Continued strikes across 2026 could lead to protracted disruptions that greatly reduce Kazakhstan’s budgetary revenue and result in social spending slashes for next year, which could prompt protests that spiral out of control just like January 2022’s one did for creating a crisis on Russia’s southern flank.

Ukraine once again launched drone strikes against tankers connected to the partially US-owned Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), which transits through Russia and serves as landlocked Kazakhstan’s oil export lifeline via which 80% of such sales are conducted. Energy exports account for around 35% of GDP, 75% of exports, and an estimated 30% of government revenue. With this data in mind, Bloomberg’s report about how Kazakh exports through the CPC plummeted by 45% over the past month is alarming.

If the conflict continues and Ukraine feels emboldened by the US’ recent seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker to keep up the tempo of its strikes against the CPC, be it the export terminal at Novorossiysk and/or tankers, then Kazakhstan’s economic and therefore political stability might be threatened. It was earlier thought that “Ukraine Risked Trump’s Wrath After Bombing Partially US-Owned Oil Infrastructure In Russia” last February, but he did nothing afterwards to coerce it into discontinuing these attacks.

This is in spite of the CPC being partially owned by US energy majors whose profits would be hit by the Kazakh oil export disruptions brought about by continued Ukrainian drone attacks. Moreover, Kazakhstan signed a MoU with the US on critical minerals last November and then joined the Abraham Accords even though it already recognizes Israel, shortly after which it announced plans to produce NATO-standard shells. These should have ordinarily been enough reasons for the US to get Ukraine to stop its strikes.

The fact that Ukraine has continued to attack the CPC despite the aforementioned four interests that closely tie the US to Kazakhstan strongly suggests that Trump 2.0 might be playing a double game. If the conflict drags on, Ukrainian attacks against the CPC are ramped up, and Kazakhstan’s budgetary revenue for the coming year plummets as a result, then social spending for 2027 might be slashed. Protests could follow, thus leading to unrest, which might spiral out of control like what happened in January 2022.

Unlike back then when Kazakhstan requested an intervention from the Russian-led CSTO, it might instead request such from the Turkish-led Organization of Turkic States (OTS). That’s because it might fear that Russia could exploit an intervention to punish it for its NATO-standard shell production and speculation that it allows Ukraine to use its territory to carry out drone strikes inside of Russia. This selfsame fear was recently exacerbated by the Washington Post claiming that Kazakhstan is Putin’s “next stop”.

The deployment of NATO member Turkiye’s troops to CSTO member Kazakhstan, no matter how temporary their mission might officially be, could easily worsen Russian-Turkish tensions given Turkiye’s expected expansion of influence along Russia’s entire southern periphery. Russia could either accept its strategic encirclement, preempt it by cutting Kazakhstan off from the Caspian like a self-exiled Kazakh opposition figure speculated that it’s already plotting to do, or unilaterally intervene to confront Turkiye.

None of these scenarios are ideal for Russia, but they could be catalyzed by uncontrollable unrest caused by Kazakhstan slashing social spending if Ukrainian strikes against its oil export lifeline continue across 2026, which can’t be ruled out seeing as how the EU agreed to fund Ukraine for the next two years. A swift end to the conflict through military or political means could offset this sequence of events, however, ergo a compelling reason why Russia might agree to compromise on its maximalist goals.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.