An invasion of armed troops dead-set on slaughter is usually a nightmare for any leader. But that as not the case for Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the leader of Kazakhstan’s regime. In fact, he asked for just such an invasion. In an effort to quell protests that originally began over a fuel-price increase, President Tokayev asked for help from the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization and issued a “shoot to kill” order to security forces. The Organization sent 2,500 troops. According to a recent update from Kazakh state television, 164 people have been killed.
This marks the first time that troops from the CSTO have been deployed to a member nation. The CSTO has long been dismissed as a paper tiger that allows Russia to retain influence with the former Soviet republics. This new level of aggression proves that Russia is more willing now to use military force to preserve friendly regimes and maintain the Kremlin’s regional influence.
Amid the buildup of military forces on Russia’s border with Ukraine, the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden must acknowledge that its policy of sanctioning Russia for promoting conflict is failing. Moving forward, the Biden administration should set an example for other countries by providing support to those governments who have long asked for help against Russian aggression. Without this support, NATO and the Biden Administration risk giving more credence to the CSTO and its Russian leadership.
As exiled Kazakh opposition leader Mukhtar Ablyazov warned, “Kazakhstan will turn into Belarus … Putin will methodically impose his program” and make countries like Kazakhstan dependent on Russia through the CSTO. The Organization’s newfound activism this month stands in contrast to previous requests for aid by Russian-backed Kyrgz officials in 2010 and Tajikistan in 2021. The CSTO ignored both those requests. The speed with which Kazakh leader Tokayev requested aid and the quick response of Russian peacekeepers should be worrisome. The fact that Russian peacekeepers remain in other countries after their allotted mission time has expired should be even more troubling. Russian peacekeepers have been in Transdniestria since 1992 and Nagorno-Karabakh since 2020. Combine these areas with multiple frozen conflicts that Russia used to expand its influence, in places such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, and the Donbas, and Russia has a number of different avenues through which it can further erode confidence in the United States, NATO, and the European Union.
Multiple U.S. allies have requested support, including NATO members, yet those requests have fallen on deaf ears. Snap military exercises around several Baltic states have been used to project Russian strength and intimidate the Baltic countries. These displays of power come in addition to televised Russian propaganda, cyberattacks, and misinformation designed to undermine the institutions of Baltic nations. Latvia has called for permanent U.S. aid due to Russian threats. Lithuania and the leader of the German-led NATO battalions in the Baltics all concur.
The Biden Administration is not listening. Instead, it’s currently weighing proposals to Russia that would cut the number of NATO troops stationed in the Baltics, the same states that have repeatedly asked both the U.S. and NATO for further assistance in guarding their sovereignty. In the case of Ukraine, defense officials have repeatedly stressed the need for the kind of assistance that could show Russia that another try at invasion or annexation would be too costly.
Opponents of further assisting Ukraine and vulnerable NATO countries point to several barriers that could prevent the U.S. from supporting its allies. The clearest objection is that if Ukraine entered into NATO it could drag the alliance into a military conflict — Ukrainian sovereignty is already in question due to Russia’s occupation of Crimea and the Donbas region.
However, invoking Article 5 — the clause that allows aggression against one NATO member to be interpreted as an attack on all members — requires a unanimous vote from all NATO members. One of the reasons NATO has been so effective is due to precisely this flexibility. West Germany was admitted as a member during the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union controlled half of its territory. NATO also voted to “support America’s response” to the 9/11 attacks, which was far from NATO moving towards a full-fledged military confrontation in the Middle East. NATO membership should be Ukraine’s decision. The U.S. can showcase the difference between the CSTO’s sovereignty-violating regime preservation and NATO’s mission to safeguard the freedom of its members by assisting the Ukrainians militarily and voting to confirm Ukraine’s membership in the alliance.
As for Washington’s NATO allies in the Baltic states, the Biden Administration can reaffirm U.S. support for the alliance and its members by helping other NATO states send military aid to Ukraine and by rallying all NATO members to a uniform response to any Russian aggression. Russia will continue to exploit the multiple frozen conflicts at its disposal to keep the U.S. and its NATO allies. off-balance. Having all NATO members on the same page make it harder for Russia to drive wedges in between our allies.
The CSTO has allowed a regime to abuse its own citizens with Russia’s military backing. Now NATO has the opportunity to define itself in opposition to such abuses. In order to do that, it must support its member states and give Ukraine a say on its ascension to the alliance. The Biden administration can lead the way in reaffirming U.S. support for the sovereignty of the Baltic states and Ukraine by supporting these countries through NATO. If the CSTO’s commitment to its members’ “security” is more ironclad than NATO’s, then the alliance counts for little.
Roy Mathews is a contributor for Young Voices. He graduated from Bates College and has completed fellowships at AEI and the Cato Institute. He has previously been published in The Daily Signal. The views expressed are the author's own.
