What were the actual goals of the Kazakhs who joined Emelian Pugachev’s rebellion in the late 18th century?

Blogger Ilyas Baktygaliyev explores this, referencing historical sources:

«Soviet historiography, due to ideological considerations, always placed the greatest emphasis on the theme of the struggle between the oppressed and oppressors, giving rise to a whole layer of absurd mythology, much of which has seeped into our modern historiography. A vivid example of this is the topic of Kazakhs’ participation in Emelian Pugachev’s rebellion.

Within the myth, it is assumed that our people, oppressed by bloody tsarism and deprived of valuable nomadic lands, were tired of this and decided to support Pugachev’s rebellion. Soviet textbooks still accompanied this with stories of Kazakhs, as part of the great friendship of nations, wanting to help the oppressed Russian workers in the Ural factories overthrow the shackles of tsarism. In reality, this is all complete nonsense.

The nomad of the 18th century, still living in the paradigm of raiding economics, did not think in such terms. For Kazakhs (as well as for the majority of the rebels), the rebellion was just a convenient way to freely engage in looting. The success of which was vividly described in the 19th century by legal scholar and orientalist Ivan Kraft:

During the Pugachev rebellion, the Kyrgyz took advantage of the panic and disorder in the Volga region. They made their way to Kazan and, taking advantage of the confusion, looted the population everywhere and took Russians captive by the hundreds. In the Catholic colonies near Saratov, they even captured the Franciscan pastor Johann Dedukl. According to the complaints submitted to the Senate by the Astrakhan governor, the number of Russians sold into slavery by the Kyrgyz at that time reached up to 5,000 souls. Among them were officers and officials, Volga colonists, Poles, serfs, state peasants, Chuvash, Mordva, and Chermis.

In summary, the real outcome of the Kazakhs’ participation in Pugachev’s rebellion was the appearance of peculiarities like kidnapped Poles and a Franciscan pastor in Uzbek slave markets, rather than any naphthalene-laden nonsense about a national-liberation struggle against the shackles of colonialism.»