Russia-Led Troops Sent to Kazakhstan as 'Dozens' Killed in Unrest

[Beny Karachun]

Ukraine has higher percentage of Russian population, how come Ukraine falls into such a pathetic condition?

You're talking as if any one of those Soviet countries is better than pathetic, some are just more developed than others.

Having been to both Moscow and Kiev, Ukraine as a country is as developed as Russia. But Russia wants Ukraine to itself, you can't blame Ukraine for the results of a conflict it didn't start.

 

[Stranagor]

Mir 24 reports Belarussian peace forces put the boots on the ground, too. Total troops will number 2500.

Quick action.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Kazakhstan is very very dear to Russia.
The most developed ex Soviet state to date and there is a significant amount of ethic Russians living in Kazakhstan. I think after Ukraine border issue there is a west NATO hand behind these protests to give Putin some tough time.
@vostok your thoughts?

 

[vostok]

Kazakhstan is very very dear to Russia.
The most developed ex Soviet state to date and there is a significant amount of ethic Russians living in Kazakhstan. I think after Ukraine border issue there is a west NATO hand behind these protests to give Putin some tough time.
@vostok your thoughts?

I have some thoughts. USA did it right in this time to have another leverage in big US-Russian negotiations at 10-12 January. So Russia and our Kazakh brothers need to stop this quickly - in this case Russia will have another leverage over USA. What results we will have after destroying terrorists? USA influence will drop dramatically in Kazakhstan and probably in the whole Central Asia. Kazakhstan will have to limit and even stop functioning of CIA agents aka "Western NGO" in the country. Military and probably economical integration in the Eurasian Union will speed up.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Lol..

Hong Kong protesters fire bows and arrows from campus fortress

We bring you the Asian business, politics, economy and tech stories others miss.

asia.nikkei.com

.

The same narrative of peaceful protestor who never resort to violent. If protesters resort to violent. Police and army has right to shoot you to bring back peace.

Remember Gaddafi who claim it's al qaeda who stage those protest and nobody believe it in first place.... and what happened to the orange revolution now? Did Libya now become a peaceful country? It's not even a country but disintegrated places.

Dude, even your CCP had to resort to violence to be able to topple the Chinese government KMT at the time . The KMT/Chiang himself was like CCP today i.e a totalitarian quasi one party state dicatorship who wanted no challenger to its rule whatsoever and will dissappear and try to eradicate any threat whatsoever to its rule . You think CCP could have toppled them by peaceful means? Lol
No dictatorship can be toppled or change peacefully, blood will always be shed. You think these dictators/elite will give up all their power and privileges peacefully without a fight? Lol keep dreaming.
If your Mao was as peacefully as you claim protesters should be, he will never have had a chance to rule China or toppled the government in the first place, Mao himself admitted this.
Mao himself encouraged continous revolts against the establishment/government. I'm surprised you don't seem to agree with him on this. I thought you guys were a fan of Mao/communism?

I will quote some good phrases of your ruling party founding father about this need for violent revolution and overthrowing a government the people don't want. Lol :

"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".

"Without armed struggle neither the proletariat, nor the people, nor the Communist Party would have any standing at all in China and it would be impossible for the revolution to triumph. In these years [the eighteen years since the founding of the Party] the development, consolidation and bolshevization of our Party have proceeded in the midst of revolutionary wars; without armed struggle the Communist Party would assuredly not be what it is today. Comrades throughout the Party must never forget this experience for which we have paid in blood."

"Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party" ( admit he is being a hypocrite here actually. Lol since he encourages revolutions only when it suits him he doesn't want to be at the receiving end of one as well. Lol ).

Etc etc.... I actually agree with Mao. Especially in a system where change of leadership is not possible or is repressed.

There are many more such quotes which he justifies violent revolutions and uprising against the government by the people. Funny that you people are now against such revolutions since it doesn't suite your interests anymore. Lol its funny to see this, since if the CCP was in that position today trying to overthrow the Chinese government , they probably will be labeled as terrorists/anarchists/puppets of foreigners trying to undermine China etc etc same thing you guys are now claiming on here as well.
How times have changed.

 

[Beast]

Dude, even your CCP had to resort to violence to be able to topple the Chinese government KMT at the time . The KMT/Chiang himself was like CCP today i.e a totalitarian quasi one party state dicatorship who wanted no challenger to its rule whatsoever and will dissappear and try to eradicate any threat whatsoever to its rule . You think CCP could have toppled them by peaceful means? Lol
No dictatorship can be toppled or change peacefully, blood will always be shed. You think these dictators/elite will give up all their power and privileges peacefully without a fight? Lol keep dreaming.
If your Mao was as peacefully as you claim protesters should be, he will never have had a chance to rule China or toppled the government in the first place, Mao himself admitted this.
Mao himself encouraged continous revolts against the establishment/government. I'm surprised you don't seem to agree with him on this. I thought you guys were a fan of Mao/communism?

