Criticism - The Times Of Central Asia

Viewing results 1 - 6 of 21

Digital Payments

Tokayev Criticizes Banks Over Slow Adoption of Kazakhstan’s Digital Financial Infrastructure

Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has criticized the country’s banks for their slow adoption of state-developed digital financial infrastructure. He made the remarks during a meeting on the implementation of the Digital Qazaqstan project. During the meeting, the heads of ministries and government agencies presented reports on the rollout of digital solutions in public administration and the economy. In his comments, the president stressed the need for more active deployment of artificial intelligence in industry, as well as progress in developing digital payment infrastructure. According to Tokayev, the National Bank has already created a digital financial ecosystem that includes interbank QR payments and transfers, as well as settlements using the digital tenge. “This significantly reduces costs by shortening the chain of payment intermediaries. The requirement for all banks to connect to this infrastructure is enshrined in law, but the largest banks are delaying compliance,” the president said. Since September 2025, a unified QR code system for interbank payments has been operating in Kazakhstan. The service allows users to pay for goods and services through mobile banking applications. Customers simply scan a QR code at a merchant’s terminal and confirm the transaction. Initially, the service was available to clients of three banks. At present, 15 banks have signed participation agreements, although only six have completed technical integration with the system. The remaining institutions are required to connect by July 18, 2026. Speaking in November 2025, National Bank Chairman Timur Suleimenov said the rollout had been slowed by both technical and market issues, adding that large financial ecosystems were reluctant to share payment traffic. He also described the digital tenge as a tool for transparency and control in public spending rather than a competitor to commercial banks’ own payment products. Tokayev also emphasized that the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence technologies in the real economy is a strategic priority. He linked this goal to the country’s technological sovereignty and called for accelerating the digitalization of the state apparatus. According to the president, more than 90% of public services in Kazakhstan have already been moved online, yet many government information systems remain insufficiently integrated. “Speed and quality must be the priority at every stage. It is data that needs to flow, not people,” Tokayev said. He added that digital transformation is incompatible with outdated bureaucratic practices. “Digitalization and bureaucracy are as incompatible as ice and fire. We cannot force modern technologies to fit into old administrative models,” the president stated. Tokayev also expressed concern about the pace of Kazakhstan’s digital transformation. “I read news about the development of artificial intelligence; it is advancing so rapidly that I am becoming anxious about Kazakhstan’s digital future. It seems to me that the digitalization process is slowing down,” he noted. The Times of Central Asia previously reported that the adoption of artificial intelligence technologies in the financial sector across Central Asia remains uneven, although Kazakhstan is currently regarded as the regional leader.

Kazakh Startup Higgsfield AI: From “Unicorn” to Racism and Sexism Scandal

In October 2025, the Kazakh startup Higgsfield AI officially joined the ranks of “unicorns” – companies valued at more than $1 billion. The rapid growth continued: by early 2026, the platform had surpassed 15 million users, and its annual revenue approached $200 million. From the outset, the project targeted the international market. Although its headquarters is registered in San Francisco, Kazakh engineers play a significant role in its development, and the startup is a participant in the Astana Hub program. For many observers, the emergence of the first Kazakh “unicorn” symbolized the country’s transition to a new stage of technological development, attracting the attention of global investors and stimulating the domestic IT sector. However, the company’s rise was soon overshadowed by controversy. By early 2026, Higgsfield found itself at the center of an international scandal. Media reports and social media discussions cited allegations of aggressive advertising, opaque subscription practices, and, more worryingly, promotional content containing racist and sexist messages. Approximately 85% of its users were marketers utilizing the service to create advertising videos, a factor that significantly contributed to its rapid scaling. In Kazakhstan, the development was widely presented as a national achievement. However, questions soon emerged regarding the company’s business practices. Shortly after achieving unicorn status, Higgsfield faced a wave of user complaints, primarily concerning subscriptions and refunds. During major promotional campaigns, including “Black Friday” discounts of up to 65%, reducing the monthly price to $25, customers were promised unlimited access to advanced models. However, many users later reported a sharp decline in video generation speed after payment. According to these accounts, the application became difficult to use without purchasing additional credits, despite advertised “unlimited” access. The company attributed the disruptions to bot attacks, stating that tens of thousands of fake accounts had been blocked, and that approximately $1.35 million had been refunded to legitimate users due to service issues. In December 2024, the situation escalated when users reported widespread account suspensions without prior notice. The peak occurred on December 25-26, when clients with Russian IP addresses were reportedly restricted. Affected users lost not only access to paid services, but also the ability to download previously created content. Initially, the company did not publicly comment. It later stated that the suspensions were linked to suspicious payment activity and anti-bot measures. Additional criticism focused on alleged “dark patterns” in subscription management. Users claimed that payments were processed instantly, while subscription cancellation was difficult or technically inaccessible. On social media platforms, users compiled complaints alleging unfair practices, and warning others about what they described as a problematic business model. Under mounting pressure, Higgsfield reinstated certain accounts and issued refunds. Controversial Marketing: Racism and Sexism Allegations Particular criticism targeted the company’s marketing strategy. In early 2026, reports emerged that Higgsfield’s marketing team had distributed ready-made promotional materials to content creators, including videos that allegedly contained racist and sexually explicit language inserted into the voices of well-known cartoon characters. According to media reports, some clips included racially charged phrases and statements widely perceived...

