economist Inozemtsev – on the consequences of Tokayev’s “invitation” to the CSTO military
Mass protests have been going on in Kazakhstan for five days in a dozen cities. They took over the city administration building. On Thursday night, dozens of shops in Almaty were looted, and on January 6, shooting occurred in the city center, as a result of which there are dead and wounded.
President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev on the evening of January 5 called the protesters “terrorists” and appealed to the countries – parties to the Collective Security Treaty (CSTO) to send troops to suppress the “bandit formations.” Already on January 6, Russian military and armored vehicles arrived in Kazakhstan, in the evening of the same day, the military arrived in the country from Belarus.
Tokayev’s appeal to the CSTO, as well as the CSTO’s consent to the actions of foreign military personnel on the territory of a sovereign state, are criticized by many Kazakhstanis and foreign experts. Economist Vladislav Inozemtsev In an interview with Present Time, it is allowed that if the situation in Kazakhstan develops “according to the scenario of loss, that is, the CSTO authorities will not save this case,” and believes that the invitation has primarily political meaning.
– How do you feel about the introduction of the CSTO troops into Kazakhstan?
– I treat this outward appearance of threats as they address it. Yes, we have heard many times about terrorists who allegedly entered Kazakhstan. But in reality, of course, the whole reason for the Kazakh protest is purely internal.
And in this regard, I think the authorities in Astana have enough forces and means to cope with the same unrest that arose there.
As for the CSTO, in this case there will be no benefit from this dispatch. Russia is getting into a serious scam in Kazakhstan with far-reaching consequences. I think that the intervention of her military will be extremely limited. These soldiers will not take part directly in hostilities. By itself, this action, of course, has a political meaning in the first place. But whether it will be positive or negative, I cannot say. I think this is a rather pointless and ineffective use of this tool.
– That is, you do not believe that sending military vehicles to Kazakhstan will have serious consequences, including political ones, for example, to a partial loss of sovereignty?
– Not. As for the loss of sovereignty, I definitely don’t believe in this, no one needs it. The Kazakh authorities are not at all going to turn into some kind of Russian dominion, this is quite obvious.
– And you do not believe in the “big union state”?
– No, this is impossible. As for the consequences of these actions for Russia, I think it will have a lot of losses. Russia is once again invading a country with the help of its instruments. To be honest, I don’t see any sense in this, because if the Kazakh authorities keep the situation, they will keep it themselves. If, on the contrary, the situation develops according to the scenario of the loss of power in Astana, then no CSTO forces will save this matter.
– You said that the situation in Kazakhstan is a warning to the Kremlin. And what exactly was it a warning?
– In Kazakhstan, there really was a very serious social stratification, which, in fact, blew up the situation. The question is not even whether the prices for liquefied gas were high or low. Very low gas for cars.
But the problem is that about the last 10 years of economic growth did not bring real income to Kazakhstanis, and this is very similar to the Russian situation.
And with all this, the reserves were increasing, the budget was in surplus. No economic growth sees any economic growth. And the understanding that nothing can improve his well-being, in fact, causes such excesses.
Therefore, it seemed to me for a long time that Russia, both at the beginning of the pandemic and now, should reconsider its economic policy. And first of all, focus on a sustainable renewal of military spending.
– At one time, many talked about the “wise Nazarbayev” who made a soft transition of power. In this case, what we see did not help. Protesters in Kazakhstan are shouting, “Old man, go away!” – referring specifically to Nazarbayev. How are you, why was he not saved by his resignation from the presidency?
– I was just one of those who said that Nazarbayev, as a state official, for many years pursued a fairly smart policy: both a policy of modernization and a policy of multi-vector. And I remain with the same opinion. As for the transit, this was perhaps his most outstanding step. But the problem was that if you say, “I’m leaving,” then you leave. And the transit, which dragged on for three years, was very slow and, in principle, was reduced only to the transfer of one, the other, the third positions, but at the same time not to reduce the real influence of Nazarbayev and his on the national security government, on big business. And this, in my opinion, became an important factor that helped the protest to develop.
In this case, if Tokayev really could say that yes, he is a full-fledged president and what happened before is a thing of the past, I think that would be one situation. But now this protracted “transition”, the continued dominance of the Nazarbayev family in business and politics, of course, made itself felt. And in the last year, as far as I understand, as far as I heard, when I was last in Astana, there was a constant fermentation inside the elite. It, I think, to some extent influenced the speed of the reaction and the scale of the reaction of the authorities. If Tokayev were more independent as a politician, if he did not have any additional, in my opinion, related to the strengthening of personal power, perhaps goals, the reaction would be more adequate and less protracted.
– How do you think everything that happens in Kazakhstan will end?
– I think that everything will end, of course, with the suppression of protests. And then there will be a fork. Or the strengthening of Tokayev’s personal power, under which the Nazarbayev clan will virtually cease to exist, an attempt by the new president to strengthen his power through the announcement of a new consent, a large amnesty, and an end to naive and childish stories about an external invasion. And the liberalization of the economy, political life. Or it will be an option associated with an even greater dictatorship. In this case, we will see a repetition of the events of today in a few years on a much larger scale.