Jump to content

Kazakhstan


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Simon Tan said:

It has to do with an Oligarch class that benefits from a poorly administered country. Something the US is now working towards. 

The US practically invented free market Oligarchs, and we've been steadily tracking back to our circa late 1800-early 1900 roots and the associated wealth discrepancy since Reagan.

ineq-landing_landing.png?itok=7m-48rWl

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, KV7 said:

The U.S. arguably was a pioneer, with a political system deliberately broken as a 'safeguard' against 'tyranny' and public services often deliberately bad or non-existent so as to ensure that by comparison the private offering looks good or is the only option.

Luckily for them they started with excellent conditions for economic growth - no feudal class, extensive arable land and raw materials, a lack of rival powers on the continent, a huge politically unified territory, ample good ports etc. and at critical junctures some push back to the above - notably int he case of opposition to southern economic obstructionism (opposition to infrastructure expenditures and tariffs, support for slavery etc.) and then during the New Deal period responding adequately to the great depression, WW2, and then the Cold War challenge (where notable there was little obstruction to the huge expansion in higher education and female employment).

Well, the US just leveraged what the British left behind. The great and unique advantage of the US was that it didn't have, and never has had, an enemy at the gates, so, like post-WW2 Japan, it could neglect its military to focus on growth and commerce. Like previous empires, this foundation becomes shaky as increased defence spending undercuts growth, driven by the need to keep up with the upcoming powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a theory that an empire will expand until it becomes uneconomical to sustain. At which point it will collapse. Were starting to see that with China's rise to world dominance by 2050.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The great advantage of the US was hard selection for greatness.  The weak got purged.  After that purification, the resulting nation benefitted from geographic fortune, to be sure.  And the money grubbers achieved power and the naive Americans were dragged along into needless global fuckery which benefitted the grubbers and doomed the Americans.  S/F....Ken M 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US was rather quick in expanding territory and industry after the American Civil War. Sometimes internal strife itself creates an experienced and skillful population that have tasted a necessity for a good cause of using force. Few countries harness the dynamic of competition so effectively. 

Until Japan can get sufficient long term international endorsement for a new modern kido butai, it must hope for and accept US generosity.

CCP China cannot be trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Kazakhstan, the people began to protest when government terminated state subsidies for gas. Worth noting than when similar protests have taken place in First World countries (in IMF countries such as Greece, or Yellow Vests), enlightened Western media has deemed the protestors as idiots who don't understand the economic realities.

Funny how that goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yama said:

Re: Kazakhstan, the people began to protest when government terminated state subsidies for gas. Worth noting than when similar protests have taken place in First World countries (in IMF countries such as Greece, or Yellow Vests), enlightened Western media has deemed the protestors as idiots who don't understand the economic realities.

Funny how that goes.

I do not know about France but in Greece, the protestors were mainly the 45 year old retirees who got their pensions cut. I leave to you do decide if they had a leg to stand on.

That country is now on the right path but will need 50 years fix half a centuries mismanagement.  I do not have high hopes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What weapon is this Armenian soldier? It looks like an upgraded RPK-74...
 

H-DGpqQAY3Q.jpg?size=1588x1080&quality=9

Also some AK-12s have been seen.

Russia:

wEgRfnGCpbI.jpg?size=1440x1080&quality=9

Armenia:

AVvXsEjmcK9NYQqZRQO7Ndkw91A43A_64vNhU7L0

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armenian has RPK-74 with unknown  handguard and Zenitco B-13 rail with unidentified LPVO.  CAA AKTS stock extension with GLR-16 stock. 

Russian and second Armenian have AK-12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that troops are being pulled out (already), what do we know about the deployment as a whole?

How quickly did the first VDV units arrive? Seemed pretty quick to me.

How many were deployed? How many sorties did the Candids have to make to bring them all in?

Where were troops mainly deployed?

Did any see anything approximating 'action'?

I have so many questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, EchoFiveMike said:

The great advantage of the US was hard selection for greatness.  The weak got purged.  After that purification, the resulting nation benefitted from geographic fortune, to be sure.  And the money grubbers achieved power and the naive Americans were dragged along into needless global fuckery which benefitted the grubbers and doomed the Americans.  S/F....Ken M 

Totally explains why the US has been on a dramatic downward spiral since the 1700s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mistral said:

I do not know about France but in Greece, the protestors were mainly the 45 year old retirees who got their pensions cut. I leave to you do decide if they had a leg to stand on.

So they were protesting as their state sponsored subsidies were replaced by more efficient market economy based mechanics. That's what I said, didn't I? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seemed fairly spontaneous. I think to the extent there was violence it was a combination of extreme discontent and the local criminal element taking advantage of the situation. There didn't seem to be an organized effort to overthrow the government, just random acts of violence and lawlessness. But the narrative will be "foreign powers", just like The Sultan. Because to suggest otherwise would ask questions that no one wants to ask.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Josh said:

They didn't seem to be that badly needed. I think they were there more as a show of support/insurance policy.

Agreed. As another poster wrote on this thread or another, nations have learned from the Libyan and Syrian situations. They are not waiting around to see how things develop. I don't think the Russians wanted to give any chance a nascent challenge to the gov't could grow. 

Another point was to shore up local forces before they became wobbly and unsure what to do with civilians offering various levels of resistance. With the arrival of foreign forces, that would shore up whatever action the military took.

Finally it demonstrated direct support for a "friend" or ally, as a counter to the western Afghanistan response.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Any progress on finding out who was behind this, or whether some of the players were foreign?

the best explanation so far i´ve read was from a russian political scientist - but there are thousands of them, like in west, so the quality is hard to estimate - 

1. real, spontaneous protests over gas price . everyone is tired of former president nazarbajev and his clan. former president , when he stood down, put as new president a member of his tribe/clan, but from distant and poor branch, so he would have no real power. 

2. the poor relative, pres. tolkayev, sees his chance to get rid of nazarbayev and his clan, tries to get all power in his hands, dismisses nazarbayev from security council.  tolkayev tells security forces  not to interfere/shoot people.

3. nazarbayev clan strikes back. nazarbayev´s brother´s sons hire thousands of poor hillbillies from southern kazakhstan, drive them to cities, streetfighting , looting ensues. 

4. tolkayev looses control, since security apparatus is full of old nazarbayev people, who are not listening to his orders to restore peace. 

5. tolkayev sees no other way, but to apply to russian/other peacekeepers to keep himself in power. they arrive. 

6. ?

 

all this might have huge holes in it, if someone more in know can show the mistakes in here, i´d appreciate. 

 

and most interesting sidenote is that when nazarbayev left presidency after 30 years in power,  russia was taking notes how to do it /avoid mistakes, should putin relieve power to his successor. 

one thing that both countries have copied already from iranian mullahs, is how to set a higher council ´´above all´´ over goverment , parliament etc., where the true power can rest. did not work for nazarbayev though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it serves to show that the idea of Fraternal Socialist Assistance hasn't gone away just because the Socialist bit is now obsolete.  Putin no doubt looks back fondly at 1956 and 1968.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...