Our People > Andrei Matveev

Journalist

Andrei Matveev is a journalist from Kazakhstan.

Articles

Central Asia’s AI Pursuit: A Tale of Ambition and Progress

The term “rare earth metals” has become a buzzword in the modern geo-economic lexicon, popularized by U.S. President Donald Trump in contexts where American investments are expected. However, before that, “artificial intelligence” (AI) had already emerged as a global symbol of technological advancement and economic competitiveness. At least four of the five Central Asian republics have joined the race to implement AI technologies, though, until recently, two of them lacked the necessary prerequisites for such a leap. Kazakhstan Sets the Pace A key factor for the successful adoption of AI is the level of digitalization, an area in which Kazakhstan has made significant progress. The country’s digital transformation began with the banking sector and later expanded to public services, with nearly 100% of government services now available online. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this shift, making digital access to state institutions and banks a necessity. Since 2022, when AI became synonymous with technological leadership, exemplified by developments in China and the U.S., Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has actively promoted AI initiatives. In the summer of 2023, the government adopted the Concept for the Development of Artificial Intelligence for 2024-2029. During discussions on this initiative, officials reviewed measures already in place, such as Smart Data Ukimet, a centralized system integrating data from 93 government databases. Plans include deploying a supercomputer, expanding data processing centers, launching a national AI platform, and enhancing fiber-optic networks. Additionally, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education is working on a large language model (LLM) focused on the Kazakh language and cultural heritage. Prime Minister Olzhas Bektenov has set a clear goal: “By 2029, the number of AI-based products should increase fivefold. The share of educational programs related to AI must also expand. We need qualified specialists in this field, and it is crucial to consider the needs of domestic companies, which will have a multiplier effect on the economy.” Bektenov also emphasized the role of the National Center for AI in fostering youth involvement, developing human capital, and promoting AI culture. Furthermore, he instructed the Ministry of Justice to enhance legal frameworks for AI regulation. In December 2024, President Tokayev presented Kazakhstan’s first Kazakh language AI model, KazLLM, expressing satisfaction with its development: “We have taught artificial intelligence to think, analyze, and communicate in Kazakh. This achievement opens new prospects for our language in the digital sphere. We must build a Multimodal Language Model, capable of processing various data types simultaneously.” On March 3, 2025, Kazakhstan’s Mazhilis (lower house of parliament) reviewed a draft law, On Artificial Intelligence. If passed, it will be the world’s second AI law after the European AI Act. Uzbekistan's Ambitious Strategy Uzbekistan, another Central Asian country vying for AI leadership, has similarly prioritized digitalization. However, it lags slightly behind Kazakhstan in implementation speed. On October 14, 2024, Uzbekistan adopted its Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence Technologies Until 2030, which outlines several ambitious targets: Increasing AI-driven software and services to $1.5 billion Expanding AI-powered government services on the Single Portal of...

1 year ago

Tax

Kazakh Government Prepares for Battle with Big Business Over Tax

Kazakhstan's government is entering a critical phase of its tax system overhaul, which is set to conclude by Nauryz, the country’s most significant Turkic holiday, beginning on March 21. The deadline for the ultimatum issued by Prime Minister Olzhas Bektenov to major businesses, accused of exploiting tax loopholes, will expire in the second half of March. The question remains: What happens next? Tax Reform: Eliminating Preferences The government has been pushing for tax reform, aiming to abolish a range of tax benefits, some of which date back to 2008 during the global financial crisis. However, the main point of contention now is the Special Tax Regime (STR), a more recent initiative. The STR was introduced in 2021 as a response to the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, 2.3 million taxpayers in Kazakhstan operate under this system, yet only 8% (137,000 entities) are value-added tax (VAT) payers. Additionally, 81% of registered entities use the simplified tax declaration regime, with 85% reporting annual incomes of up to 15 million KZT ($30,000). Ultimatum to Developers Following a report by Minister of Finance Madi Takiyev on tax evasion practices, Prime Minister Bektenov singled out two of Kazakhstan’s largest construction companies, BI Group and BAZIS, accusing them of using legal loopholes to avoid paying fair taxes. “Unscrupulous entrepreneurs are exploiting various tax optimization schemes and paying amounts that do not match their billion-dollar revenues. We have a full list of such companies, including major developers like BI Group, BAZIS, and others, as well as well known restaurant chains, fitness clubs, and businesses across multiple industries,” Bektenov said. He then issued a demand: companies must voluntarily submit revised tax declarations within two weeks and pay appropriate taxes. Shortly afterward, it was revealed that BI Group was ordered to pay 11.9 billion KZT ($23.8 million) in additional taxes, while BAZIS must pay 4.6 billion KZT ($9.2 million) for 2022 and 2023. Developers Deny Allegations In response, both companies denied the accusations. BAZIS stated that its subsidiary structure was created to comply with Kazakhstan’s equity participation laws, not for tax evasion. “This is a legal requirement under Kazakhstani legislation, and we fully comply with it,” the company said. BAZIS also emphasized that it is regularly monitored by tax authorities and expressed concern over Bektenov’s remarks. BI Group, for its part, insisted that its tax deductions are audited annually by both state bodies and independent international firms such as KPMG and Ernst & Young. “The company has been audited annually for the last 10 years by KPMG and Ernst & Young, and no violations have been found,” BI Group stated. Ties to the Government BI Group has had close ties to the Kazakh government. In 2020, the company was tasked with building modular hospitals during the COVID-19 crisis. However, in 2021, the project came under corruption investigation, though the company was ultimately cleared. BI Group’s owner, Aidyn Rakhimbayev, remains a highly influential businessman. He is ranked 11th on Forbes Kazakhstan’s list of the country’s wealthiest individuals,...

