Everything Happening In Kazakhstan Is The Price of Distance From Moscow—Alexander Dugin
16.01.2022
This interview was conducted by Tsargrad TV.
The Kazakh authorities are partly to blame for the crisis and the attempted coup d'etat in early 2022. Russia should provide the republic with all possible assistance, but not just like that, but under a number of conditions, says political scientist, leader of the International Eurasian Movement, philosopher Alexander Dugin. In an interview given to Tsargrad, he not only named the ways out of the crisis and the reasons for its occurrence, but also answered the question of what, in his opinion, Russia should do in this situation.Trying to sit on three chairs
Tsargrad TV: – Alexander Gelievich, what, in your opinion, are the main reasons for the unrest, attempts to seize power and carry out terrorist attacks in Kazakhstan?
Alexander Dugin: – It is necessary to understand that in recent years, Kazakhstan’s policy in the international field was based on tripartite relations – with China, with Russia and with the West. At the same time, both Nazarbayev, who is the architect of this policy, and Tokayev, who is Nazarbayev’s successor, believed that such a “triple orientation” would not allow any of these global powers to become a hegemon and completely predetermine Kazakhstan’s policy from the outside.
If the Americans pushed too hard, then Kazakhstan resorted to Moscow, and in the economy – to China. When Russia pushed too hard, on the contrary, English was taught in schools and the Chinese economy was let in deeper and deeper. When China began to talk about its claims to absorb this rather economically weak power, then American factors again arose.
It was a multi-vector policy. She was pretty efficient back then. But it was at odds with the Eurasian initiative that Nursultan Nazarbayev himself formulated back in the 90s. In fact, balancing between multipolarity and unipolarity, between the West, China and Russia, has actually turned out to be very fragile from a political point of view.
Colored or black and white?
Tsargrad TV: Now they say a lot that the coup attempt was largely inspired from outside, that we have another “orange revolution” before us, it’s just Kazakhstan’s turn. Do you think this is true?
Alexander Dugin: The trilateral policy of Kazakhstan has given its negative results. But the most important thing is that a policy was pursued that went against the declaration of the unification of the Eurasian space – primarily with Russia and with other countries of the EurAsEC and the CSTO. Nazarbayev and his successor Tokayev slowed down many integration processes. Although Eurasianism was formally declared.
The failure of integration made relations with Moscow problematic. Minsk operated approximately in the same model. And just as Lukashenka got a color revolution, now Kazakhstan, Tokayev and Nazarbayev got their color revolution. It became possible due to the fact that the West was allowed too deep into Kazakhstan. And, of course, he did his job.
Of course, what we are dealing with in Kazakhstan is a color revolution. From a geopolitical point of view, this is the expansion of the West’s front against Russia. The West, he says, fears a Russian invasion of Ukraine and a resurgence of the New Russia, “Russian Spring” issue. In order to distract attention and disperse the will of Russia, the attacks go along the perimeter – not only in Ukraine, but also in Belarus, in Georgia.
And now another front of Atlanticism against Eurasianism is opening, already in Kazakhstan. Of course, this is directed against Russia. The protesters are already putting forward theses about the need for Kazakhstan to withdraw from the Eurasian Economic Union. That is, this is a typical color revolution sponsored by the West for geopolitical purposes, like all the others.
Tsargrad warned! Alexey Toporov, 2018: ” Nazarbayev will end up the same way as Yanukovych and Shevardnadze “
Internal problems of Kazakhstan
Tsargrad TV: Residents of Kazakhstan call the internal problems of the republic the cause of the crisis. We understand that they are there, but which of them, in your opinion, had a significant impact?
Alexander Dugin: Domestic problems are the third factor after foreign policy and Western intervention. Of course, in Kazakhstan there is an emerging conflict between Tokayev and Nazarbayev. Nazarbayev wants – now it would be more correct to say he wanted – to control all politics, while Tokayev is gradually feeling like a more independent figure. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the president of Kazakhstan himself is behind these protests.
In the early days, we saw a strange reaction: the removal of the government, the start of negotiations with the protesters. This can only be done by a leader who is in a certain way interested in continuing the collapse and crisis. Perhaps, on this wave, Tokayev himself expects to get rid of the one who brought him to power – Nazarbayev.
The fourth factor is the problematic social and economic situation in Kazakhstan. The absence of a social policy, the closeness of the elites, the absence of a national idea and the transformation of the declared Eurasianism into some kind of simulacrum of ideology – all this led to the fact that a rather corrupt society has developed in Kazakhstan, where the elite is integrated with the West and keeps its money offshore.
The situation in Kazakhstan is typical
Tsargard Tv: To a certain extent, these problems befell all the post-Soviet republics?
Alexander Dugin: Of course, such post-Soviet regimes have exhausted their potential. Sooner or later they have to change something. The West wants them to be replaced by a process of disintegration and liberal democracy controlled by the West.
