I find it noticeable that the recent political turmoil (I hesitate to call it a crisis as a change of government is an endorsement of democratic institutions in some ways, and the state budget was passed relatively easily during this tumultuous period) is entirely homemade.
While Mongolian politics and media are usually rife with speculation about the various foreign connections that this or that politicians is supposed to have, there has been very little discussion of such connections recently.
In comparing R Amarjargal and Ch Saikhanbileg, there seemed to be very little discussion whether one of them is more Russophile than the other, or closer to China or to another neighbours.
Is this lack of hinting at foreign connections an indicator of the recognition that this turmoil was homemade? The conclusion that the turmoil was entirely made-in-Mongolia seems quite obvious, but that has not been a reason for countries not to blame foreign forces for various activities. Note for example the silly insinuation of some kind of CIA or other involvement in the current Hong Kong protests offered by Chinese propaganda outlets.
But even in the free-wheeling and very political Mongolian media, there seems to have been an acknowledgment that the Altankhuyag government collapsed due to DP-internal fighting not through foreign manipulation. As much as Saikhanbileg is sometimes guessed to be “close” to Rio Tinto (whatever that really means), there haven’t been any hints at corporate conspiracies that have led to government changes.
That is all not only an accurate portrayal of the current crisis, but also a healthy sign of recognition of the agency of Mongolia’s government in its own fate, as I also discussed in the context of a brief reflection on Myanmar’s development as a lens on Mongolia’s context in the UB Post.