No, that would happen in case of regime change with the fundamental structure of the empire remaining intact. Should Moscow rule everyone under a different rhetorical disguise, then "Russia experts" with deep contacts in Moscow and few anywhere else will be in high demand
That may explain why many in academia are so invested into a regime change with the "liberal opposition" coming to power. Many Western experts have strong connections there and should those fellows take power, these connections would be worth more
Ofc they want it to happen
On the other hand, almost no one in academia has strong contacts in or even the basic understanding of the regions that could become the nuclei of functional states. I am talking about richer regions that now pay the bills of Moscow and thus could pay their own, too
Russia Studies community is *not* neutral
Most of them would win, should the empire remain intact (regime change). And lose badly to catastrophically should it disintegrate. The smaller the empire of Moscow, the less their Moscow expertise costs
They're smart enough to see it
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Your observation is right, you're just making wrong implications out of it. If you study history of most anti-colonial movements, both successful (USA) and failures, you'll see that local notables well-integrated into a previous regime were very prominent in almost all of them
I would even say that popular imagination tends to exaggerate the "people's rebellion" factor and simultaneously underrate "notables changing colours" factor when studying most political changes, either anti-colonial and not
Daily reminder that as a rule Western Academia has great contempt towards public imagination of non-Western countries. They misrepresent their internal debates ignoring whatever doesn’t fit to their preconceptions
Galkovsky is wildly more impactful than Dugin for example
Galkovsky has been the most influential Russian nationalist thinker of the recent decades and Sputnik and Pogrom - the most influential media. They largely shaped the worldview of young Russian nationalists
Meanwhile they’re almost totally ignored by most “Russia experts”
Why? Well, for the same reason they love Dugin. Once they established Russia is so Mystic and Irrational, they’ll look for whatever fits into their preconceptions and ignore the rest
Every Russian with half a brain knows how to use it for their own advantage
In this thread I am going to cover some of the more common misconceptions about the current state of affairs in Russia and potential scenarios of its breakup. I am going to start with the most common objection:
"Isn't Russia like 80% ethnic Russian?"🧵
Both honest sceptics (mostly foreigners) and more biased critics (mostly Moscow literati) love pointing to the official census results. Indeed, official censuses picture Russia as almost homogenous country with 77% pop being ethnic Russian
How reliable are these results though?
Much of aggregate data from Russia/China etc. looks very appealing. That's until we start disaggregating it. Aggregate figures can be just as reliable as the raw data they're based upon. Therefore, Russian/Chinese statistics too often have the "Garbage in, Garbage out" problem
For context: that's how the most popular Russian ethnonationalist media of the recent decades "Sputnik and Pogrom" pictured their dream - "Russia for Russians". Very decolonizing, indeed
Honestly, I am appalled to see what can pass for expertise in modern Western academia
NB: This is not only about Russia. That's about absolute contempt of too many Western intellectual circles towards the public imagination of non-Western countries, Russia included. This problem lies so deep that I am not sure whether it can be fixed or not
If you have just a bit of empathy towards the Russian ethnonationalists, the idea that they want to make their empire *smaller* would strike you as absolutely improbable. Even when they all agree that certain regions are a liability in each and every respect, the idea of ...
With may be a single exception of North Caucasus (specifically "ДИЧ" - Dagestan, Chechnya and Ingushetia) this is just false. There are *some* Russian ethnonationalists who argue for letting these three regions out. There is about zero who want general decolonisation
"ДИЧ" abbreviation which stands for Dagestan, Chechnya and Ingushetia is indeed popular in the Russian far right discourse. It refers to these three mountainous regions whom some want to see out, and some want to see under a régime du sabre
While there is limited support for "solving the ДИЧ question", one or another way, there is exactly zero support for letting out anyone else. In fact Russian ethnonationalists are very suspicious of either ethnic and "Russian" regionalism, seeing them as a separatist threat
Barely any Slavs before Slavic invasions, barely any Indo-Europeans before Indo-European invasion
The problem with your argument is not that it is wrong. The problem is that it is so universally true that it can be arbitrarily weaponised against anyone
Arguments are overrated. "Fighting the invader" argument is universally true -> can be used against anyone -> is being successfully used by victors against losers
Should Greek win, they're gonna cleanse Turkish invaders
Should Turks win, they're gonna cleanse Greek invaders
If you don't see it, it just means that you're clueless about the agenda of the "other side". Turks weaponised Anatolian nativism against the Greeks just as successfully as Greeks theirs. One could even say that Anatolian nativism was just mirroring (and copying) the Greek one