Proto-Protestantism: The Geopolitics of the Kazakhstan Protests, the Ukraine Crisis, and Eurasia's New Cold War (II)

16 January 2022

The Geopolitics of the Kazakhstan Protests, the Ukraine Crisis, and Eurasia's New Cold War (II)

The Central Asian states which were run by former Soviet apparatchiks (turned into authoritarian capitalists) relied upon energy revenue and the extraction of natural resources – and in the post-Soviet setting Western corporations flooded into the region to develop these sectors. Wall Street scored major victories and wealthy oligarchies developed in the Central Asian states. Needless to say corruption is endemic. This new post-Cold War political order and economic development in part explains the ongoing tensions with Russia, Iran, and Afghanistan. The logistics of getting resources out of landlocked Central Asia proved daunting and were never resolved. The ruling oligarchies were plugged into the energy economy and these countries rely on this money to function and pay the bills as it were.

Given the poverty of the rest of the population, the tax base is almost non-existent and as such there's been little connection or democratic accountability between the ruling cliques and the people on the street. The ruling powers live well and in terms of governance their goal was to keep the largely impoverished populations pacified and obedient. Fuel subsidies played a part in this strategy. Elections are held, but they've largely been farcical and everyone knows it. It's an exercise of 'going through the motions' in order to access the world stage and maintain an air of legitimacy in the eyes of the West.

And yet such an order is obviously volatile as was recently seen and as time passes and as the world becomes more globalised, as there are more connections made via the Internet and the like, there's going to be discontent. Some of this is genuinely of a grass roots origin but in other cases such powers can be channeled and backed by other interests – such as Western intelligence agencies (and their many proxies) that want to make trouble.

And make no mistake, the West wants to make trouble – for its enemies such as China, Russia, and Iran – and maybe in the future, Turkey. There are the geopolitical reasons but there are also economic considerations. While the dreamed-of pipelines were never developed and some of the vast riches (of Western controlled transmission networks) were never realised, the US knows the clock is ticking. The energy interests of Wall Street will be forced out in the coming years unless the US (and its proxies) moves to secure their standing, which means making sure the governments in place do not become too subservient to either Moscow or Beijing. Additionally this region is home to other resources such as uranium and various minerals – resources everyone is after and states and intelligence agencies are keen to control. They want to utilise them where possible but at the very least to keep them out of the hands of rivals and enemies. The overall equation is complicated and is frequently subject to change.

Russia for its part sees the West moving against it and attempting to encircle its borders and push for the dissolution of its post-Cold War and specifically post-Yeltsin authoritarian regime. Always painted as the aggressor, Putin is largely reacting to Western machinations against him and attempting to arrest NATO's Eurasian momentum. Rather than just sit and wait for the next missile base to be built, troop movement, NATO expansion, or proxy war to erupt on his borders, Putin is trying to take the fight elsewhere and counter and entangle the West wherever he can. He has done this in Syria and recently in Africa – in every case generating outrage in the West. The Kazakhstan crisis represented a real danger to him and he has been quick to act. Had he not done so he might have faced a double-crisis in both Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

While the West increasingly presents Moscow and Beijing as a monolithic force, the truth is far different and while Russia and China are functional and practical allies at the moment, the historic rivalry remains and Putin's economy is paltry when compared to that of Xi's China. He doesn't want to cede control of the region to Beijing even though Moscow cannot compete with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI/OBOR) and yet Russia has other cards to play as seen in Central Asia and the Middle East.

If the West sought to foment the trouble in Kazakhstan, they seem to have lost this round – which again it's interesting that the Ukraine situation had calmed somewhat until the Kazakh uprising happened and was suppressed. Since then, the Ukraine Crisis has once more turned 'red hot' now with unsubstantiated accusations of Russian plans to launch a false flag attack as a justification to invade Ukraine. Moldova is even being brought into the equation which would involve the Moscow-controlled Transnistria region. Were such a conflict to erupt, it would quickly expand as the focal point would no longer exclusively be the Donbass and Crimea but also the NATO frontier of Romania and the edge of Central Europe.

