Why does "official" Washington need to deny any role in Kazakhstan rioting?

Rioters and police most recently in Kazakhstan.

Rioting, looting, even beheadings of law enforcement officers has occurred in Almaty, Kazakhstan, the country's largest city.

Demonstrations began last Sunday initially over rising fuel prices. The protests escalated to where the Kazakh President Tokayev requested assistance from CSTO, the collective security organization it belongs to. Last night Russia as part of the bloc responded sending in military peacekeepers temporarily to help quell the rioting that has continued.

Tokayev called the rioters "terrorists" claiming they had been trained abroad.

What's interesting yesterday President Biden's press secretary Jen Psaki denied the US government was behind the violent protests in Kazakhstan claiming Russian's had accused Washington of initiating the violence.

Psaki said, "There are some crazy Russian claims about the US being behind this, so let me just use this opportunity to convey that is absolutely false and clearly a part of the standard Russian disinformation playbook." She didn't name the Russian's who were alleging the American role in the unrest.

The question here is why would the Biden administration even have to deny its involvement in the Kazakhstan rioting? So what if the Kazakh president insinuated the rioters were terrorists trained abroad. Has "official" Washington become paranoid of possible accusations against it?

Or is Washington recognizing it has played a sinister role in the past using agent-provocateurs in other protests around the world? And the world is quite aware of it. So now Washington needs to tell the world in this instance we're innocent. Hmm.

Let's be clear. At this point in time there is no way of knowing who was behind the protests in Kazakhstan or whether they began spontaneously and just got out of hand.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).