Those who support what happened in Kazakhstan on January 5, but are against what happened in the US on January 6, are therefore shamelessly hypocritical and driven by an explicitly ideological double standard.
The hybrid terror war against Kazakhstan that was unleashed on January 5th, possibly by the subversive anti-Russian “Deep State” faction in the US in a desperate attempt to prevent the upcoming talks with Russia on European security issues, was far worse than January 6th. January in the US. Nonetheless, many of those who strongly oppose what happened on that second day are ardent supporters of what just happened in Kazakhstan.
The objectively present and easily verifiable fact is that both examples are armed protest movements, also known as color revolutions. Regardless of how you feel about one or the other event, that much is undeniable. Whether it was politically dissatisfied supporters of former US President Donald Trump or similarly dissatisfied Kazakhstans who were angry about their government’s planned cancellation of fuel subsidies, both events are characterized by an increasingly rampant mob.
The key difference, however, is that Trump supporters only partially took control of their country’s Capitol after the government refused to surrender to their political demands, and later from the security services successfully and with minimal losses from the building removed. The Kazakh mafia, on the other hand, got everything it wanted from the government after it reinstated price controls, but the most radical members of the mafia stepped up their destabilization measures.
What followed was a wave of urban terrorism not unlike that that raged across America during “EuroMaidan” in Ukraine or during the similar hybrid war of Antifa and Black Lives Matter in the summer of 2020. More than 12 members of the Kazakh security services were killed (three of whom were beheaded), several government buildings were confiscated and even set on fire, and Almaty International Airport was briefly captured, causing at least 1,000 people to be injured that day.
Those who support what happened in Kazakhstan on January 5, but are against what happened in the US on January 6, are therefore shamelessly hypocritical and driven by a clearly ideological double standard. There is no other credible explanation as to why they oppose the comparatively much milder and less violent color revolution in Washington DC last year, but fully support the much more intense and violent one that took place in Almaty just yesterday.
This suggests that, as the cliché goes, “the ends justify the means”. In this case, the use of color revolution technology for regime change is acceptable if it is directed against a government considered to be in Russia’s so-called “sphere of interest”, but absolutely unacceptable if it is directed against its own government . In addition, those against January 6 tend to support urban terrorism of summer 2020 carried out by the Antifa and Black Lives Matter.
The reason for this second observation is the same as for the first: “The end justifies the means”. At that time, those who despise Trump would stop at nothing to destabilize his administration in an attempt to manipulate his voters in the upcoming election in the desperate hope that Biden’s victory would end this particular hybrid war of terror would. “The Anti-Trump Regime Change Sequence Is Worth Worthing Studying” for those interested in learning more.
The common denominator that links some people’s double standards compared to January 5 in Kazakhstan, January 6 in the US, and the hybrid war on terror against America in the summer of 2020 is their subjective belief that regime change is by all means – including the use of Technologies of the colored revolution – are only justified if they advance their ideological vision at home or abroad. When the same techniques are used against their vision by their opponents, they are vehemently against it.
These people’s opinions will not change even if others blatantly point out their hypocrisy, but engaging with these observations can lead to further insights into the bigger trends at play. Put simply, the double standards surrounding using Color Revolution technology as a means of achieving any particular goal is not going to go away anytime soon, as these techniques have become so widespread over the past two decades that nearly any stakeholder can try to use them.
It would therefore be ideal if there were some kind of intergovernmental agreement – if not a formal agreement – that regulates the foreign use of these technologies against other countries and defines the range of acceptable reactions by the injured governments. This proposal is similar in spirit to strategic arms regimes such as the nuclear pact between the US and Russia, but would of course involve many more countries, in the best case all of them, since anyone can use this technology.
The reason this is a practical suggestion is because international double standards continue to be used when it comes to how the damaged governments respond to the threat of the Color Revolution and its hybrid wars. Their reactions are sometimes used as a pretext for sanctioning them or for putting pressure on these states by other means. It would help to stabilize the international system and remove the prevailing uncertainty if there were agreed “rules of the game”.
Of course, the lack of credible enforcement mechanisms and the political will to impose against all violators means that this proposed pact would ultimately be just a so-called “gentleman’s agreement,” but it could still go a long way in signaling goodwill to get over Negotiating other important issues in a more meaningful way. Everyone has a right to their opinion on any event, but it would be best if states took a unified position on similar issues.
The injured governments should be free to respond to the threats of hybrid war posed by the color revolution as they see fit to ensure the safety of their mostly peaceful citizens, who are being terrorized by these provocations without bothering about the Worry about pressure from foreign media or sanctions. Terrorism does not have a specific identity (ethnicity, religion, region, political concern, etc.) as it is just a collection of tactics and strategies aimed at achieving a specific goal.
Since one’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, ”as another stereotype says, it is inevitable that some governments have objectively classified non-terrorist acts and movements as terrorist in order to justify disproportionate action against them. There is no silver bullet to prevent this from happening or to react appropriately if it does, as such classifications can continue to be controversial depending on your point of view.
However, there are some acts that are undoubtedly terrorist in nature, such as the killing (not to mention the beheading) of members of the security services, the seizure and burning of government buildings, the takeover of airports and the wanton torch of the city . There should be no reservations about supporting the reaction of an affected state to these acts of terrorism, since politicization would implicitly take the side of the terrorists, just like those who oppose the Kazakh mission of the CSTO.
The bottom line is that the ideologically motivated double standard against the use of color revolution technology as a means to an end will not disappear at the civil society level, but could possibly be regulated at the intergovernmental level, if only through a “gentleman’s agreement”. Those who display blatant double standards against various color revolutions, without compellingly explaining why, should be labeled hypocrites and discredited for the partisan scribblers they are.