1 year ago

Caspian Pipeline

A Blow to the CPC: Geopolitical Intrigue Surrounding the Pipeline

More than a week has passed since Ukrainian drones attacked the Kropotkinskaya oil refinery, part of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) system. However, the incident remains a topic of heated debate in Kazakhstan. What Happened? On February 17, the Kropotkinskaya oil pumping station, located in Kavkazsky district, Krasnodar Krai, was targeted by multiple UAVs carrying explosives and metal fragments. While there were no casualties, the facility sustained damage and was taken out of service. Oil transportation through the Tengiz-Novorossiysk pipeline has since been rerouted via a bypass system, ensuring that shipments from the CPC Marine Terminal continue as normal. On February 20-21, a Kazakh delegation, including Daniyar Berlibayev, special representative for the CPC project from KazMunayGas, and Yerbolat Mendybayev, Director of Transportation and Logistics at KazMunayGas, visited the Kropotkinskaya station alongside CPC Deputy General Director Hakim Kasymov to assess the damage. At a CPC shareholders' meeting in Abu Dhabi on February 25-26, CEO Nikolay Gorban presented a report on the extent of the damage, equipment dismantling progress, and contractor mobilization status. According to the CPC press service, shareholders pledged full support for repair work, which is expected to take approximately two months. Kazakh Debate: Is Ukraine to Blame? While CPC shareholders, including entities from Kazakhstan, Russia, Europe, and the United States, treated the issue as a technical problem, Kazakh public discourse took a different turn, led by Mazhilis deputies. Parliamentarian Nikita Shatalov questioned Ukraine’s motivations on his Telegram channel: “The Ukrainian side could not have been unaware that 90% of the oil transported through the pipeline is Kazakh, extracted from Tengiz, with revenues benefiting Western companies exporting to the EU. The pipeline is international, with KazMunayGas, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Italy’s Eni as shareholders. This attack was clearly intended to damage Kazakhstan’s economic interests.” Shatalov emphasized Kazakhstan’s neutral stance in the Ukraine-Russia war, pointing out that diplomatic contacts between Astana and Kyiv have continued at the highest levels, including President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s engagement with Volodymyr Zelensky. “Those responsible for this attack on an international consortium must be punished. Kazakhstan must demand accountability from Ukraine for the damage inflicted and the threat to bilateral relations.” His stance was echoed by Mazhilis deputy Marat Bashimov, who called the attack a "direct assault on Kazakhstan’s interests" in a Facebook post: “The Ukrainian side knew exactly how strategically vital the CPC pipeline is for Kazakh oil exports.” Bashimov argued that Kazakhstan has always upheld neutrality, supported diplomatic resolution efforts, and even refused to recognize the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics. Kazakh Debate: Is Russia to Blame? Not all deputies agreed. Mazhilisman Yermurat Bapi strongly rejected demands for Ukrainian compensation, arguing that Kazakhstan has no moral or legal grounds to make such a claim: “For more than three years, Ukraine has been fighting for survival against an aggressor that invaded its territory. As part of this war, Ukraine has the right to choose its defense strategies.” Bapi went further, blaming Kazakhstan’s overreliance on Russian infrastructure for the crisis: “The CPC pipeline was a strategic mistake of...