I personally know Nazarbayev. I wrote a book about him, I feel very good about him. And up to a certain point, Nazarbayev had a brilliant understanding of Eurasianism. He built his policy precisely on this principle: we negotiate with Moscow – and we live happily ever after, everything will be in order. We follow Eurasian integration and everything will be fine. Nazarbayev wrote a wonderful, brilliant article on currency multipolarity. We defend large spaces, we defend the Eurasian identity – great, an independent civilization, Kazakhstan will flourish.
All states in the post-Soviet space have a week without a year. In recent centuries, they lived within the framework of a single system – the Russian Empire, then the Soviet Union. And now these are new political formations.
Virtually none of these states has ever existed within its current borders. These are conditional, administrative borders. Therefore, in order to take place as a statehood, it is necessary, first of all, to build relations with the main factor of stability and prosperity – with Moscow.
In fact, in Kazakhstan or any other post-Soviet republic, it is quite possible to create an effectively functioning, people-oriented, multipolar ideology with a national idea. Moreover, Eurasianism is very popular in Kazakhstan. They started very well, very convincingly. And there were no big problems with the Russian population, relations with Moscow were good. At one time, it seemed that Kazakhstan was an antithesis in the post-Soviet space: if someone succeeded in something, it was Kazakhstan. But it turned out that just the inconsistency in Eurasianism, declared by Nazarbayev, played a cruel joke on Kazakhstan.
Farther from Moscow – closer to problems
Tsargrad TV: Why did the situation in Kazakhstan change dramatically?
Alexander Dugin: At some point, the Kazakh authorities considered Moscow a secondary partner, although they continued to use certain economic models. Instead of promoting integration, it was sometimes sabotaged. If at an early stage Nazarbayev was the creator of this Eurasian model, built on the principle of the European Union, was at the forefront of integration processes, then he gradually moved away from this role.
Thus, in place of effective Eurasian integration, rapprochement with Moscow, more and more national, parochial corruption processes arose.
I personally know Nazarbayev. I wrote a book about him, I feel very good about him. And up to a certain point, Nazarbayev had a brilliant understanding of Eurasianism. He built his policy precisely on this principle: we negotiate with Moscow – and we live happily ever after, everything will be in order. We follow Eurasian integration and everything will be fine. Nazarbayev wrote a wonderful, brilliant article on currency multipolarity. We defend large spaces, we defend the Eurasian identity – great, an independent civilization, Kazakhstan will flourish.
But as soon as they move away from this, as soon as the squabble of small elites begins among themselves for certain aspects of the economy, as soon as money is withdrawn to offshores, then Western funds, Western values immediately enter the country, the English language begins to replace Russian. This is no longer Eurasianism. And then reap the benefits.
Russia should help, but not just like that
Tsargrad TV: It turns out that Kazakhstan at some point seemed to have turned its back on Russia. What should Moscow do now to restore stability and prevent a repeat of the current situation?
– I think that Russia should help Kazakhstan to keep order. We must help preserve the territorial integrity of Kazakhstan, we must support the existing leadership, but not just like that. We must set a very strict condition: if we help you, then you end up with a three-vector orientation, you strictly follow your Eurasian idea, and we will truly integrate. Then we help you.
We must not forget that Russia is the guarantor of the territorial integrity of all states of the post-Soviet space. This has been proven many times. If Russia does not fulfill this function, if it is not called upon to preserve its territorial integrity, then this territorial integrity is under attack. We see it in Moldova, in Georgia, in Ukraine, in Azerbaijan.
Whoever ignores Russia as the main, most principled guardian of the country’s territorial integrity, pays for it.
Tsargrad TV: Thus, Russia should act, but without the right policy on the part of Kazakhstan, this will be impossible?
Alexander Dugin: Yes. If the leadership of Kazakhstan cannot guarantee the further process of integration and loyalty to the Eurasian line, then the situation will escalate. The fate of the territorial integrity of Kazakhstan will be in question.
Of course, Russia is not behind this. Russia is just the victim of this aggression. But I think that Russia has already exhausted its historical limit in order to tolerate these hesitation of all these Yanukovychs. Ultimately, Lukashenka’s policy is also vacillating , but Russia simply will not tolerate it anymore.
If you are our friends, then you are not only our friends, but also the enemies of our enemies. This is what is called the Eurasian alliance. And if this is so, then be kind enough to act accordingly within the framework of treaties and in the international sphere.
If you are members of the CSTO, then the Americans should leave Kazakhstan. Not a single American, not a single NATO representative, not a single European Union. If so, then we help you in any difficult situation – and not only from a military point of view, but also from an economic, political, and social point of view. And if you are looking for where you will be paid more or where it is more profitable for you, then I’m sorry. This is not called a partner, not a friend, not a brother – this is called differently.
It’s time to throw out the word “economic” from the Eurasian Economic Union. By the way, the same Kazakhs insisted on this before. We just need to talk about the Eurasian Union as a new confederal state. In the situation with Kazakhstan, Eurasian integration itself is being tested. Yes, we certainly must support Kazakhstan. But not just like that.
https://theradicaloutlook.com/the-west-is-attempting-to-destabilize-post-soviet-space/
