In recent weeks, the Russian information space has seen a notable surge in publications accusing Kazakhstan of “ingratitude” for the events of January 2022, of “drifting toward the West,” and of abandoning its alliance commitments. These narratives, typically disseminated by anonymous or politically motivated sources, call for a more sober analytical assessment of their nature and implications.
The media environment surrounding Russian–Kazakh relations has long evolved into a reality of its own—one that increasingly serves as a tool of pressure and manipulation rather than a reflection of actual bilateral dynamics. In the digital era, attention has become the key currency. Content producers often pursue virality and reach rather than accuracy or nuance. As a result, provocative headlines, emotional narratives, and deliberate distortions dominate the discourse.
There is a clear trend of transforming the Russia–Kazakhstan topic into a convenient media trigger, especially given the partially shared information space. The logic is simple: the mention of real or perceived geopolitical disagreements reliably generates clicks and commentary, regardless of factual validity. In this context, it is essential to avoid falling into the trap of provocation and instead promote media literacy and critical thinking in both countries.
Kazakhstan’s public and expert responses to such attacks reflect a degree of maturity and resilience. The prevailing belief is that excessive attention to these publications only furthers their aim: to provoke and divide. A more rational approach would be to support media platforms and analysts committed to a “do no harm” principle—those who provide balanced, informed coverage of foreign policy issues. It is vital to produce accessible, well-reasoned content that dismantles myths and simplistic narratives, especially regarding relations with Russia.
The narrative of Kazakhstan allegedly pursuing an anti-Russian course does not hold up to scrutiny. On the contrary, Kazakhstan continues to build cultural and humanitarian ties with Russian society, developing its soft power and engaging in public diplomacy through the export of its media and cultural products. The popularity of Kazakh musicians, series, and films in Russia plays a key role in shaping the country’s positive image. This process, grounded in mutual interest and voluntary affinity, is far more durable than any artificial propaganda effort.
As for the increasing pressure, such publications should be understood as part of a well-established communicative practice wherein intergovernmental signals are conveyed through informal, indirect channels—including the media. This points to a broader structural problem: in the absence of transparent bilateral mechanisms for voicing concern, such “leaks” become a convenient outlet for dissatisfaction.
At the same time, the psychological strain inside Russia—amplified by the ongoing war—has intensified the radicalization of its rhetoric. Balanced viewpoints are being displaced by ultra-nationalist discourse, and any independent foreign policy behavior by partners is cast as betrayal. Kazakhstan, while formally a member of the CSTO, continues to pursue a multi-vector foreign policy, maintaining close ties with Türkiye and NATO countries. This is not a rejection of alliance obligations, but rather an expression of sovereign diplomatic agency.
The double standards increasingly imposed by Moscow on its partners are losing credibility. If Russia felt no obligation to coordinate the launch of its military operation in Ukraine with CSTO allies, it is only logical that those allies would refrain from aligning every foreign policy step with Moscow in return. Each state must prioritize the protection of its national interests—while considering those of its partners, but not subordinating itself to them.
In this context, it is also worth noting the recent rise in aggressive rhetoric in the Russian media directed at Azerbaijan. Despite the provocations, the likelihood of a real conflict between Russia and Azerbaijan remains extremely low. A direct military confrontation is unthinkable from both a resource and strategic standpoint. Such an action would be disastrous for Russia’s international standing and would trigger strong backlash across the Islamic and Turkic worlds—something Moscow cannot afford at present.
When it comes to economic pressure, Azerbaijan likewise demonstrates a sufficient degree of sovereignty and resilience. Of course, diplomacy remains the preferred method for resolving disagreements—provided there is political will, mutual respect, and a rejection of condescending attitudes. Constructive dialogue among post-Soviet states requires abandoning propagandistic clichés and recognizing the agency of all actors involved in regional and international processes.