1 year ago

Disinformation

Kazakh Ex-Security Chief’s Wild Trump KGB Recruitment Story Gains Media Traction

A recent Facebook post by Major General Alnur Musayev, the former head of Kazakhstan’s National Security Committee (KNB), has drawn widespread attention after he claimed that the KGB recruited U.S. President Donald Trump in 1986 under the codename "Krasnov" (a Russian family name, derived from the word "krasniy," an adjective meaning "red"). The post apparently referenced Trump’s hair color in assigning him the pseudonym. Given Musayev’s checkered background, in Kazakhstan, the post was largely taken as satire - though it remains unclear whether it was meant as such. However, the claim was taken literally by several media outlets, particularly in Ukraine, where journalists and commentators circulated the story as fact. As a result, the post evolved into a larger media narrative. Falsehoods in Musayev’s Account Musayev’s version of events contains several factual inaccuracies that contradict both his own professional history and the operational structure of the KGB. Musayev began his post with the statement: "In 1987, I served in the 6th Directorate of the USSR KGB in Moscow." However, official records indicate that between 1986 and 1989, Musayev was assigned to the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, where he held senior positions in its 8th Main Directorate, overseeing Soviet law enforcement. He had no known connection to the 6th Directorate of the KGB. Musayev further stated: "The most important area of work of the 6th Directorate was the recruitment of businessmen from capitalist countries." This is also inaccurate. The 6th Directorate of the KGB, formed in 1982 from the former Directorate P of the 2nd Main Directorate, was not involved in foreign recruitment. Its primary responsibilities were: Industrial espionage - gathering intelligence on Western technology and economic developments, and Counterintelligence within the Soviet economy - protecting industrial assets from foreign espionage. The recruitment of foreign nationals, including businessmen, fell under the jurisdiction of the First Main Directorate (FMD) of the KGB, not the 6th Directorate. Finally, Musayev concluded with his most sensational assertion: "In that year, our Directorate recruited a 40-year-old businessman from the United States, Donald Trump, under the pseudonym Krasnov." While the pseudonym appears to be a play on Trump’s hair color, Musayev made no effort to clarify that his story was fabricated, allowing it to be widely circulated as a legitimate claim. Analysis from Kazakh Experts Kazakh political analyst Daniyar Ashimbayev dismissed Musayev’s statement as baseless, writing on his Telegram channel: "The global circus show continues. The former KNB (National Security Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan) chairman, who is wanted for treason and enjoys portraying himself as a man with ‘inside knowledge,’ now claims that Donald Trump was recruited by the KGB’s 6th Directorate." Ashimbayev also pointed out that Musayev had failed to specify whether he personally recruited Trump, or if it was done by someone else. More importantly, he reaffirmed that the 6th Directorate was never responsible for recruiting foreigners. Musayev has a history of controversial intelligence claims. In the late 1990s, while serving as head of the KNB, he accused then-Kazakh Prime Minister Akezhan Kazhegeldin...

1 year ago

Organization of Turkic States

Turkey’s Turkic Gambit: Balancing Influence in Post-Soviet States

Despite its superpower ambitions, which have diminished somewhat since February 24, 2022, Moscow views Turkey’s growing geopolitical influence with increasing concern. The Organization of Turkic States (OTS), which includes several Central Asian republics, is perceived by the Kremlin as a rival to its regional blocs, such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). However, for Central Asian nations, the OTS is not a political or military alliance but rather a framework for economic, cultural, and humanitarian cooperation. The extent of Turkey’s influence remains limited within these parameters. A Historical Perspective Russia continues to interpret geopolitical dynamics through the lens of century-old concepts, particularly Pan-Slavism and Pan-Turkism, both of which emerged as nationalist movements against the Russian and Ottoman empires. Pan-Turkism gained traction in the Ottoman Empire but lost momentum following its adoption and subsequent rejection by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The ideology was later revived during the Cold War, when Turkey’s NATO membership positioned it as a force for destabilizing Soviet Central Asia, Azerbaijan, and Turkic regions within Russia, such as Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. Despite Turkish efforts, Pan-Turkic sentiment found limited success, influencing only Azerbaijan, which aligned closely with Turkey after losing the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. Azerbaijan formalized this relationship in the early 1990s with the doctrine of “Two Countries, One Nation.” Baku only began to see concrete benefits from its alliance with Ankara after winning the Second Karabakh War in 2020. The Organization of Turkic States: Reality vs. Rhetoric Although the first summit of Turkic states was held in 1992, the OTS’s precursor, the Turkic Council, was only founded in 2009. The agreement, signed in Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan, initially included Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Uzbekistan expressed interest in joining in 2018, and officially became a member in 2019, whilst Hungary (2018), Turkmenistan (2021), the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (2022), and the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) (2023) hold observer state status. Turkmenistan has frequently been rumored to be considering full membership. Turkey’s geopolitical aspirations in Central Asia have often clashed with the ambitions of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan delayed its membership in the Turkic Council until 2019 due to strained relations with Ankara which dated back to the mid-1990s. Turkey, the first country to recognize the independence of the Central Asian republics, expected to leverage its Cold War victory over the Soviet Union to expand its influence in the region. While Kazakhstan initially welcomed Turkish economic expansion and Pan-Turkic rhetoric, it became increasingly skeptical in the 2000s. Uzbekistan, however, was cautious from the outset and largely resisted Turkish influence. Kazakhstan’s shift in perspective coincided with Ankara’s increased push for deeper Turkic integration. Turkish-backed initiatives in Kazakhstan revealed clear expectations that Ankara would lead such a union, prompting Astana to resist. Kazakhstan, which balances ties with the West, China, and Russia, rejected the notion of falling under Turkish leadership. The Kazakh government neutralized Pan-Turkic voices by integrating key advocates into political positions, redirecting their efforts toward promoting Kazakh nationalism instead. Turkey’s Role in the...

1 year ago