The developments in Kazakhstan are significant in world politics. First, it was not accidental that they took place on the eve of the Russia-US talks on security guarantees, launched in Geneva on January 10. In those round of talks Russia demands that NATO not include the countries of the former Soviet Union and provide written security guarantees. Otherwise, Russia threatens to take its own security measures, however it does not clarify what specific measures. In this regard, the deployment of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) troops in Kazakhstan, in addition to a certain significance, seem to be symbolic.

Many accuse Russia of wanting to restore the Soviet Union. U.S. officials state that the world has changed, and the post-Yalta world order, which implies dividing the world into zones of influence, is a thing of the past, and such approach is no longer acceptable. Nonetheless, on the other hand, NATO, which was formed in that logic, does not want to go to liquidation, it continues to exist. Moreover, it is expanding, and this is a classic example of double standards.

Another remarkable circumstance. China has expressed support for Kazakhstan's current leadership and, at the same time, provided IT assistance to crack down on protesters. This is the second significant event: China and Russia have a common position trying to prevent the presence of other countries in their territory.

There is also the third, perhaps the most interesting moment. The project of the "Turkic world" was endangered, a concept that reserved Kazakhstan the role of a leader in Central Asia. And now there are rumors in Turkey that the success of this project was questioned by the deployment of CSTO troops in Kazakhstan and not by the Organization of Turkic States. Turkey is convinced that only through their country can Central Asia be integrated into the European Union. This adds another intrigue to the Kazakh events. Turkish politicians and commentators are particularly reluctant to acknowledge that the Armenian-led organization has deployed troops to Kazakhstan. Of course, Armenia is not a significant power in terms of military and political weight, but from the point of view of the "Turkic world" it is in any case an enemy state (probably because it will suffer the most from the "Turkic world" project), and Armenia's participation has a symbolic effect for them.

Thus, globally the following has happened. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a unipolar world emerged with the United States as the sole answerable. That was the peak of US power. But after that a new situation was created. China already surpasses the United States in some economic terms, and in ten years, according to some experts, may overtake it militarily. From the military point of view, Russia, in its turn, has recovered, and in case of the formation of the China-Russia tandem, the change of the balance of power in favor of the latter will become obvious. Until then, the stability of the world is in jeopardy, and over time the swing of the imbalance of forces will give greater fluctuations. Questions arise: on what principles will the future world order be built, who will be the key countries, what relations and rules of the game will operate?

Russia's "ultimatum" to the United States should be viewed not in the context of elaborating Russian-American relations, but in the context of developing a new world order. It seems that these will be the most important issues in the coming years in the world, around which discussions cannot proceed without shocks. So, the demand for the development of a new world order is unequivocal, it has no alternative. And we have troubled years ahead of us.