And so, #Russia de-escalates: First at home, and then in Ukraine.
(A quick thread. TL;DR: None of this is over just yet.)
/1
The most recent and very welcome piece of news is Shoigu's announcement that Russian troops will be pulling back from the Ukrainian border. It is very good to know that a full-scale invasion of #Ukraine is apparently not in the offing.
There will be a lot of mostly pointless arguing over why this happened. Some will claim that Russia never intended to invade. Others will claim that deterrence worked. Only Putin knows, and he isn't talking.
/3
What is clear, though, is that neither Kyiv nor the West made any visible concessions. If this was posturing and bullying, it doesn't appear to have achieved anything, and Zelensky and Biden have little reason to regret their courses of action, whatever Putin may have said.
/4
The slightly older news is the remarkable drop-off in arrests at yesterday's protests: "only" around 1800.
Yes, 1800 arrests are still a lot, given that the constitution guarantees the right to peaceful protests -- and these protests _were_ peaceful. But the number pales when compared to what we saw in January, when some 11,000 people were arrested.
/6
As with Ukraine, it was the Kremlin that deescalated here, not its opponents. Yesterday's protests do not appear to have been appreciably smaller than the January protests, and if anything they were bigger. That, too, will feel like a win for the opposition.
/7
On both fronts -- with Ukraine and with the opposition -- the Kremlin is likely to have calculated that further escalation would create unpredictability, at a time when Putin is clearly hoping for smooth sailing.
/8
But if the Kremlin believes that de-escalation is a more easily controllable process, that's only because it believes it has proven its points, and that both Ukraine and the opposition will avoid pressing their respective advantages, lest Moscow re-escalate.
We'll see.
/9
On the home front, meanwhile, complacency would be misplaced. Next week, a court will begin proceedings to decide whether Navalny's core opposition organizations are "extremist", a ruling that will have far-reaching consequences (and which is likely a foregone conclusion).
/10
The Kremlin seems to have set its sights on eliminating the pro-democratic opposition as such, or at least severely marginalizing it.
/11
Marginalization, of course, tends to create radicalization, but the relatively restrained response to yesterday's protests may have dulled people's sense of threat. Again, we'll see.
/12
Overall, though, there are fewer people in jail than there might have been, fewer people in hospital, and fewer people in immediate fear of war. And that is all good news.
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
While we wait for the protests to kick off, it's worth spending a bit more time looking at the economic aspects of Putin's speech today.
TL;DR: It's underwhelming, but informative.
/1
For context: Broadly speaking, Russia has an economic problem, but not a fiscal one. The budget is in deficit but the fiscal position is strong, as are reserves, and the country can afford to borrow (even despite US sanctions on sovereign debt).
/2
GDP growth is unstable and anemic -- the headline projection of 3.8% is unimpressive, given what happened in 2020 (and projections of 5-6% in more mature markets).
/3
The dust hasn't yet settled, but we can draw some early conclusions from today's protests in #Russia. TL;DR: The Kremlin and the opposition are at a stalemate.
/1
I don't see reliable nationwide turnout figures, but this feels similar in size & scale to the 2017 Dimon protests, which brought out 60-100k nationwide. This may be bigger. Either way, more than the Kremlin was hoping to see, but probably less than the opposition wanted.
/2
The Kremlin went to extraordinary lengths to keep people off the streets - including preventive arrests, online censorship, and threats to workers and students - and there's little indication it worked (though, I suppose, turnout could have been even higher).
/3
It is possible to believe that Twitter and Facebook did the right thing to block Trump, and that, having done so, it lays bear a real problem for American democracy. The Biden Administration and the incoming Congress need urgently to address the power of online social media.
/1
First, Twitter’s cancellation of Trump is NOT a First Amendment violation. Twitter has a right to moderate the speech distributed on its network, and a responsibility to take the public interest into account.
/2
Moreover, Trump has not been deprived of the ability to speak. He has merely been deprived of the ability to speak on Twitter and Facebook. I am not overly troubled by the ability of private corporations to decide how consumers use those corporations’ resources.
/3
I'm struck by something @LisaDNews just reported on @NewsHour from inside the Capitol: Once inside, many -- though maybe not all -- of the protesters seemed to become more relaxed, surprised that they had made it inside, but perhaps also in awe of where they were.
/1
Obviously this is purely anecdotal, but it's a reminder to take seriously the power of institutions, of tradition and of ritual.
/2
There is a reason that our great buildings of state are so impressive. Yes, they project power, but they also -- sometimes -- remind occupants that they are part of something bigger than they are.
I don't know how I want this to end. But I do know how it must not end. It must not end in tear gas in the Capitol Building. It must not end in riot police or the military clearing the halls of state. It must not end in bloodshed.
But it must also not end in impunity.
/1
Part of me -- the part that still regrets not having flown back from the UK to join this summer's protests -- wants to see the Trumpistas bear the brunt of the violence they cheered when it rained down on BLM.
/2
And I _do_ want to see the ringleaders of this mob fill the prison cells they thought were reserved for Antifa.
/3
I spend most of my time studying how people fight back against autocratic regimes in places like Russia. But as my fellow Americans worry about the potential of an authoritarian coup in Washington, I’m seeing a different set of parallels – and it worries me.
/1
If you believe you live in a democracy, elections are a wonderful thing. Sure, the campaign can be nerve-wracking, but at the end of the day the votes are cast, someone wins, someone else loses, and attention gradually shifts to the next opportunity to do it all over again.
/2
If you live in an autocracy, however, elections are nothing more than another opportunity for the regime to retrench its power and your powerlessness.
/3