2022: The year the world returns to war?

[btimbit]

“One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.”– Otto von Bismarck


How many times will this man be right

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well, then the onus is on your to prove this is about Russia and the potential for starting a world war through Kazakhstan. This started as caps on LNG protests, has evolved to anti-government protests against an autocratic regime in place since 1990. It also sounds more like internal power struggles between President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and former leader Nursultan Nazarbayev, with civil fractions at play.

You think Russia is going to risk intervening in Kazakhstan while he's doing a mass build-up of arms on the Ukrainian border and has all eyes from NATO watching his every move? This just adds more risk to his plate and spreads troops thin if he even dares to intervene.

If you're claiming this is about Russia starting world war, then I'll get my chair and popcorn and you can fill us all in on what you know and the facts around all of it.

This didn't age well...

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...eadly-uprising

Russia sent paratroopers into Kazakhstan on Thursday to help put down a countrywide uprising after deadly violence spread across the tightly controlled former Soviet state.

The swift arrival of Russian troops demonstrated the Kremlin’s strategy of rapidly deploying force to safeguard its sphere of influence in the ex-Soviet Union. Since late 2020, Russia has shored up the leader of Belarus in the face of a popular uprising, halted a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and, to the alarm of the West, massed again near Ukraine, which Russia invaded eight years ago.

[Ozy_Flame]

That has nothing to do with NATO on Kazakhstan's borders. Ukraine and Kazakhstan are two wholly separate circumstances. And Ukrainians are not protesting their own government in civil unrest, let alone a pro-Kremlin government.

Nice try though.

[blankall]

The Russian military is deployed in all sorts of places. They also don't always operate in the open. Our media doesn't give us great coverage on the current events in places like Azerbaijan (and many countries wouldn't allow our media to cover them in any kind of open way), but Russia has multiple "peace keeping" operations ongoing in Central Asia alone.

[Monahammer]

Kazakhstan, while lamentable for it's people, will have no greater effect on the war posturing of the China/Russia axis vs West. Central asian dictatorship, not close to any allies, former soviet heartland... there's no reason at all for NATO or any western power to intervene. Criticize, no doubt. But Russia will just say that the US does (or did) this sort of thing all the time.

Ukraine is more problematic. Expressed interest to join Nato, multiple nato countries border it and are interested in supporting them against Russia, and it could be strategically valuable in a larger conflict.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That has nothing to do with NATO on Kazakhstan's borders. Ukraine and Kazakhstan are two wholly separate circumstances. And Ukrainians are not protesting their own government in civil unrest, let alone a pro-Kremlin government.

Nice try though.

You just said you think Russia is going to intervene in Kazakhstan? And they did. There is no trying.

Kazakhstan has some pretty decent oil reserves in addition to being a producer of 35% of the world's uranium. It is actually very strategic to Russia - just as much as Ukraine.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Leondros

This didn't age well...

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...eadly-uprising

KZ requested support via its membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Russia is also a member of CSTO. It's a collective Eurasian effort, not a Russian whim. Armenia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Belarus will also send troops. A company from Russia's 76th Air Assault Division and a company from the 45th Spetznaz Brigade deployed, so we're not talking about large numbers of Russian troops right now.

Invoking the CSTO achieves the following:

1. it's a collective Eurasian effort;

2. it provides more legitimacy to foreign stabilization efforts; and

3. it reinforces the RUS position in KZ and central Asia.

There are potential pitfalls; however:

1. some will view the RUS efforts as an intervention;

2. angry Kazakhs may take their frustrations out on ethnic Russians living in KZ; and

3. RUS involving itself in KZ politics and taking the side of Tokayev (ie, saving another dictator).

Russia has to be careful that the Tokayev tail doesn't start wagging the RUS dog like Assad does in Syria. RUS can limit its support to Tokayev by limiting time and size of its response and restrict itself to guarding vital points (for example, the main airports and any of the four RUS military installations within KZ) and avoiding direct confrontation with protestors.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Leondros

You just said you think Russia is going to intervene in Kazakhstan? And they did. There is no trying.

