So, here it is. The AFL guy writes a story about Ukraine. It's well-aligned with ABC alarmism on Russia. Take a read.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-20/after-uk...
If you want a summary, sorry, this isn't it. Maybe ask an AI. They're quite good at that.
No, this is not really about Ukraine or about Kazakhstan - it's about ABC reporting and its demise.
Riley gives us some key metrics on the Russia - Kazakhstan relationship. Yes. Kazakhstan is heavily dependent on Russia for trade, energy, and infrastructure. Might be good, might not. Kazakhstan is taking a lead from Russia on culture war fronts (e.g., anti-LGBTQ+ lobbying). No, that's not a great thing. Russia's growing cultural and legislative influence in Kazakhstan, such as the proposed "foreign agent" laws and crackdowns on dissent. Not good either. Kazakhstan's neutral stance on the Ukraine war. They probably have their reasons, like not wanting to be bogged down in a war which kills all its young men. Seems wise. Groups like the Kazakhstani Union of Parents as potential Russian proxies destabilizing Kazakhstan from within. Well, I'm not sure how much of this is Russian bred. Seems to me their are so-called 'family oriented' groups that hold right-wing views on many things. "Family First" in Australia? Putin's description of Kazakhstan as "practically a Russian-speaking country" and his call to strengthen ties.
Now, we are meant to make the leap from these assertions and facts to invasion.
Here's why that is absurd.
If the Russia - Kazakhstan relationship is one of Kazakh dependence, these dependencies suggest a cooperative relationship rather than an adversarial one that would justify an invasion. What possible benefit would Russia gain from an invasion? The authors imply that these ties could make Kazakhstan vulnerable to Russian aggression, without explaining why Russia would invade a close ally that already aligns with its interests.
If Kazakhstan is aligning itself with Russian values on culture wars, doesn't that make a war less likely? If the thesis is that the Kazakhs are frightened of Russia and therefore are compliant, this is probably a negative but certainly does not imply a war. And the leap from cultural influence to invasion isn't substantiated with any concrete evidence.
No-one thinks that Kazakhstan's lack of a legal framework that protects LGBTI rights, laws that actively prohibit same-sex marriage and adoption and widespread societal prejudice, all of which creates a challenging environment for the LGBTI community in Kazakhstan, are a good thing. But this is also true of Poland. So are we to believe that Poland is ripe for invasion or should we just acknowledge that many countries have a long way to protecting LGBTI rights, including Poland, Russia, Kazakhstan, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Mauritania, Turkey, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana and Malawi?
To suggest that these countries have fallen under some sinister influence from Russia that underpins their homophobia is, of course, absurd. Even more absurd is to suggest that this makes them vulnerable to Russian invasion. This is the stuff of conspiracy theory at its worst.
A neutral stance on the war in Ukraine is also a poor indicator of either Russian influence or impending invasion. Among the countries directly bordering Russia - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan - a group as diverse as China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, Mongolia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, UAE, Israel and Saudi Arabia have also taken openly neutral positions, even if they vary in the manner in which neutrality is enacted.
In the United States, groups like the Family Research Council (FRC), Focus on the Family, and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) are highly influential in promoting conservative Christian values, opposing LGBTIQ+ rights, abortion, and comprehensive sex education. Poland has enacted "family values" policies, Australia has Family First. In Hungary, the government itself has strongly embraced "family values" policies, often reflecting the agenda of such groups. In countries like Italy, Spain, and France, while some progress has been made on LGBTIQ+ rights, there are still significant conservative and Catholic-influenced groups advocating for traditional family definitions. Conservative groups seeking to influence "family values" are almost universal.
And finally, Putin's assertion. Well, it just happens to be true. 83.7% of the population in Kazakhstan speaks Russian. As is the case in many countries of the world, a state language gives way to a language widely used in business, government, and inter-ethnic communication.
Here's another analysis:
Why Kazakhstan is not going to be invaded by Russia and why Ukraine is not a useful indicator of such:
1. Undermining Existing Leverage
Kazakhstan currently complies with many Russian demands (e.g., avoiding criticism of the Ukraine war, adopting similar "foreign agent" laws). An invasion would turn Kazakhstan from a cooperative partner into a hostile occupied territory, making it harder for Russia to maintain influence without brute force.
Example: Belarus remains a Russian ally without invasion because Lukashenko cooperates. If Russia invaded, Belarusians would likely resist, making control costlier.
2. Triggering Resistance & Instability
Kazakhstan has a strong national identity and has resisted Russian dominance before (e.g., January 2022 protests against Moscow-backed leadership). An invasion could unify Kazakhs against Russia, unlike the current gradual influence.
Example: Ukraine was deeply tied to Russia before 2014, but after annexing Crimea and invading, Russia lost all soft power and faced a hardened Ukrainian resistance.
3. Economic & Strategic Costs
Kazakhstan is a critical trade partner ($40B in trade, key transit route for sanctions evasion). War would disrupt supply chains, damage Russia’s economy, and push Kazakhstan toward China or the West.
Example: After invading Ukraine, Russia lost much of its European gas market. Invading Kazakhstan could jeopardize its Central Asian trade network.
4. International Repercussions
Unlike Ukraine (which Russia framed as a "historical part" of its sphere), Kazakhstan is a formal ally (CSTO member). Invading an ally would alienate other partners (Armenia, Kyrgyzstan) and push them toward China.
Example: If Russia betrays Kazakhstan, other CSTO members would question their own security guarantees.
Failure to contextualise and explain
The ABC seems to think journalism is about grabbing a few quick facts on AI and injecting a sinister tone to make it sound analytical. But that isn’t analysis. No matter how much you dislike Russia, how horrified you are by the lack of progress on LGBTI rights, or how many convenient comparisons you can draw, failing to broaden the perspective and examine these issues in a global context is a basic failure. It suggests no real effort to seek truth—just the routine production of superficial content to fill space.
If this was the first occurrence of this kind of sloppy journalism, it might not be considered to be a problem. But this is the established mode of the ABC.
Just tonight on Foreign Correspondent, we move on to Georgia, where the same sloppy analysis will play out.
When you get the AFL guy to report on geopolitics
Why Russia’s Grip on Kazakhstan Makes Invasion Unlikely
If Russia already controls Kazakhstan’s economy, politics, and information space, why would it risk a costly invasion? The truth is, Putin doesn’t need tanks to dominate Kazakhstan—he’s already winning without them. An invasion would turn a pliant ally into a battleground, destabilizing trade, triggering resistance, and pushing Central Asia toward China. The real threat isn’t war—it’s the slow suffocation of Kazakh sovereignty under Moscow’s shadow.