That's Mikhail Khodaryonok. Out of all people in the room he is the most sober one. Why? Well, may be because he's the only one with the substantial military experience. He's a career officer of the air defence who turned to a pundit career only after retirement (not a thread)
Khodaryonok used to be a senior operative officer in the Russian General Staff. Most Russian pundits judged the military capacity of the Russian army based on official propaganda. Khodaryonok - on his lived experience. Now wonder he is way more pessimistic about the war
Khodaryonok published a pessimistic prognosis about the Russian invasion of Ukraine back on February 3, long before it started. Many pundits expected a quick Russian victory. But the one who actually worked in the Russian General Staff didn't believe in it nvo.ng.ru/realty/2022-02…
Some Khodaryonok's points he raised back on February 3, three weeks before the Russian invasion:
- Pundits are wrong about the political situation in Ukraine. Many claim that nobody iwould defend the "regime in Kyiv". That's false. They will, including the Russian-speakers
- Pundits claim that Russia can win in a few hours by destroying Ukrainian army with "a mighty artillery strike". Well, even a term "mighty artillery strike" suggests it were the Politruks who made it up and not the military. It's propaganda. It's also factually wrong. They won't
- Pundits claim that Ukrainian army is in disarray. Well, it used to be back in 2014. Back then it used to be a very much deteriorated version of the Soviet army. Since then it improved immensely. It is now organised on very different principles and largely by NATO standards
- Pundits claim that the Western countries won't send a single soldier to die for Ukraine. Probably they won't. But they will support Ukraine massively "There is no doubt that in the case of war, the USA and NATo will reincarnate some version of lend lease much alike WWII"
- Pundits expect Russia to win in days or hours. They forget that the USSR spent more than 10 years exterminating guerrillas in Western Ukraine. Now Russia will face guerrillas in urban landscapes that naturally favour a weaker and less heavily armed side of the conflict
- Conclusions. There will be no Blitzkrieg in Ukraine. Experts who claim that Russia will defeat Ukraine in "8 minutes", "10 minutes" and even in "30-40 minutes are wrong". Best of all, forget about your jingoist fantasies and never bring them up again
I very much recommend to translate Khodoryonok's prognosis from back on February 3 and publish it as a full length thread. It's really the most astute, detailed and shockingly precise prognosis of the future war that I read. That's literally Cassandra-level of prophesying
Some wrote that my prognosis from Feb 27 aged well and I take this as a compliment. But Khodoryonok's article was *waaay* more precise and came out 3 weeks earlier. He predicted the course of this war before it even started. That's the power of a true expertise & lived experience
TL;DR Out of all predictions and prognoses about the Z-war that I ever read or hear about, Khodaryonok's one was the most precise, like unbelievably precise. I don't exclude the possibility that this guy understands the situation better than anyone else. The end of not a thread
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
- What is long, green and smells with sausage?
- Moscow-Tver train
Why? Well, under the USSR provincials had to go shopping to Moscow. Their shops had no food, often very literally. Today we'll learn an expression "supply category"🧵
Under the centrally planned economy it was the state which supplied food to the localities. It would assign each city one of four "supply categories" determining how much food there will be on shelves. Moscow was supplied far better than anyone while cities like Tver - horribly
Provincial Soviet cities of the lower supply categories might have no food on the shelves at all. Sometimes very literally. Sometimes they would have only the scraps from the table of the higher status city: like some algae, or the disgusting paste "Ocean"
I find this line of argumentation illustrative of the general state of Russian discourse, whether "patriotic" or "liberal". Everything Turkic occupies the same place in the Russian debates as everything Irish in the Imperial British. The Inner Other and the source of all the evil
Reading the Russian-Ukrainian debates with both sides accusing each other of racial impurity and having too many Steppe admixtures or influences, I noticed that their argumentation is mirroring each other. See this Russian nationalist material for example sputnikipogrom.com/history/15934/…
This mutuality and almost exact symmetry of Russian-Ukrainian accusations reminds me of a brilliant
thread on the British rule over the Ionian Isles. Bach then the discourse was similar. Brits and Greeks were constantly accusing each other of Irishness
Russian bureaucracy is *massive*. It's also diverse. Judging from my observations, it's less integrated than let's say the apparatus of the U.S. federal bureaucracy. Different agencies have different cultures and operate by different rules. Avoid sweeping generalisations (not🧵)
I see a very common attitude among the Russian pro-war community. It can be summarised this way:
"We expected dumb and incompetent bureaucrats to destroy our economy. But our glorious army would prevail against all odds. It turned out we were wrong. It's the other way around"
Now much of the Z-community argues that they greatly overestimated the Russian army (and the military apparatus). It's very, very much worse than anyone thought before. But they underestimated the economic bureaucracy. Which is very much better than they could have thought
No. Describing Russian regime as "kleptocracy" is misrepresentation. It's not technically false, just absurdly reductionist. Let's be honest, if Putinism was *entirely* about stealing it would not be able to wage wars or produce armaments. And it produces hella lots of them
Keep in mind that public rhetorics work according to the rhetorical logic. Public position doesn't have to be factually accurate, it has to be rhetorically advantageous for it to work. They talk about "corruption" so much because it's rhetorically advantageous. That's it
When you don't have a positive agenda/vision of future or it's too hideous, you talk about "corruption". Examples - Lukashenko or Yeltsin. "Anti-corruption fight" is an ideal topic for a power hungry politician. Because talking about corruption = avoiding the actual conversation
Kremlin may not have a grey cardinal. But it has a bald engineer. The Kinder Egg is a major architect of Putinism. In 1998 he made Putin the FSB Chief. In 2000s he dismantled the regional autonomy imposing the centralised rule. Now he manages Putin's domestic policy and Ukraine🧵
Sergey Kirienko was born as Sergey Israitel in a mixed Russian-Jewish family. After the divorce his mother changed his surname from father's "Israitel" to her own "Kirienko". That could be a pragmatic decision. A boy with a Slavic name would have better career chances in the USSR
In childhood Kirienko lived with his mom in subtropical Sochi. Here he started the bureaucrat career as a Komsomol manager (комсорг) of his high school class. NB: the role of Komsomol in Soviet to post-Soviet transition is underrated. Komsomol management were its main benefactors