Kazakhstan has some pretty decent oil reserves in addition to being a producer of 35% of the world's uranium. It is actually very strategic to Russia - just as much as Ukraine.

Try to keep up.

1. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev officially requested Russia's help. This is not unilateral decision-making on Russia's part to proactively "invade."
2. Kazakhstan is part of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CTSO), where there is a military obligation to support assistance requests (much like NATO).
3. CTSO forces - including troops from Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were also sent as part of a CTSO peacekeeping force.
4. CTSO is not there to remove the government nor take back ethnic-Russian claims to lands. They are there to quell unrest against a pro-Kremlin government.
5. Paratroopers are not anywhere near on the same level of troop formation or activation as the near 100k troops amassing on Ukraine's borders.

To characterize this as "Russia sending in troops" as part of a destabilizing march to World War is entirely unconstructive and cherry-picking facts.

[FlamesAddiction]

Kazahstan, like Belarus, has a lot of Soviet nostalgia in their government and on the street level. If Russia tries to re-instate their empire (which I am fairly certain they are trying to do), both those countries might willingly agree to a union.

[JoseCuervo]

Who is talking about a march to world war? This thread is discussing various conflicts that could take off across the world this year. Russia is sending in troops to quell a popular uprising, much like they attempted and failed at during Euromaidan. No, this won’t lead to world war, but no one has claimed it would.

It could however lead to a situation similar to what’s happening in the Ukraine, in the future. Though I doubt it now as Russia will disappear anyone still fighting. Much like they did last year in Belarus.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Try to keep up.

1. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev officially requested Russia's help. This is not unilateral decision-making on Russia's part to proactively "invade."
2. Kazakhstan is part of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CTSO), where there is a military obligation to support assistance requests (much like NATO).
3. CTSO forces - including troops from Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were also sent as part of a CTSO peacekeeping force.
4. CTSO is not there to remove the government nor take back ethnic-Russian claims to lands. They are there to quell unrest against a pro-Kremlin government.
5. Paratroopers are not anywhere near on the same level of troop formation or activation as the near 100k troops amassing on Ukraine's borders.

To characterize this as "Russia sending in troops" as part of a destabilizing march to World War is entirely unconstructive and cherry-picking facts.

You literally said "intervening" which is what Russia appears to be doing. Along with other forces. We will see how it unfolds but I think you learned the lesson that words are important.

I might add that no where did I agree that this is a segway into any type of significant escalation. Far from it - in terms of the OP, I don't think any of those will materially come to fruition as significant conflicts. I mean 2021 saw some month long conflicts that didn't even blip on most people's radars.

I was just surprised by your assertion that there was no way Russia intervenes and not 12 hours later they intervene with a military response. And it was expected - Kazakhstan is quite important strategically to Russia and they will likely be intervening there if it looks like a anti-Kremlin government is going to rise to power.

[JoseCuervo]

[QUOTE=Ozy_Flame;8124320]Try to keep up.

Also you are being very condescending for someone who has been proven a few steps behind multiple times here. What’s the deal?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Leondros

You literally said "intervening" which is what Russia appears to be doing. Along with other forces. We will see how it unfolds but I think you learned the lesson that words are important.

Your singular focus on semantics and not context really lends to the deteriorating discourse around politics, world affairs, and factual context.

"Russia send in troops" has about as much cache and relevance here as Canada "sending in troops" into a NATO country as part of a request for NATO troops.

But you do you.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Kazahstan, like Belarus, has a lot of Soviet nostalgia in their government and on the street level. If Russia tries to re-instate their empire (which I am fairly certain they are trying to do), both those countries might willingly agree to a union.

