Great statistics, awful analysis. The fact that the majority of Russians will support either escalation or peace shows that they *do* have a clue. And the clue is - submission to the supreme power in whatever. The culture of obedience in Russia is unimaginable to a Westerner
That's why discussion about Putin's "rate of approval" figures is so dumb. It just doesn't matter. Yeltsin ruled perfectly with a rate of approval of like 6%. He waged wars, and won elections and commanded a perfect obedience being almost universally hated. Culture of obedience
It's analysts making arguments like "it's all Putin's fault, Russian people would accept whatever decision of the Supreme Ruler" who are clueless. It's not Bad Putin who is the problem here. It is the culture of perfect obedience to the ruler and his *whatever* decisions
That's why changing "bad" Tsar for a "good" Tsar isn't solution. Good Tsar will command just as perfect obedience. And he'll break the bones of the disobedient just as diligently as the Bad one. Except media won't notice it this time, because they're already too invested into him
Russians often say "we can't bear any responsibility for this war, we can't do anything really" and that makes Ukrainians very angry. But this observation is not technically wrong, there's a lot of truth in it. It just means that Russia should not exist as a political structure
Enfranchisement of the Russian empire's population requires scaling down. Right now perfect obedience is the only evolutionary stable strategy for its subjects. To gain sense of responsibility for their lives, they must be physical taken from under the power of Kremlin
Btw, don't you feel that "we bear no responsibility, we couldn't and still can't do anything" arguments are kinda... infantile? Because they're. In a sense subjects of a tyranny do behave and reason like kids, because they never really grew up
I think that Russian political and institutional culture can change relatively quickly. But for that to happen its political structure must be dismantled and Moscow must have no power over the periphery. Because it's Moscow that keeps the empire in its current degeneracy. The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Tourism issue is not just tourism issue. Russian public opinion interprets it as the marker of the *real* attitude of Europe. When Macron/Scholz express a deep concern, Russian public either laughs over it or interprets it as the de facto endorsement. Empty words, no action
Visa ban may be a small action, but it is an action. Unlike words visa ban has nonzero value. This can and will be interpreted as Europe being *actually* upset about what's happening in Ukraine and probably even somewhat angry. It's a sign of actual, unironic disapproval
Fair enough. While Crimea had separatist attitiudes, Donbass did not. In fact, it was a major power center of pre-2014 Ukraine. While Russia is picturing Ukrainian political system as dominance of Galicia, picturing it as Donetsk & Dnipro dominance may be more factually accurate
I would argue that the actual political influence of the West Ukrainian interest groups on Kyiv politics had been exaggerated. While the influence of interest groups from the large industrial cities of the South East: especially Dnipro and Donetsk had been vastly underrated
In 2014 Donetsk interest group lost massively. They chose to welcome the Russian involvement. A dog was losing in a fight and called for the wolves to help. As a result, the Donetsk group not only lost everything but the Donbass itself turned into the country of depopulated ruins
1. Well, Russia already did mass mobilisation in Donbass. It is the Ukrainian citizens that are the main Russian cannon fodder. I have no idea why this is not discussed more often
2. Mass mobilisation in Russia would be a stupid decision
That's the context for the @amnesty argument about civilians being put on the harm's way by the Ukrainian defence. Once a Donbass city fells to Russia, males 18-60 will be press-ganged to the army and then recycled in the frontal attacks on the Ukrainian positions. That's reality
Scenario under which civilians won't suffer just does not exist. From the Russian perspective population of the conquered territory is just the cheap cannon fodder which they send to frontal attacks with WWII weapon. Entire male population of Donbass is being recycled by Russia
1. I think security concerns of Finland and even more so, Baltics, are legitimate. Let's be honest, Russia never really recognised independence of the latter. Furthermore, Baltic nations are very much dehumanised in the Russian public discourse
This sermon may be very illustrative. "Misfortunate" Ukraine is described more as a misled little sister who must be disciplined, reformed and put back in line. The priest's stance on Baltics is much harsher:
"What happens with Baltics, you can imagine yourself" tells he
2. Saying all of this, I see a certain contradiction between the moral logic and the pragmatic logic in the visa/residence permit policy. I also see a strong bias towards the former
Many see NGOs as a bunch of ultra-privileged Westerners focused on satisfying their ego without any regard for the cost they inflict on the people they're supposed to "help". This view is unfair. It's too generalising. But the @amnesty report is playing to the worst stereotypes🧵
To start with, an argument about "Ukrainian forces putting civilians in harm’s way" by defending ignores the objective reality. Which is: it's the Ukrainian retreat that is putting civilians in harm's way. On the Russian occupied territory they'll be subject to unhinged violence
It is the Ukrainian retreat that made the worst atrocities of this war possible. Once the Ukrainian army retreats, civilians are at the mercy of the Russian military & the paramilitary. No wonder that they become victims of indiscriminate violence
Kremlin has a problem. Since it didn't declare war, it can't jail the military who just refuse to go to fight to Ukraine. But senior officers can add bad remarks to their personal files. Like this:
"Inclined towards alcohol and drug abuse, towards theft and anal orgies"
Last remark about "anal orgies" is very illustrative. It's not so much about homophobia as a Westerner could presume as about the prison culture. Prison culture permeates society, especially the army, police and state security *far* deeper than foreigners would believe
Prison has very complex sexual code. First and most importantly, *active* homosexualism is okay. It's not even perceived as homosexualism, but as a way to reinforce the social hierarchy. Passive role though is shameful and is reserved for the non-touchable, the "cocks" (петухи)