The truth is this – if there is a false flag attack it's likely to be the actions of NATO governments (or their Ukrainian proxies) at the behest of the Pentagon and the CIA. It's a tool the US has used more than once. And the claim pushed so aggressively in the media gives the West a cover for anything that may happen. Once the claim is made – all events can be blamed on Putin and hung around his neck.

Putin's back is up against the wall. The Russians can retreat no further – a point he continues to emphasize. Ukraine is being steered into NATO and given the already volatile situation in the Black Sea and the Caucasus and the fact that Ukraine would represent a NATO incursion deep into Russian territory – he won't have it, and he's indicated that he's willing to fight. But in every case whatever his action, it's presented as aggression. Western coverage focuses on the events in Ukraine post-2014, but the story runs deeper and the struggle harks back to the massive wave of NATO expansion in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Additionally, there's the matter of troop placement on the border – Russia's own border. We already know Western military and intelligence services will lie regarding such troop movements. One need only recall the false claims of a pending Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia back in 1990. It wasn't true and they knew it. In this case, it does seem that Putin has moved at least some troops into position. The West says he's about to attack but they never reported on the rumours that were floating around weeks and months ago concerning plans and preparations for a Ukrainian strike against Crimea. Since the West rejects Crimea being part of Russia, any response from Putin is deemed immediately invalid and re-cast in terms of their aggression narrative.

Putin is of course an evil man and yet just like the rulers in the United States and elsewhere, he loves his country and wants to defend its interests. No one ever questions the US presence in Eurasia. It's taken for granted and yet one must ask just who is the aggressor here? If China was in Mexico and attempting to control its government and place troops there, how do you think Washington would respond? Such equivalence is tantamount to heresy in the corridors of Western power. But Christians are truth tellers and so once again another truth is revealed – Christians cannot be part of the US machine without buying into its deceitful ideology and abandoning basic Kingdom ethics. Christians inhabiting the halls of the US government and military (or any government) are not heroes to be admired nor are they servants to the Kingdom. They're sell-outs, compromisers and in many cases traitors to Zion. We will always be heretics to the masters of Babylon and the architects of Babel – regardless of what flag it happens to fly.

Before 9/11, the US made extensive use of Islamic militants and jihadists and only a decade after the attacks, Washington once more began to turn to these old trusted proxy forces in the Libyan and Syrian wars. The War on Terror was always a farce and a decade on it was effectively ended. By the end of the Obama administration even the pretense was abandoned. In the Eurasian context and in the struggles with Moscow and Beijing, Islamic fighters are natural allies and the US is using them – and will use them again. The withdrawal from Afghanistan is tied to these questions and despite the rhetoric regarding fears the country will be used as a new terrorist base – that is in fact exactly what Washington hopes for. Except they won't be terrorists, they will be re-cast as freedom fighters.

Grass Roots opposition in Central Asia is one tool the US can use and manipulate but the once crushed Salafist movements have been rebuilding and Afghanistan is a natural place for them to do so. Official statements will condemn these actions and the US will likely even use the occasional drone to kill some of them – but the truth is the US will (and probably already is) pour money and arms into the hands of these groups and their task will (once again) be to upset the order in Central Asia – which includes Xinjiang. It will harm the interests of Moscow and Beijing, the very thing the US wants to do. The legend of the January 2022 uprisings will undoubtedly play a part in fueling the rage of Islamists and what presence or role they might have had in the nationwide events has yet to be revealed.

In the meantime we're still watching the fallout of the Kazakhstan unrest and the deepening crisis in Ukraine. Kazakh society has some deeply rooted problems and yet at the same time there's also a consciousness that they're a pawn in the game that's being played by the great powers.

The story is far from over.