Belarus and Russia already formed the "Union State". Kazhakstan's PM has stated he wants a similar arrangement. Kazhakstan is already more or less under Russian economic control in the EAEU.

Anyways, I don't see how this is getting us closer to total war. This is an entire degree of scale less worrying than Russia's invasion of Georgia or the Ukraine was. Russia is already involved in multiple military operations in various post-Soviet states. The Western media is just not very concerned with the goings on in Azerbaijian or Moldova:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Soviet_conflicts

This is nothing new.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Your singular focus on semantics and not context really lends to the deteriorating discourse around politics, world affairs, and factual context.

"Russia send in troops" has about as much cache and relevance here as Canada "sending in troops" into a NATO country as part of a request for NATO troops.

But you do you.

Sure - if Canada was sending in troops and killing citizens in Portugal or Spain in order to prevent their population from overthrowing a government friendly to NATO...

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Sure - if Canada was sending in troops and killing citizens in Portugal or Spain in order to prevent their population from overthrowing a government friendly to NATO...

Let me ask you - if Canada was asked by a NATO participating nation to be part of a multi-national force to assist in internal affairs, would you say "Canada is sending in troops" or would you say "NATO is sending in troops" in your scenario?

Because each answer has a significantly different context.

And I'm sure you're capable of discerning the too.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Let me ask you - if Canada was asked by a NATO participating nation to be part of a multi-national force to assist in internal affairs, would you say "Canada is sending in troops" or would you say "NATO is sending in troops" in your scenario?

Because each answer has a significantly different context.

And I'm sure you're capable of discerning the too.

In that particular scenario, as a Canadian I would say Canada is sending troops in. Frankly, that's all I would care about.

Question for you - would Canada send troops in my scenario? Or would there be some concern about sovereignty, optics and legality associated with peace keeping and resulting deaths at the hands of Canadian troops?

[Ozy_Flame]

Your scenario is moot because under NATO obligations, Canada is obliged to respond.

Under CTSO obligations, Russia is obliged to respond.

Whatever the internal strife is isn't the point here - it's about the context in response.

Russia did not "send in troops" the way it's been contextualized.

You're free to focus on semantics. You're (still) missing the point though.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Your scenario is moot because under NATO obligations, Canada is obliged to respond.

Under CTSO obligations, Russia is obliged to respond.

Whatever the internal strife is isn't the point here - it's about the context in response.

Russia did not "send in troops" the way it's been contextualized.

You're free to focus on semantics. You're (still) missing the point though.

Well I don't believe Article 5 of NATO was ever meant to be in response to domestic issues or civil unrest.

I don't think I am missing your point.

You are saying that Russia is not going to intervene in Kazakhstan due to the fact that they are focused on Ukraine and didn't want the scrutiny - you were incorrect, they did and I don't care through what mechanism.

You also said what is happening is Kazakhstan won't start a war - that remains to be seen, but its certainly possible (although I don't believe it will). As I stated Uranium, and Oil are huge motivators. Putin is going to feel pretty vulnerable with one of its Soviet era allies destabilizing so rapidly. Just look at what happened in Belarus last year.

[Ozy_Flame]

You're mixing up Article 5 with Article 4. Article 5 is if a member is attacked, the other members come to their aid. Article 4 handles the integrity of political independence, territory matters, or security of any parties involved. Turkey had planned to invoke this in 2015 due to internal terrorism threats from ISIS, but ended up not doing so. That was a matter of internal affairs in which domestic strife was at stake. They also issues a potential use of Article 4 on Kurdish autonomy from Turkey, which effectively could be called "internal strife" depending on who you ask.

Russia is not committing the same level of force or strategy for a unilateral encroachment of a country adjacent to NATO forces the same as a Eurasian CTSO ally that calls in reinforcements for civil unrest. It's just not happening and the two aren't even close in comparisons.

Kazakhstan is not the reason why NATO or collective security measures on a mass scale get activated. Ukraine? Yes, potentially.