Alexander Dugin

Russian Philosopher Sparks Outrage by Questioning Sovereignty of Former Soviet States

A fresh wave of controversy has erupted in Central Asia after Russian philosopher and political theorist Alexander Dugin publicly questioned the sovereignty of several post-Soviet states, including Uzbekistan. A video fragment of Dugin’s recent remarks circulated widely online, prompting strong backlash from regional analysts and commentators. In the recording, Alexander Dugin, founder of the International Eurasian Movement and often described as the ideologue of the so-called “Russian world,” said that national sovereignty should no longer apply to former Soviet republics. He specifically named Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan as states that, in his view, should not exist independently under any future political order. “Nothing sovereign can exist in this new model. That’s it. Sovereignty is over. National states are a thing of the past. This is garbage,” Dugin said, adding that “it is impossible to agree with the existence of a sovereign Uzbekistan.” Backlash from Uzbek Analysts Dugin’s remarks prompted immediate criticism in Uzbekistan. Journalist Ilyos Safarov described the comments as part of a broader ideological pattern rather than an isolated statement. “Yesterday it was Solovyov calling for a ‘special military operation’ in Central Asia. Today it is Dugin denying our sovereignty,” Safarov said. “This shows that post-imperial thinking is still alive in certain Russian political circles.” He warned that ignoring such rhetoric could further embolden these narratives. “Silence is often interpreted not as diplomacy, but as weakness. If these ideas are left unanswered, they begin to look acceptable to a wider audience,” Safarov said, noting that even unofficial figures can influence public discourse and political attitudes in Russia. Zavqibek Mahmudov, an associate professor at the Abdulla Avloniy National Institute of Pedagogical Excellence, echoed these concerns. He argued that ideological declarations, even from non-state actors, can translate into real-world political agendas. “History shows that radical political projects often begin with philosophical justifications,” Mahmudov said. He criticized Dugin’s rhetoric as part of a political chauvinism that categorizes countries as either "real" or "artificial." “When the existence of an entire nation is questioned, this is no longer academic debate, it is a direct challenge to international law and the principle of sovereign equality.” Mahmudov called for a coordinated legal and diplomatic response from all the countries mentioned in Dugin’s remarks. “A collective stance would be far more effective than individual national responses,” he noted. Official Distancing from Moscow The controversy follows recent remarks by Russian television host Vladimir Solovyov, who had floated the possibility of military action in Central Asia. That incident prompted a response from Russia’s Foreign Ministry. On January 16, ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated that Solovyov’s views did not represent official Russian policy and reaffirmed that Moscow’s relationships with Central Asian countries are grounded in “partnership and respect for sovereignty.” Despite this distancing, analysts caution that repeated rhetorical assaults on Central Asian sovereignty, whether from state actors or affiliated intellectuals, may reflect deeper ideological currents that could have lasting consequences for regional stability.

russian media

Russian TV Host’s Talk of ‘Military Operations’ in Central Asia Triggers Backlash in Uzbekistan

Controversial remarks by Russian television host Vladimir Solovyov, suggesting that Moscow could launch “special military operations” in Central Asia and Armenia, have provoked a strong backlash in Uzbekistan, where scholars, journalists, and political analysts warn that such rhetoric reflects dangerous political tendencies. Speaking on his Solovyov Live program, the prominent pro-Kremlin commentator claimed that regions like Armenia and Central Asia are far more critical to Russia’s national interests than distant allies such as Syria or Venezuela. He urged Russian authorities to abandon international law if it stands in the way of what he described as Russia’s national security. Solovyov was born in Moscow in 1963 and trained in economics and philosophy; after the collapse of the Soviet Union, he spent part of the early–mid-1990s living in the United States, where he worked as a businessman involved in commercial ventures rather than journalism or politics, before returning to Russia following financial difficulties. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, he entered radio and television, initially presenting himself as a liberal, pro-market commentator, but over time evolving into one of Russia’s most prominent pro-Kremlin television hosts, known for his hardline nationalist rhetoric and for aggressively promoting state narratives on domestic and foreign policy. “We must say openly: the games are over. International law and the international order mean nothing to us,” Solovyov declared, openly questioning why, if a so-called special military operation was justified in Ukraine, similar actions should not be carried out elsewhere within Russia’s claimed zone of influence. Solovyov characterized Central Asia as “our Asia,” framing it as part of Russia’s rightful sphere of influence. He warned that instability in the region represents a direct threat to Russia’s security and advocated for the Kremlin to clearly define the boundaries of its “zone of influence,” regardless of international norms. He also criticized Russia’s approach to the war in Ukraine, arguing that a lack of early harsh measures prolonged the conflict and resulted in greater losses. “We should stop casting pearls before swine and openly state that we do not care what Europe thinks,” he added. In recent years, tensions over Russian attitudes toward Central Asia have surfaced in regional discourse. In 2024, Uzbek political figure Alisher Qodirov publicly criticized what he called rising “Russian chauvinism,” responding to televised statements by Russian nationalists such as Zakhar Prilepin advocating territorial claims on Uzbekistan and Russian commentators on state TV asserting that peoples like the Uzbeks and Kazakhs did not exist before 1917, comments that Qodirov said were enough to call for cutting Russian broadcasts into Uzbekistan. Observers have also linked broader social trends in Russia - including xenophobic attacks on Central Asian migrant workers and statements by Russian officials linking Central Asian migration and security to Russia’s interests - to a narrative among some Russian public figures framing Central Asians as outsiders within Russia and Central Asia as a contested space. The remarks triggered immediate condemnation in Uzbekistan. Sherzodkhon Qudratkhodja, a political scientist and professor, said Solovyov had expressed, in plain terms, ideas...

