👇When we are talking about a truce or even peace, we should keep in mind that Russia won't be honouring it. Any ceasefire will be used for regrouping, restocking and then attacking again with a better chance of success. Notice that they compare Russian situation to Khasavyurt
First Chechen war 1994-1996 ended with Khasavyurt Accords. Russia withdrew it forces from Chechnya. Independence of Chechnya remained an open question which had to be determined by 2001
Next year, in 1997 Russia signed a peace treaty with Chechnya. President Yeltsin agreed on "rejecting forever the use of force" and "developing relations on the norms of international law". Many viewed it as the de facto recognition of independence
"Forever" lasted for two years. In 1999 same president Yeltsin who signed the treaty invaded again. This war played a key role in Yeltsin to Putin transition, allowing Yeltsin to boost the heir his family chose from a nonane to the national leader just in a few months
Interestingly enough, it was around 1997 when Russia stopped its effective de-militarization continuing since collapse of the USSR (mostly for the lack of funding) and started figuring out how to rebuild it - now on much more limited resources. 1997 can be seen as a turning point
Post-Khasavyurt era was characterised by the massive promotion of state security to the upper echelons of power. All three Yeltsin's last Prime Ministers were state security officers. Putin's succession was no accident, it was a deliberate choice of Yeltsin to hand power to KGB
One could argue that the Khasavyurt did not deescalate the situation, it escalated it. In Russia this truce still serves as an epitome of cowardice and betrayal. It is a dishonour that can be cleansed only by a new offensive
Second Chechen War was predetermined in Khasavyurt
The same way that the Khasavyurt accords of 1996 and the peace treaty of 1997 predetermined the second war that started already in 1999, now ceasefires or peace treaties will predetermine the next Russian invasion. It will only buy Russia the time to regroup, like Khasavyurt
Appeasers assume that Russia will honour a treaty. What they don't get is that from Russian perspective it is *honouring* such a treaty that would be seen as shameful and dishonourable. Breaking it would be seen as an act of national redemption. Like it happened in 2000
Putin's reputation as a national saviour was earnt by *breaking* a peace treaty. Treaty is shameful = breaking it is seen an act of national redemption. Same will happen this time, too. After all, as Sergey Kirienko pointed out, "Russian state is not based on treaties". The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On a highway leading from Chechnya to Dagestan there is a traffic light. It is always red. Every day thousands of cars have to drive through this 24/7 red light to pass from one region to another. This isn't a mistake, but a well-organised system. Look at the arc on the right 🧵
This monumental arc marks a checkpoint leading to the Hosi Yurt (now Akhmat Yurt) - the native village of Kadyrov. Akhmat Yurt is guarded all around its perimeter, much like any of Putin's residences. Only the natives of a village are allowed in
Honestly nowhere in Russia have I seen another place with such a concentrated aura of personal power. Security measures are really impressive: from the armed guard to the radio jammers. You can notice it when your mobile network stops working in a few kilometres from the village
I'd say that is a false dichotomy. Logic may help to do what you do in a more or less efficient way. But *what* you choose to do - this choice is arbitrary. You may pursue your goals in a rational way, yes, but the choice of a goal is irrational. Refusal to choose - also a choice
Still, if we have to compare, most Russians tend to be more pragmatic than most Westerners. So using your term, *more* logical. They're more oriented to pursue earthly, material goals. It's just that the planning horizon is very short, so this behaviour seems to be "irrational"
Example - send your sons to the war, so you can get material benefits. Absolutely rational, pragmatic behaviour with a short planning horizon. They absolutely do count, they just count badly and do not look forward too far. That doesn't mean they're not pragmatic, they are
Great question. Dumb, but that makes it only better. Short answer: in the recent decades manufacturing digitalised. In 1991 90% machine tools were conventional (mechanical basically). Now most are computer controlled and very software dependent, especially for precision machining
So yr understanding of industrial machines is sorta adequate to how most of them worked 30 years ago. Back then they were kinda autonomous: you buy them and they work. May be you need to buy spare parts, but that’s it. Because they were mechanical. No computer -> no disconnection
Modern machines are different. Computer control. Graphical User Interface. You don’t need to control it with your hands like 30 years ago. You may not even need to code like 15 years ago. You can often pick button on a screen -> I want *this* component design from the online bank
It was revealed to me in a dream that producers of key cruise missiles and components for them (engine producer ODK Saturn for example) have been actively expanding their workforce -> They most probably work 24/7 -> Western suppliers didn't disconnect machines they sold to Russia
Russia can produce precision components in massive quantities -> It is a strong indication that Western suppliers of industrial machines did *not* disconnect their products. It's highly likely they're updating software and maintaining them remotely keeping Russian army afloat
Western = Western European (primarily German) + the role of Asian Tigers (Taiwan, Korea) increased in the last years. Out of American companies - HAAS plays a major role. There is a bunch of small suppliers: Australia, Brazil, Turkey and mainland China but they do not matter much
In a sense, navalnist nonsense is structurally similar to the Mearsheimer's nonsense. In both cases you dismiss any evidence contradicting your priors. In your case that would be:
They're all "crooks" and personal profits is their primary motivation
Counterpoint - February 24
Navalnist Theory of Putin is wrong, not because it is 100% false (same for Mearsheimer - some of his arguments may be correct), but because it is absurdly reductionist
They steal -> They're "corrupt" -> Money is all they're about
This interview illustrates some key fallacies, shortcomings and outright intellectual dishonesty associated with Mearsheimer's realist approach. And since his authority is instrumental in legitimising the appeasement advocacy, I will discuss it in detail🧵
Let's start with dishonesty. Mearsheimer denies that Putin hold any intention to conquer Ukraine before this war. He even quotes Putin's article of July 2021 as an evidence of Putin "recognising the Ukrainian sovereignty". This is a highly inaccurate representation of its content
Putin argued that modern borders of Ukraine are illegitimate. They had more territory leaving the USSR in 1991 than they had joining it in 1922. Justice would require Ukraine to give it all away [to Russia]