Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: The implosion of Kazakhstan was unexpected, and it has implications for the whole post-Soviet space

10 January 2022
Benyamin Poghosyan

"We need time to understand better what happened in Kazakhstan, and why", writes Benyamin Poghosyan in this op-ed. Whilst sending CSTO troops to Kazakhstan was clearly President Putin's decision to support President Tokayev in the internal fight between Kazakh local elites, the deployment has implications also for other countries participating in the mission, including Armenia, he argues.

The beginning of 2022 surprised many. While experts and pundits were busy discussing the possible outcome of the Russia – US and Russia - NATO negotiations, scheduled for early January, and seeking to predict if large-scale hostilities would break out in Ukraine, Kazakhstan imploded.

This vast country with less than 20 million population, with huge reserves of oil, uranium, and other minerals and a significant geographical location connecting China with Russia and Europe, seemed to be an island of stability in the vast landmass of Eurasia. President Nursultan Nazarbayev had ruled the country since its independence, and while he stepped down in 2019, he  maintained his influence and control from the position of Chairman of the Security Council. The second President of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, a professional diplomat who started his career in the Soviet Union, seemed to be an excellent choice for Nazarbayev, enabling him to organize a smooth power transition, keep the stability of the country, and his primordial leading position.

Kazakhstan has a history of social unrest, such as the events in December 2011, when a protest by oil industry workers turned violent and resulted in more than ten deaths in the Western city of Zhanaozen. The rising social inequality, internal migration from the villages to the big cities, especially to the former capital Almaty – which resulted in rising levels of unemployment, and the lack of social mobility, contributed to a growing resentment among low and middle classes of the society. 

When on January 2, 2022, protests started in Zhanaozen against the spike of the liquefied petroleum gas prices many thought this was another social protest that would be stifled very quickly. Surprisingly, the unrest spread fast to other cities, including Almaty, and turned violent. Amidst rumors about tens if not hundreds killed, and attacks against state buildings and law enforcement bodies, the domestic political situation turned upside down. On January 5, 2022, President Tokayev stated that he was assuming the post of Chairman of the Security Council, effectively dismissing Nazarbayev, and was ready for tough action. On the same day, the government of Kazakhstan resigned, and Tokayev appointed a new, acting Prime Minister. Perhaps the most significant change was the dismissal of Karim Masimov as the head of the National Security Committee. Masimov was a staunch Nazarbayev loyalist who served as Prime Minister from 2007 to 2012 and 2014-2016, working as Nazarbayev’s chief of staff in the interim before being appointed as the head of the security service. Almost immediately after the dismissal, Masimov was arrested on charges of treason. This developing drama led many experts to believe that the local elites used the initial domestic protests based on the deteriorating social-economic situation as a tool to solve internal rivalries. Probably President Tokayev decided to focus the protest against former President Nazarbayev, pushing forward slogans such as "Old man, go away." At the same time, Nazarbayev sought to hit back by using his control over the security services to turn protests violent, and maybe to push for the resignation of Tokayev.

However, besides domestic rivalry, Kazakhstan's unfolding crisis also has an external dimension. On January 5, 2022, Tokayev applied for help to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a Russia - led six-member military alliance, citing terrorist threats supported by external forces. CSTO reacted almost immediately; only a few hours after Tokayev's appeal, it decided to send its collective peacekeeping forces to Kazakhstan for a limited period to stabilize and normalize the situation. The decision was announced by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, the current chair of the CSTO's Collective Security Council. As Russia is the sole de-facto decision-maker in CSTO, sending troops to Kazakhstan was clearly President Putin's decision to support President Tokayev in the internal fight between Kazakh local elites. It is challenging to fix all factors behind the Russian decision to assist Tokayev against Nazarbayev loyalists. As recently as December 28, 2021, Putin met with Nazarbayev in Saint Petersburg, thanked him for initiating the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, and praised Nazarbayev's role in pushing the integration processes in the post-Soviet space.

Some analysts believe that Russia was concerned about Nazarbayev's alleged active role in establishing the Organization of Turkic states, and the growing ties between Nazarbayev's inner circle and Turkey. The revamped structure was established in November 2021 and unites several Turkic-speaking states of the former Soviet Union. Russia might perceive this step as another attempt by Turkey to encroach on the sphere of Russian special interests. Since Turkey's failed military coup attempt in July 2016, Russia and Turkey have enjoyed a special relationship based on economic interests and shared distrust towards the US. However, Erdogan may leave power in 2023, and the new Turkish leadership may pursue a less antagonistic policy towards the US. In this case, Turkey's influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia may be well used by the US in its Russia containment strategy. Other experts argue that Russia was irritated by the position of Nazarbayev to prevent the political integration within Eurasian Economic Union and keep the organization as a purely economic union.

We need time to understand better what happened in Kazakhstan, and why. Meanwhile, the decision by Armenia to send 100 soldiers to Kazakhstan as a part of the CSTO peacekeeping mission will have negative implications for Armenia. No one expected Yerevan to veto the decision to intervene once Russia had made up its mind, but the Armenian government could have decided not to send Armenian troops to Kazakhstan. Armenia could have cited Azerbaijan's continuing occupation of Armenian territories as a reason, saying that it cannot deploy Armenian troops outside Armenia when the country is under aggression.

The West views the decision to deploy CSTO troops in Kazakhstan through the authoritarian powers fight against democratic movements paradigm. The US Department of State has already questioned the legitimacy of the CSTO military deployment, and on January 7, 2022, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that Kazakhstan would find it challenging to lower Russian influence after inviting in troops to quell unrest. "I think one lesson in recent history is that once Russians are in your house, it is sometimes tough to get them to leave," Blinken told reporters. Many Western experts depict the situation as Kazakhstan's occupation by the CSTO and Russia, comparing these events with the Soviet Union's decision to send troops to Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968. Given the peaceful transfer of power in Armenia as a result of the spring 2018 street protests, some Western circles criticize Prime Minister Pashinyan’s decision to send troops to Kazakhstan to fight against protestors, depicting Armenia as a part of Russia- led authoritarian club, which chose the side of authoritarianism against liberal democracy. The social media is full of statements and arguments about Armenia sending troops to Syria in 2019, Kazakhstan in 2022, and speculations about Armenian troops to be sent to Ukraine as part of Russian units in case of a Russian military invasion.

Azerbaijan will use this momentum to discredit the Armenian government in the West seeking to close the gap between Armenian and Azerbaijani democratic credentials. If Armenia is as authoritarian as Azerbaijan, there is no need for the Western governments, expert circles, or society to support Armenia against Azerbaijan based on democracy and values. At the same time, in purely geopolitical terms, Azerbaijan is much more important for the West than Armenia. Thus, the best choice for Armenia would have been to support the decision to send CSTO troops to Kazakhstan, but not to include Armenian soldiers in the mission. Armenian soldiers in Kazakhstan will harm Armenia's image and standing in the West and will not benefit the country.  

 

source: Benyamin Poghosyan is the Founder and Chairman of the Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan.
photo: A burning government building in Almaty
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities
Trending

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

5 November 2026
The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut