I generally agree, but I would add some nuances. For example, in my experience a major difference between Russians and Americans in is that Americans make so little difference between public and private spheres ethics-wise, whereas for Russians this difference is nearly absolute
As a general rule it is how you act in your private sphere that defines whether you are a good or bad person. How you act in public sphere is far less important. Also "honesty" would mean honesty in private rather than in public sphere. In private talk, not in public speech
After college I worked in a government organisation for a couple of months. My boss would sometimes walk into a cabinet where three of us were working to talk or give a monologue. Like: "How I came to the oppositional political views". That's private talk. It can be very honest
When you talk with people privately including (some) bureaucrats they can be surprisingly critical of the regime provided that they know you and somewhat trust you. In some cases this includes the specific narrow field they work in, like "yeah, what our agency is doing is absurd"
But the same people never ever will allow even the slightest public criticism. Sometimes it makes me feel this is also a part of a social contract. Officials are allowed to do quite a lot of regime bashing behind closed doors. But not publicly. You'll be destroyed for that
Another observation. Some officials are way smarter than they seem. Once I walked into an office of someone who now acts as a cheap propagandist & saw many books on economic theory that I like. "This guy must be smart", I concluded. But he very much dumbs down on public
You can't judge what officials think by their public talk. That's mostly lie
You can't judge how smart they are by their public stance. Smarter ones dumb it down to fit in
Fake public appearance doesn't make you bad in their world. It's how you behave privately what matters
On the contrary, Americans make very little difference between the private and public spheres ethics wise. Most of continental Europe in my experience lies somewhere between these extremes, obviously varying from region to region. The end
PS my Romanian friend once visited me in Russia. We are in a bus. Some granny asks him where is he from:
- I'm from Romania
- Then you should enjoy being here. Romania is a backward country
- What?
- I mean backward, uncivilised
In private speech Russians are straightforward
PPS There's a traditional Russian saying to rebuke someone who uses stuff carelessly, damaging it:
"It's not government property"
Like it's private. It actually belongs to someone. Don't you dare to treat it as if it were public (казённая = "of the treasury") property
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Counterpoint: Western unity is a myth and might have never existed in the first place. For example, during the Cold War, West Germany was not only the major trade partner of the USSR, but also a proxy for the Soviet technological import bypassing the American trade restrictions🧵
That's not some kind of secret knowledge. The narrative presented below will be fully based on a single book. "N. Krotov. The history of Soviet and Russian Foreign Banks, Volume 1". It is a collection of memories of Soviet bank officials commissioned by the Russian VTB Bank (ВТБ)
Consider the memories of S.M. Bochkarev who was the General Commissioner of the Ost-West Handelsbank in 1980-1985, Instructor of the Economic Department of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party in 1987-1988, and the Chairman of the Ost-West Handelsbank in 1988-1993
A great comment that sums up what is wrong with modern academia. Apparently Professor Radchenko lives in a social bubble where "Brat" movies were viewed just as ironically as the "Pulp Fiction". I am afraid he cannot comprehend that most of the audience watched them unironically
A (seemingly) unsophisticated criminal saga could become and indeed has become an integral part of the Russian state mythos. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 for example was widely viewed in the context of Brat-2 movie and described with its language
A hypothesis
Much of the poverty of the modern academia when it comes to studying other sentient and intelligent beings largely derives from:
1) personal arrogance and social prejudices of so many scholars 2) flawed system of incentives within academia itself
You can't really "study" a culture. You can only verstehen it. And in order to verstehen, you need to live into it. The rapid escalation of Z-war hardly came as a surprise to anyone who lived in the context of Russian culture. Watch this fragment from a super popular movie Brat-2
Aleksei Balabanov may be the most talented and the culturally influential film director of the post-Soviet Russia. Some even argue that he created the post-Soviet Russian culture. That may be an overstatement but the absolutely iconic status of his movies is hard to deny
Most of Balabanov's fame and influence is based on just two movies: Brat and Brat-2 covering fictional mafia wars of the Russian mafia. The first movie is taking place in Russia (St Petersburg), in the second movie they make a work trip to America
Traditional Tatar literature is virtually inaccessible for modern Tatars for a similar reason. Till the 20th c we used to be a Persianate culture, so being "educated" implied a decent knowledge of Farsi (at least) and Arabic (ideally). You needed to be at least bilingual
That helped to differ the registers of language. For example, in English a word constructed on a original Germanic root would be of lowest register, with French root being higher and Latin even higher than that. Consider terms "kingly", "royal" and "regal" for example
In Tatar a word with an originally Turkic root would be considered of a lower register, while a borrowed Arabic or Farsi word - of higher. For example a Turkic word for a nightingale "Sandugach" would be viewed as mundane while a Farsi "Bulbul" - very poetic
Peter I's figure is very much misunderstood. There was hardly any other Russian ruler so widely and universally hated during his lifetime. No wonder so many of his reforms were reversed almost immediately upon his death: Navy budget cut, the capital brought back to Moscow, etc
1) Transformation of all varieties of bondage & servitude to a chattel slavery. Rapid expansion of unfree labor in industry
2) Depopulation & de-urbanization
3) Extremely arbitrary military regime, to the extent unknown since Ivan the Terrible
If there is any decent and readable narrative of how Peter's regime was perceived by his subjects in English, then I'm unaware of its existence. But you can take a Sergey Sergeyev's book, open it on this page and google translate it loveread.ec/read_book.php?…
Much of the expertise on Russia has negative value not necessarily because the experts are wrong (they may be right), but because they are right about the unimportant stuff. Lacking the deep understanding of and the deep guanxi in Russia they have no idea what to focus on
That creates an absolutely false and distorted image of Russia in the West. The analysts and the media might not be technically "wrong". They are lying by omission in most cases, not noticing or pretending not to notice a nice herd of elephants in the room. Like the Metodologiya
The impact of Metodologiya on politics & governance is well-known in Russia. Consider this very good introduction by a media I don't really like. It may not be 100% correct but it's a great intro to a topic virtually unknown in the West