Here, we are not talking about the possibility of interpreting events — that is each of our rights. The problem lies in the distortion and manipulation of facts, which is intentional. It is important to remember that history should record the truth, not be a product of imagination.
Personality or Comedy Act?
Syimyk Zhapikeev indeed became a notable figure in the struggle against the regime of Sooronbay Jeenbekov. Since May 2020, his popular "kitchen" on YouTube attracted the attention of all of Kyrgyzstan, where he, using accessible language, shared his views on what was happening in the country and commented on political events. He successfully captured the public's demand and matched it in both form and content.
But can he be considered a catalyst for the October events of the same year?
Most likely, the answer is no. The change of power in October 2020 was a result of a structural crisis, not the actions of one blogger, no matter how popular he was. The known and documented causes of the crisis had been accumulating long before Zhapikeev's "kitchen" appeared. He became an emotional mouthpiece for protest sentiments, but that does not make him an ideologist, and popularity does not equal authorship.
The history of mass protests, including events in Kyrgyzstan, shows that such events rarely have a single author; their triggers are combinations of many factors, not just "kitchen" streams.
Zhapikeev's assertion of his significant role in the October events can be viewed as an element of political stand-up, in which he is undoubtedly strong. However, this is not a basis for a serious analysis of all the factors that led to Sooronbay Jeenbekov's resignation.
By the way, after it became clear that the elections on October 6, 2020, were falsified and the victory was to be shared between Rayimbek Matraimov and Asylbek Jeenbekov, the "Chon Kazat" party, where Syimyk Zhapikeev was one of the leaders, failed to mobilize the people for protests. Only after political forces such as "Mekenchil," "Ata-Meken," "Bir-Bol," and "Respublika" began to openly express discontent did the protests take to the streets and overthrow the regime.
No One Expected Zhapаров
Another myth that Syimyk Zhapikeev tries to convey through the podcast is that no one demanded the release of Sadyr Japarov in October. However, the shouts of "Sadyr, Sadyr!" in Ala-Too Square in Bishkek were clearly not a product of the imagination of those who were following events in Kyrgyzstan both inside and outside the country.
In fact, Sadyr Japarov was a well-known politician long before 2020, and demands for his release were voiced both on the streets and on social media. While in custody, he actively worked on social media and managed to create a broad support base that, at the right moment, transitioned into street protests.
One of the protest participants, who wished to remain anonymous and ran for office from another party, noted that at all his meetings with the public, the question was invariably asked: "When will you free Sadyr?" He recalls: "In Bishkek, Naryn, on Issyk-Kul, and in the south, everyone asked: 'When will Sadyr be free?' It's amazing how, while in prison, he managed to gather such support. But that's a fact."
"I Was Used and Thrown Away"
Another common narrative of "I was used," often voiced by those who were on the front lines and then remained on the sidelines, is also present in the podcast with Zhapikeev.
Indeed, history is full of examples where the platforms of protests do not find their place in peaceful life.
However, in the case of Syimyk Zhapikeev, it should be clarified that he received a position, and not just one. However, expectations did not match reality. Politics is not a continuation of blogging, but an institution that requires responsibility, discipline, and the ability to work within the system. The inability to adapt is not always a conspiracy; sometimes it is simply a mismatch between role and competencies.
Those who know even a little about Syimyk Zhapikeev understand why he is not on the front lines now.
In principle, one could refrain from mentioning this podcast if Zhapikeev's story were not indicative in a broader context. Given that Kyrgyzstan is once again entering an election cycle, such stories will become increasingly relevant.
This is dangerous not because someone exaggerates their role, but because society begins to believe in simplified explanations of complex processes.
Syimyk Zhapikeev was undoubtedly part of significant events, but he was not their architect. He was given an opportunity but could not realize it as he expected. This is quite a normal human story, but turning it into an alternative textbook on the recent history of Kyrgyzstan would be wrong.