I will quote some good phrases of your ruling party founding father about this need for violent revolution and overthrowing a government the people don't want. Lol :

"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".

"Without armed struggle neither the proletariat, nor the people, nor the Communist Party would have any standing at all in China and it would be impossible for the revolution to triumph. In these years [the eighteen years since the founding of the Party] the development, consolidation and bolshevization of our Party have proceeded in the midst of revolutionary wars; without armed struggle the Communist Party would assuredly not be what it is today. Comrades throughout the Party must never forget this experience for which we have paid in blood."

"Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party"

Etc etc.... I actually agree with Mao. Especially in a system where change of leadership is not possible or is repressed.

There are many more such quotes which he justifies violent revolutions and uprising against the government by the people. Funny that you people are now against such revolutions since it doesn't suite your interests anymore. Lol its funny to see this, since if the CCP was in that position today trying to overthrow the Chinese government , they probably will be labeled as terrorists/anarchists/puppets of foreigners trying to undermine China etc etc same thing you guys are now claiming on here as well.
How times have changed.

LOL...

You are trying to mix between a civil war between 2 parties into a mislead small scale violent protest as legal? CCP attacked only military targets and not a single civilian are killed in the process.
Tell me, what has Libya orange revolution achieved? Nothing but chaos.

The HK protestor set fired on harmless oldman who just opposed their views. An old man was also stoned to death by HK protestors. The civilian are so angry that they pick up arms and chase away the HK protestors. Tell me what righteous these so called violent protest?

 

[beijingwalker]

Dude, even your CCP had to resort to violence to be able to topple the Chinese government KMT at the time . The KMT/Chiang himself was like CCP today i.e a totalitarian quasi one party state dicatorship who wanted no challenger to its rule whatsoever and will dissappear and try to eradicate any threat whatsoever to its rule . You think CCP could have toppled them by peaceful means? Lol

Learn some Chinese history and culture, whatever force which can bring a chaotic and fractured country into unity is regarded as a good and positive force in the Chinese history, CCP brought fractious KMT government and China back into unity, not the other way around.

 

[mike2000 is back]

You are trying to mix between a civil war between 2 parties into a mislead small scale violent protest as legal? CCP attacked only military targets and not a single civilian are killed in the process.
Tell me, what has Libya orange revolution achieved? Nothing but chaos.

How did the civil war come about in the first place ?
Was it not the CCP(backed by its Soviet GOD FATHER communist patron ) challenging and trying to topple the Chinese government of the time ? Lol
Without the CCP why will the KMT Chinese government be fighting a civil war and foreign powers at the same time? If anything it would have been easier for the KMT government to face a single threat i.e the foreign threat/invasion. However the Chinese government rightly knew back then that its biggest threat was actually the CCP rebels(they will be called terrorists today actually not Rebels) backed by Moscow/stalin. Lol
As I told you, no government can be overyhrowed by peaceful means, especially not a dictatorial totalitarian government/regime. They will fight to the end to maintain their regime/privileges..so it's either you get ready for an armed struggle and shed blood or you just give up and let them rule you the way they see fit forever. No revolution is ever peaceful.
How it ends up is another topic altogether.
Let's imagine Japan never invaded China , the CCP would have lost and never took power in China and history would probably just remember them as some miscreant militants/Rebels or even terror group that once existed(since that history would have been written by the Victor KMT Chinese government).
So does that means that the CCP revolution would have been invalid/wrong as you claim for other countries?

Ask yourself what if the CCP failed ? Does that remove the need that they should have fought for change /revolution ?
You have to know that not all revolutions are successful. We can use your logic to argue that the CCP should have just let the KMT rule for peace to reign instead of fighting a protracted civil war that decimated the country isn't it?

 

[MH.Yang]

How did the civil war come about in the first place ?
Was it not the CCP(backed by its Soviet GOD FATHER communist patron ) challenging and trying to topple the Chinese government of the time ? Lol
Without the CCP why will the KMT Chinese government be fighting a civil war and foreign powers at the same time? If anything it would have been easier for the KMT government to face a single threat i.e the foreign threat/invasion. However the Chinese government rightly knew back then that its biggest threat was actually the CCP rebels(they will be called terrorists today actually not Rebels) backed by Moscow/stalin. Lol
As I told you, no government can be overyhrowed by peaceful means, especially not a dictatorial totalitarian government/regime. They will fight to the end to maintain their regime/privileges..so it's either you get ready for an armed struggle and shed blood or you just give up and let them rule you the way they see fit forever. No revolution is ever peaceful.
How it ends up is another topic altogether.
Let's imagine Japan never invaded China , the CCP would have lost and never took power in China and history would probably just remember them as some miscreant militants/Rebels or even terror group that once existed(since that history would have been written by the Victor KMT Chinese government).
So does that means that the CCP revolution would have been invalid/wrong as you claim for other countries?

