Many think Putin aims to annex Ukraine. I find that implausible. That's based on assumption that Putin is primarily concerned with foreign policy. But what if his main concern is domestic one? What if the real goal is to keep Ukraine a failed state as an example to the Russians?
Firstly, the territory currently hold by Russians or pro-Russian separatists is small. For example, the border in Donbass more or less stabilised in 2014. And let's be honest - if Kremlin really wanted to expand it, it would. Not as an invasion, but in a form of 'rebellion' etc
So why doesn't it expand it? One possible answer is - because it doesn't want to. Because the point of the entire conflict is not to expand in Ukraine but to keep Russians in line
Let's go a bit deeper in history. We all know of Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. After all, the Warsaw Pact is known as the only military alliance in history which fought only against its members. But why there was reprisals against Romania?
Romanian leaders, both Ceaușescu and his predecessor Gheorghiu-Dej behaved very independently. Their policies were known in Russian as an особый курс - different/particular course, not in line with the policies of Moscow. They were quite disobedient
This was partially economy-motivated. Soviets wanted to increase economic integration of socialist camp. Romanians accused them of trying to make a 'raw-materials appendage' out of Romania. They wanted full economic independence, even when dealing with the capitalist countries
They were also political. Bucharest objected against Warsaw Pact forces being commanded by Soviet generals, objected against Non-Proliferation Treaty (why can't we have nukes, too?). In 1968 Ceausescy raised huge demonstrations against Soviet invasion of Czecholslovakia
In socialist camp Romania was a constant trouble-maker. They established diplomatic relations with FRG (USSR didn't allow it, cuz FRG didn't recognise borders of DDR), they demanded to return them the gold reserve of Romanian Kingdom evacuated to Russia in 1916 and never returned
Unbelievable it may sound, but Romania tried to make territorial claims against the USSR. During the Chinese-Romanian discussions in 1964, Romanians claimed that Bessarabia and North Bukovina annexed by the Soviets in 1940 should be returned back. And Moscow knew Romanians did it
So why Soviets didn't do anything? They took drastic measures against Hungary and Czechoslovakia and would certainly do against Poland. In foreign policy these countries never did so much trouble-making as Romania. And yet Romania got away with all of that, why didn't they?
One possible answer is: while Romania presented some foreign-policy threat (it even talked of territorial claims against the USSR) it never presented domestic-policy one. Because Romania wasn't regarded as a potential role model, as a positive example by anyone in the USSR
From the perspective of Soviet ppl, Romania was very much like the USSR, just inferior. We have God-Emperor, they have God-Emperor. We have abject poverty, they have abject poverty. We have KGB, they have Securitate. Nobody in the USSR ever said 'I wish we were more like Romania'
So the Romanian regime was spared, because it wasn't so much different and thus couldn't be regarded as a potential alternative to the Soviet order. Meanwhile, political transformations in Hungary and in Czechoslovakia were too dangerous in the context of Soviet domestic policy
Imagine that these countries would work on different political principles, with broader political participation and allow diversity of opinions. And they'd be still functional, they wouldn't fall in chaos. That would be considered a positive alternative by very many in the USSR
In fact, even those who supported Soviet system, believing it is their protection from chaos and disorder, could see that the alternative is possible and totally functional. So the public opinion within the USSR would drift in the direction of these new role models
Czechoslovakia was more dangerous than Hungary for cultural reasons. Czechoslovakia is Slavic, less language& culture barrier and thus it's more of a reference group. Russians would more naturally compare themselves with Slavic countries, than with non-Slavic ones like Romania
Poland was much more dangerous than Czechoslovakia. Historical connections much closer, culture&language more similar. Poland was historically considered by many as a sort of alter ego of Russia and thus everything happening in Poland was super relevant
And what is happening in Ukraine is most relevant of all. Many observers correctly claim that much, well, honestly speaking, most of Ukraine is Russian-speaking. By my observations actual zone of Russian is bigger than shown here, certainly includes Kiev. But it goes both ways
That means that Ukraine and Russian exist in the same cultural and language space. There is no barrier at all, everything is interconnected. So everything happening in Ukraine will immediately reflect in Russia, in public discourse in mass opinion, in the mindset of the people
So the worst case scenario is 1) clearly different 2) functional system in Ukraine. It shouldn't even be particularly rich, it just has to pay its bills to show it works. That's enough to create a core of sympathisers in Russia. And before the war Ukraine was growing quickly
Russian nationalists criticise Kremlin for moderation. 'They could take Kiev, why don't they?'. May be they don't take Kiev because it's not the goal. The goal is simply to create enough destruction and chaos, so Ukraininan model would be unattractive in the eyes of Russians
Perhaps the real audience of this play is neither Ukraine, nor West, but Russians themselves. And the goal is to teach one simple lessons - if you do this
... you get this. So basically the only result of protests, civil disturbances and revolts is death and desolation - even in case of success
Assuming this interpretation is correct, which predictions can we make? I'd say Putin isn't going to push deep into Ukraine. There can be fight in the border regions though. Because the real goal is not to destroy Ukraine but to keep it as a failed state as an example to Russians
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. This book (“What is to be done?”) has been wildly, influential in late 19-20th century Russia. It was a Gospel of the Russian revolutionary left. 2. Chinese Communists succeeded the tradition of the Russian revolutionary left, or at the very least were strongly affected by it.
