Photograph by Flickr user Astrid (CC-usage).

Out of fairness’ sake (which is about as rare for me to do as an eclipse, but hey) here’s a counter-view from neweurasia‘s top dogs in Transitions Online about why the uprising isn’t a “Second Tulip Revolution”.  Among the differences:

• the level of violence (a lot more this time around)
• regional character (instead of the southwest, this time it’s the northeast)
• the trigger (then: Akiyev keeping out the rich; now: Bakiyev keeping out the poor)
• the organizers (then: the elites; now: the poor themselves)

Hmmmm but this sounds to me suspiciously like the real thing, not the palace coup of 2005.  Okay, okay, I can already hear my boss Schwartz grinding his teeth at me, so I’ll end this post by saying that you should read the piece because it explores a few possible scenarios of what might happen from here on out.  It’s got this somber conclusion:

Whatever the outcome of the protests, it is clear that Kyrgyzstan has plunged into deep chaos. It will take months, if not years to recover from this. The concern is that instability in Kyrgyzstan is already spilling over to its neighbors. Kazakhstan has closed borders as scores of Kyrgyz are trying to cross the border and find refuge in Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan is most likely to follow suit.