Page 44 - bne_December 2017_20171204

44 I Eurasia bne December 2017
Kazakhstan’s new military doctrine shifts logic of country’s security agenda
Kanat Shaku in Almaty
Anew military doctrine quietly passed in Kazakhstan on Septem- ber 29 has received almost no public attention. Neither Kazakh Presi- dent Nursultan Nazarbayev, who signed the decree, nor the Central Asian coun- try’s defence ministry has commented on it. Last week, the Eurasia Daily Monitor – a publication of the conserva- tive Washington, DC-based Jamestown Foundation – featured an article delving into the details of the doctrine by Anna Gussarova, the director for the Central Asia department at the Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
The document, outlining Kazakhstan’s “key priorities in military security”, strays away from the focus on terrorism and extremism emphasised in the ex-Soviet nation’s previous military doctrine, adopted in 2011, according
to the article. Instead, it stresses the importance of border security and the mitigation of potential armed conflicts. Gussarova also pointed out that the
www.bne.eu
new document is similar to Belarus’s modified military doctrine from 2016.
“Even though the Kazakhstani document does not precisely identify any major conflicts that could pose a threat, it significantly shifts the rhetoric and logic of the country’s security
‘militarization of the region’ – that could easily be attributed more to Moscow.”
The doctrine also introduces a concept of “hybrid warfare”, which appears to echo tactics used in Eastern Ukraine, listing “ways of achieving military- political and military-strategic objectives
“Kazakhstan’s “key priorities in military security”, strays away from the focus on terrorism and extremism”
agenda. The overall tone of Astana’s new military doctrine has a geopolitical background,” Gussarova writes. “The text is full of Cold War-style jargon – namely ‘confrontation between global and regional powers for spheres of influence,’ ‘the arms race,’ ‘increased tensions,’ ‘a certain country’s desire to change the existing world order,’ and
of an integrated military force (including special operations forces, private military security companies on the territory of the opposing side), via non- military means, as well as by using the potential of other states, terrorist and extremist organisations, and separatist movements to destabilize the situation in the territory of the opposing state”.