5 ms·

It's very weird to see the President argue 'foreign interests' spark the unrest, and then promptly invites a foreign army to quell it. Who's falling for that?

by brnt 5y ago

HatchedLake721 5y ago
Foreign army in this context is just using a treaty you signed with an ally to request assistance. It’s as “foreign” as any NATO country’s army to another.
- brnt 5y ago
  It'd be very strange if the French government asks Germany or Nato to quell the gilet-jaunes demo, wouldn't it?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ReptileMan 5y ago
    And yet intelligence agencies routinely spy for one another to get around those pesky warrant and probable cause requirements.
    - jevgeni 5y ago
      It's almost like intelligence work and active military operations aren't the same thing...
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    Aren't most people from Kazakhstan pretty anti Russia? Wouldn't this be more like Taiwan asking China to send in the army to help with a protest? Or Iraq asking Iran?
- sam_lowry_ 5y ago
  Except that NATO countries are not run by tzars in their 70-ies whose only hope is to die quietly in bed, surrounded by elite killers.
- fivea 5y ago
  > It’s as “foreign” as any NATO country’s army to another. I don't believe your comparison is even remotely adequate. Could you point out an example of a NATO member requesting a military intervention from another NATO member in their own country to respond to protests? Because what we're seeing here is a blatant attempt by Russia to preserve Kazakhstan's regime by having foreign armed forces intervene against the nation's civilian population.
  - KaiserPro 5y ago
    I think you are missing the point I doubt OP is _condoning_ the CSTO troops (who are more than just russia) coming to the president's aid. CSTO is not the same as NATO, but it is similar. There is a strategic alliance between Russia and the government of Kazakhstan. It is more than logical for the president to pull in troops to counteract their own troop's defection. Its not morally correct, but entirely logical, which I think OP was trying to say.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - VictorPath 5y ago
    > Could you point out an example of a NATO member requesting a military intervention from another NATO member in their own country to respond to protests? The US militarily intervened in Europe 75 years ago and has bases in Germany, Italy etc. No need to have military come in for the first time since it is still there. Italy had NATO violently suppressing protests in Italy for years with Gladio.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Assistance against their own people. That's a big "nope". Using the military against one's own people is already a "nope", getting foreign assistance sounds exactly like a foreign invasion.
- vintermann 5y ago
  I'm not a fan of NATO, but usually they are a bit more subtle than inviting each other to quell each other's rebellions.
boppo1 5y ago
>foreign interests I think he meant the US
- throwaway4good 5y ago
  Well, given the US-Russia conflict over Ukraine, this conflict is awfully well-timed for the US.
  - ralmidani 5y ago
    Not everything in life is a conspiracy, and people often rebel spontaneously against their government. Not every revolution in a country ruled by Putin and Pals is waiting for The White House to give the green light. Also, did the US tell the regime in Kazakhstan to raise oil prices? That was, obviously, not the people’s only grievance, but it was the spark that lead to the protests and rebellion. The “US meddling” excuse is a tired cliche, and insulting to the people who put their lives on the line to fight oppressive, corrupt regimes.
    - wheelerof4te 5y ago
      Pray tell, what exactly happened on 6th of January outside the Capitol? Why some people are allowed to fight corruption, but others aren't? Isn't the US lobiying another word for corruption?
      - ginko 5y ago
        That was another spontaneous rebellion. If anything it proves grandparent's point.
        pjc50 5y ago
        It was organized in advance on social media. Some people even had t-shirts printed. It may have been "headless", in that it's difficult to identify organizers, but it wasn't entirely spontaneous. It remains an open question as to whether any of the posters on social media talking up the idea to protest at the capitol, or the mysterious person with the hoodie and bag of pipe bombs, were sponsored by overseas enemies of the US. There is as yet no hard evidence for this. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jan-mystery-pipe-bombs-night-capitol-attack/story?id=81723935 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jan-mystery-pipe-bombs-night...

