Anatol Lieven's "restrainer" positions on Ukraine and Kazakhstan

Anatol Lieven offers his own "restrainer"-oriented views of the situation with Ukraine and Kazakhstan in these three posts:

My plea for Ukrainian neutrality has just been published by Responsible Statecraft:https://t.co/Xm0a6KXfHt

— Anatol Lieven (@lieven_anatol) January 3, 2022

As US diplomat Wendy Sherman sits down w/ Russia's Sergei Ryabkov today, RS's @lieven_anatol has a few suggestions involving autonomy for the Donbas region and Ukrainian autonomy. MORE: https://t.co/dRV4PValmi pic.twitter.com/03nNTCepJh

— Responsible Statecraft (@RStatecraft) January 10, 2022

There's a great temptation for Washington to get involved in #Kazakistan right now whether it be for the usual democracy promotion or to cause trouble for Russia and China. NEW @lieven_anatol on why this would be the worst move possible: https://t.co/s3Q1nVS2J2

— Responsible Statecraft (@RStatecraft) January 10, 2022

In his post on Kazakhistan, Lieven writes:

The temptation for the United States to become involved in backing unrest in Kazakhstan stems from two sources (apart from the innate tendency of the democratism industry in the West to idealize any protest against an authoritarian regime as “democratic” and to lend it unthinking support). First of course is the desire to make trouble for Russia. Already, while U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has criticized Russia’s dispatch of troops to Kazakhstan, sections of the Western media and commentariat are celebrating the diversion of Russian military force and attention from Ukraine.

The second motive lies in a desire to make trouble for China. One important part of China’s Belt and Road network is intended to run through Kazakhstan. China has invested heavily in Kazakhstan’s infrastructure and created a free trade zone and transport hub at Khorgos on the border with Kazakhstan. [my emphasis]

He also gives some important background on the risk of ethno-nationalist sentiments breaking out in Kazahkhstan:

The deployment of Russian troops to Kazakhstan to support the government is likely to increase anti-Russian feelings; and if God forbid ethnic violence does erupt in Kazakhstan, it could help to produce a future Russian government far more chauvinist than that of Putin. This would be a disaster for Russia, Russia’s neighbors, and above all Russia’s own ethnic minorities. And if Washington were seen to be supporting violence against ordinary Russians, then America will be faced in future with a danger far more formidable than that of Putin: an infuriated Russian nation.