Human rights

Turkmen Activist Saddam Gulamov Faces Harsh Sentence for Government Criticism

Russia has extradited Saddam Gulamov, a Turkmen citizen and outspoken critic of the regime, to Turkmenistan, where he was sentenced to a lengthy prison term in 2024, according to a report by Turkmen.news. Born in 1991 in Ashgabat, Gulamov had publicly condemned the government's handling of the food crisis, its denial of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its silence following a devastating hurricane. He is reportedly being held in solitary confinement in prison alongside another activist. Gulamov had been residing in Russia, working in minor roles in theater and film. He was deported to Turkmenistan between late 2023 and early 2024 and convicted by the spring of 2024. The precise charges and length of his sentence have not been disclosed. Before his arrest, Gulamov had used social media to denounce the country's former president, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, calling him a “dictator and thief,” and urging citizens to reject the culture of blind obedience toward Turkmenistan’s leadership. All of his online content has since been removed. His case is part of a broader crackdown on dissent that intensified in 2020, when the government's inaction during crises led to rising political awareness among citizens. This growing unrest sparked the formation of opposition movements abroad, with activists using social media to call for unity and reform. Turkmen intelligence services closely monitored these activities, and once pandemic-era border restrictions were lifted, many dissidents were forcibly repatriated. Several activists, including Farhat Meymankuliev, Rovshen Klychev, and Merdan Mukhammedov, were deported from Turkey, while others sought asylum in European Union countries. Russia, though less involved than Turkey, has also played a significant role in these forced returns. Notable cases include Azat Isakov, who disappeared in Moscow in 2021 after saying he was hiding from security agents, and Myalikberdy Allamuradov, who was deported in December 2023 and later imprisoned. The list of targeted activists now includes Gulamov. According to Turkmen.news, both he and Allamuradov are being held in solitary confinement in the LB-E/12 penal colony. His extradition follows a similar incident in May, when activist Umida Bekchanova was detained in Istanbul and faced possible deportation to Turkmenistan. Human rights groups warn these actions are part of an expanding campaign of transnational repression aimed at silencing critics abroad through intimidation and forced returns.

Climate Change

Climate Study’s Dire Forecast Undermined by Faulty Uzbekistan Data

A widely publicized climate study predicting severe global economic losses from climate change is under scrutiny following the discovery of a critical data error involving Uzbekistan. As reported by The Washington Post on August 7, the error significantly skewed the study’s projections, prompting renewed debate over the reliability of economic modeling in climate science. Published in Nature in 2023, the original study warned that unchecked climate change could reduce global GDP by 19% by 2050 and by an alarming 62% by 2100, nearly three times higher than earlier forecasts. The study attracted substantial media attention and became the second-most-cited climate paper in 2024, according to CarbonBrief. Its projections were used by U.S. government agencies and the World Bank in financial planning. However, a new commentary in Nature, led by Solomon Hsiang, director of Stanford University’s Global Policy Laboratory, revealed that the study’s extreme forecasts were largely driven by distorted GDP data from Uzbekistan. Once researchers excluded Uzbekistan from the model, the projected global GDP losses dropped sharply from 62% to 23% by 2100, and from 19% to 6% by 2050. The flawed dataset suggested that Uzbekistan’s GDP plummeted by nearly 90% in 2000, then rebounded by over 90% in certain regions by 2010, figures inconsistent with historical records. According to the World Bank, Uzbekistan’s actual annual growth between 1980 and 2020 ranged between -0.2% and +7.7%. “These extreme swings warped the study’s model, creating the illusion that global GDP was far more sensitive to climate than it really is,” Hsiang told The Washington Post. The original study’s authors, based at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, acknowledged the error but stood by their conclusions. After revising the Uzbekistan data and adjusting the model, they reduced their 2050 forecast from a 19% to a 17% GDP loss. “We’re grateful for the scrutiny,” said co-author Leonie Wenz of the Technical University of Berlin. “But the main conclusions still hold.” Still, critics argue that retroactive methodological adjustments raise concerns about scientific integrity. “Science doesn’t work by adjusting experiments to get the answer you want,” Hsiang cautioned. The incident highlights both the power and the fragility of large-scale climate modeling and the importance of validating every data point, regardless of a country's size.