[1]: https://netblocks.org/reports/internet-disrupted-in-kazakhst...
The difference is that the current government is undemocratic, though “legal”, not a new entity.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.