It's very weird to see the President argue 'foreign interests' spark the unrest, and then promptly invites a foreign army to quell it. Who's falling for that?

by brnt 5y ago

It's very weird to see the President argue 'foreign interests' spark the unrest, and then promptly invites a foreign army to quell it. Who's falling for that?

HatchedLake721 5y ago

Foreign army in this context is just using a treaty you signed with an ally to request assistance. It’s as “foreign” as any NATO country’s army to another.

brnt 5y ago
It'd be very strange if the French government asks Germany or Nato to quell the gilet-jaunes demo, wouldn't it?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ReptileMan 5y ago
  And yet intelligence agencies routinely spy for one another to get around those pesky warrant and probable cause requirements.
  - jevgeni 5y ago
    It's almost like intelligence work and active military operations aren't the same thing...
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  Aren't most people from Kazakhstan pretty anti Russia? Wouldn't this be more like Taiwan asking China to send in the army to help with a protest? Or Iraq asking Iran?
sam_lowry_ 5y ago
Except that NATO countries are not run by tzars in their 70-ies whose only hope is to die quietly in bed, surrounded by elite killers.
fivea 5y ago
> It’s as “foreign” as any NATO country’s army to another. I don't believe your comparison is even remotely adequate. Could you point out an example of a NATO member requesting a military intervention from another NATO member in their own country to respond to protests? Because what we're seeing here is a blatant attempt by Russia to preserve Kazakhstan's regime by having foreign armed forces intervene against the nation's civilian population.
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  I think you are missing the point I doubt OP is _condoning_ the CSTO troops (who are more than just russia) coming to the president's aid. CSTO is not the same as NATO, but it is similar. There is a strategic alliance between Russia and the government of Kazakhstan. It is more than logical for the president to pull in troops to counteract their own troop's defection. Its not morally correct, but entirely logical, which I think OP was trying to say.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > Could you point out an example of a NATO member requesting a military intervention from another NATO member in their own country to respond to protests? The US militarily intervened in Europe 75 years ago and has bases in Germany, Italy etc. No need to have military come in for the first time since it is still there. Italy had NATO violently suppressing protests in Italy for years with Gladio.
marcosdumay 5y ago
Assistance against their own people. That's a big "nope". Using the military against one's own people is already a "nope", getting foreign assistance sounds exactly like a foreign invasion.
vintermann 5y ago
I'm not a fan of NATO, but usually they are a bit more subtle than inviting each other to quell each other's rebellions.

boppo1 5y ago

>foreign interests I think he meant the US

throwaway4good 5y ago
Well, given the US-Russia conflict over Ukraine, this conflict is awfully well-timed for the US.
- ralmidani 5y ago
  Not everything in life is a conspiracy, and people often rebel spontaneously against their government. Not every revolution in a country ruled by Putin and Pals is waiting for The White House to give the green light. Also, did the US tell the regime in Kazakhstan to raise oil prices? That was, obviously, not the people’s only grievance, but it was the spark that lead to the protests and rebellion. The “US meddling” excuse is a tired cliche, and insulting to the people who put their lives on the line to fight oppressive, corrupt regimes.
  - wheelerof4te 5y ago
    Pray tell, what exactly happened on 6th of January outside the Capitol? Why some people are allowed to fight corruption, but others aren't? Isn't the US lobiying another word for corruption?
    - ginko 5y ago
      That was another spontaneous rebellion. If anything it proves grandparent's point.
      - pjc50 5y ago
        It was organized in advance on social media. Some people even had t-shirts printed. It may have been "headless", in that it's difficult to identify organizers, but it wasn't entirely spontaneous. It remains an open question as to whether any of the posters on social media talking up the idea to protest at the capitol, or the mysterious person with the hoodie and bag of pipe bombs, were sponsored by overseas enemies of the US. There is as yet no hard evidence for this. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jan-mystery-pipe-bombs-night-capitol-attack/story?id=81723935 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jan-mystery-pipe-bombs-night...