.
But that is not what I have said, especially not the "at all" part, why are trying to misqoute me? All I have said is that robbing shops doesn't seem like a glorious heroic struggle against the government. Random skirmishes will obviously occur. Not sure what exactly you see as contradictive and where exactly do you imagine a binary mutual exclusion.
> "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight
Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking? Seems to be still be "a person who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a *belligerent group in a conflict*. So I don't get why you insit on using the wrong term, other than to spin a narrative.
Armed belligerents are not civillians, up is not down, war is not peace, words do have specific meanings.
> but thugs who use firearms against police [up-thread]
contradicts
>"So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government.
I quote, "So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government." Are police part of government or not? Adding "at all" is merely semantic, it's just the way my part of the US talks. i.e. "Would you like a bag at all with your groceries?" Saying "fighting government" and "fighting government at all" would both mean you are fighting government to some extent, but the latter _could_ be interpreted as slightly weaker if anything.
>Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking
Ok so what you meant was once you fight, you're a belligerent and not a civilian. Your intent was just to help us understand definition of civilian? Yes yes I agree, I thought you were implying something different like they weren't real citizens with genuine honest intent or something. But you've now made clear you were using the standard definition. Although I'm confused why you didn't just say that in the first place.
The language used is interesting - eg "an invasion of bandit formations trained from abroad".
Is ‘bandit’ a common translation that gets used, or some state propaganda that’s being parroted?
It could be both I suppose.
I am not going to suggest how anyone should achieve their political goals, nor am I going to engage another "ends justify the means" argument. I am simply pointing out that calling armed isurgents mere "protestors" and putting them in one cohort with protesting civillians is a very blatant attempt at misinformation.
> Is ‘bandit’ a common translation that gets used
It's a borrowed Itallian word, widely used in both roman and indo-european languages, not a "translation". Please don't accuse me of "parroting" something when you base your assetions on such illiterate mental models.
Thank you for the link, but I don't suppose hackernews crowd really needs some journalist of a state-owned political media explaining complex politics to them.