Thread by @ClintEhrlich

*Biggest Myths about the Crisis in Kazakhstan*

My critics have been busy.

Time to set the record straight about what's happening in Kazakhstan.

Another mega-thread... 🧵

https://twitter.com/ClintEhrlich/status/1479517789450911747

Myth #1. The Kazakh people have legitimate complaints, so their uprising can't be a "color revolution."

Fact: Color revolutions *always* target states where the people have credible grievances against the government.

Kazakhstan is no different.

Standards of living in Kazakhstan lag behind Russia and Belarus, and governance via a cult of personality is unsustainable.

That's why so many Kazakhs were ready to take to the streets.

What Foreign NGOs and/or intelligence agencies do is *harness* and *channel* popular discontent in states like Kazakhstan.

They give people the encouragement and training to transform discontent into effective anti-government movements.

Foreign support for revolution in unstable states is like a coach tapping into the raw potential of an athlete.

Or an arsonist setting a fire in a forest full of dry timber... 🔥

This is a completely value-neutral observation.

If people believe certain governments need to be overthrown, they should support color revolutions.

But it's silly to pretend that outside assistance plays no role in achieving that outcome.

Myth #2: The West didn't spend enough in Kazakhstan to have any effect, since $1M is "basically nothing."

Fact: Everything about this argument is wrong.

First, it falsely assumes the only potential effects are positive.

In reality, spending *any* amount of money to overthrow foreign governments is provocative.

The U.S. will NOT escape Russian backlash by saying "come on... we didn't spend THAT much encouraging revolution."

Second, it uses bad accounting assumptions.

I pointed out that the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy spent $1M in Kazakhstan in 2021. One year.

That isn't all the money NED spent in the country pre-revolution, and NED isn't the only group spending money.

To calculate the full number, you'd need to tally ALL pre-revolution spending among ALL the foreign anti-government groups.

That doesn't just include NED, but also the Kazakhstan branch of the Soros Foundation, plus many other Western funding sources.

The true number would also include whatever amounts the CIA, MI6, and NIO/MİT (Turkey's intelligence agency) were spending in Kazakhstan.

Does anyone really believe that was a small number?

Third, this argument greatly underestimates how far $1M goes in Kazakhstan.

The median monthly wage in the country is $575.

So $1M buys you 1,740 man months in Kazakhstan -- or 145 years of work.

More than enough for a major intelligence operation.

Keep in mind, Kazakhstan only has 19M people.

That's fewer than the New York metro area.

The logistics involved in organizing a revolution in Kazakhstan are much less daunting than in e.g. a major world power with 100M+ people.

Myth #3: The uprising in Kazakhstan can't be a color revolution because it involved insiders from the government.

Fact: Color revolutions always involve new elites replacing the regime that is being ousted.

What differentiates a color revolution from a traditional coup is the *mechanism* employed.

In a traditional coup, the military is directly subverted by the new rulers.

In a color revolution, mass protests are used to *encourage* military defections.

The events in Kazakhstan therefore much more closely resemble a color revolution than a traditional coup.

Certain factions of the security forces defected, but only *AFTER* mass demonstrations and mob violence against soldiers.

Myth #4: Hunter Biden's connection to Massimov only matters if Hunter was planning the revolution.

Fact: I don't think Hunter was involved in the operation, but his connection hands a major intelligence victory to Russia.

https://twitter.com/ClintEhrlich/status/1479927716103262208?s=20

The Russians need to portray the events in Kazakhstan as a foreign operation in order to legitimize the CSTO intervention in the country.

They can now show that Hunter Biden was "close friends" (his words!) with one of the conspirators involved in the attempted revolution.

The Russians can also place Joe Biden, the President of the United States, in a prior meeting with the same conspirator.

The point is NOT that Hunter and Joe planned the overthrow of Kazakhstan's government in that meeting.

It's that the *horrible optics* favor Russia.

Myth #5: Russia will be deterred from intervening in Ukraine due to troop commitments in Kazakhstan.

Fact: Russia has deployed at max 3,000 troops to Kazakhstan.

It still has more +70,000 additional paratroopers (VDV).

At present, Russia has roughly 125,000 troops massed near the border with Ukraine.

To mount a full invasion, it would surge that number to approximately 175,000.

Its commitment to Kazakhstan does not significantly impairs that capacity.

Furthermore, Russia does NOT need to mount a full invasion of Ukraine in order to intervene militarily.

It could potentially use standoff weapons against the Ukrainian military without occupying UA territory.

Peacekeepers in Kazakhstan have zero effect on those capabilities.