Ask yourself what if the CCP failed ? Does that remove the need that they should have fought for change /revolution ?
You have to know that not all revolutions are successful. We can use your logic to argue that the CCP should have just let the KMT rule for peace to reign instead of fighting a protracted civil war that decimated the country isn't it?

You are mistaken. The civil war between the KMT and the CCP was not initiated by the CCP, but by the KMT.

CCP was originally just a faction of KMT, belonging to the left-wing members of KMT. Chiang Kai Shek, the right, massacred members of the left, leading to the division of KMT and the outbreak of civil war.

Shanghai massacre - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You may not believe it. In 1927, the USSR supported KMT, not CCP. Because the USSR did not believe that the CCP could win, which was one of the reasons why the CCP did not trust the USSR and finally broke with the USSR.

The Influence of Soviet KMT Policy on Military Career of Chiang Kai-Shek (1924-1928) – Student Theses – Higher School of Economics National Research University

Topic: "The influence of the Soviet policy towards the KMT's political and military career Chiang Kai-shek in the 1924-1928 years.".Made by student Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs Alexander Fedchuk.The paper examines the impact of Soviet policy in relations with China and …

www.hse.ru

BTW: Mao Zedong was once a member of the Central Committee of KMT and Secretary General of the Shanghai Party committee. Later, KMT owed Mao Zedong half a year's salary(720 Chinese silver coins), leading Mao Zedong to leave Shanghai. Ma Ying Jeou, former KMT party chairman and Taiwan leader, prepared to return the arrears of wages to Mao Zedong's grandson in 2008.

 

[Beast]

You are mistaken. The civil war between the KMT and the CCP was not initiated by the CCP, but by the KMT.

CCP was originally just a faction of KMT, belonging to the left-wing members of KMT. Chiang Kai Shek, the right, massacred members of the left, leading to the division of KMT and the outbreak of civil war.

BTW: Mao Zedong was once a member of the Central Committee of KMT and Secretary General of the Shanghai Party committee. Later, KMT owed Mao Zedong half a year's salary(720 Chinese silver coins), leading Mao Zedong to leave Shanghai. Ma Ying Jeou, former KMT party chairman and Taiwan leader, prepared to return the arrears of wages to Mao Zedong's grandson in 2008.

Shanghai massacre - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

View attachment 806582
View attachment 806583

See @mike2000 is back ... Once again your poor knowledge of modern China is exposed again. How absurd of you to compare China civil war to this Kazakh violent protest against a normal working government.

 

[Indos]

Better Russia stay neutral, if Russia take side then what will happen if the people win ? Always see long term instead of short term in doing international politics. By being neutral Russia can still have good relation with Kazak even if the current regime being toppled.

Dont intervene with other people domestic politics, this is the save way to secure long term relationship with foreign country, particularly if you are against people will.

 

[Muhammed45]

 

[Khan_patriot]

Politics aside, I personally admire the balls shown by the Kazak government in the face of rented out protesters. You cannot openly challenge the writ of the state period. Initial demands were somewhat justified but a laundry list of subsequent demands which had nothing to do with the original demands smells of international conspiracy.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Because the USSR did not believe that the CCP could win, which was one of the reasons why the CCP did not trust the USSR and finally broke with the USSR

Wrong. The sino Soviet split had nothing to do with CCP not trusting the Soviets. It was more about Mao being angry with Soviet leader krushev who criticised Stalin(who Mao saw as a mentor/big brother ) policy of terror and other of his failed policies after his death and also because Mao was against the Soviets getting into any sort of rapprochement/detente with the US and the Soviet leadership adopting more moderate approach towards communism which Mao called revisionism .China accused the USSR under Khrushchev of perverting socialism and betraying the revolution by making a détente with the US/West(funny enough, Mao did the same thing about a decade later. ) and in return Khrushchev and his successors accused Mao of distorting Marxism to make it fit in with China's peasant society. Etc.
You should read more about the sino Soviet split.

 

[mike2000 is back]

See @mike2000 is back ... Once again your poor knowledge of modern China is exposed again. How absurd of you to compare China civil war to this Kazakh violent protest against a normal working government.

Lol You didn't address any of the points I made then. Lol
Why won't I draw comparisons? The only main difference is that today is the 21st century and modern world. You said any protest/uprising against a government(especially a dictatorial one at that ) that is violent is the work of western powers and should be dealt with ruthlessly. I mentioned that you should sympathise with the people, since even your current ruling Party unseated the government through violent struggle not peacefully.
As I said again, a dictatorship/totalitarian regime can't be unseated peacefully without blood and sacrifices.
So my point was that you can't be justifying your current ruling party's legitimacy of coming to power through revolt and violent armed uprising against the recognised legitimate Chinese government at the time while badmouthing another country trying to do the same thing just because "it doesn't suit your interests. "