3. As a red prince, Xi Jinping has apparently been well instructed in the underlying tradition of the revolutionary left and, very plausibly, studied its seminal works. 4. In this context, him having read and studied the revolutionary left gospel makes perfect sense
5. Now the thing is. The central, seminal work of the Russian revolutionary left, the book highly valued by Chairman Xi *does* count as unreadable in modern Russia, having lost its appeal and popularity long, long, long ago. 6. In modern Russia, it is seen as old fashioned and irrelevant. Something out of museum
I have always found this list a bit dubious, not to say self-contradictory:
You know what does this Huntingtonian classification remind to me? A fictional “Chinese Encyclopaedia” by an Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges:
Classification above sounds comical. Now why would that be? That it because it lacks a consistent classification basis. The rules of formal logic prescribe us to choose a principle (e.g. size) and hold to it.
If Jorge Borges breaks this principle, so does Samuel P. Huntington.
Literacy rates in European Russia, 1897. Obviously, the data is imperfect. Still, it represents one crucial pattern for understanding the late Russian Empire. That is the wide gap in human capital between the core of empire and its Western borderland.
The most literate regions of Empire are its Lutheran provinces, including Finland, Estonia & Latvia
Then goes, roughly speaking, Poland-Lithuania
Russia proper has only two clusters of high literacy: Moscow & St Petersburg. Surrounded by the vast ocean of illiterate peasantry
This map shows how thin was the civilisation of Russia proper comparatively speaking. We tend to imagine old Russia, as the world of nobility, palaces, balls, and duels. And that is not wrong, because this world really existed, and produced some great works of art and literature
The OKBM Afrikantova is the principal producer of marine nuclear reactors, including reactors for icebreakers, and for submarines in Russia. Today we will take a brief excursion on their factory floor 🧵
Before I do, let me introduce some basic ideas necessary for the further discussion. First, reactor production is based on precision metalworking. Second, modern precision metalworking is digital. There is simply no other way to do it at scale.
How does the digital workflow work? First, you do a design in the Computer Aided Design (CAD) software. Then, the Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) software turns it into the G-code. Then, a Computer Numerical Controller (CNC) reads the code and guides the tool accordingly
Relative popularity of three google search inquiries in the post-USSR. Blue - horoscope. Red - prayer. Green - namaz. Most of Russia is blue, primarily googling horoscopes. Which suggests most of the population being into some kind of spirituality rather than anything "trad".
The primary contiguous red area is not in Russia at all, but in West Ukraine. Which is indeed the only remotely "conservative" (in the American sense) area of the East Slavic world. Coincidentally or not, it had never been ruled by Russia, except for a short period in 1939-1991
In the blue and occasionally red sea, there are two regions that primarily google namaz, the Islamic prayer. That is Moscow & Tatarstan
There are two ways for a poor, underdeveloped country to industrialise: Soviet vs Chinese way. Soviet way is to build the edifice of industrial economy from the foundations. Chinese way is to build it from the roof.
1st way sounds good, 2nd actually works.
To proceed further, I need to introduce a new concept. Let's divide the manufacturing industry into two unequal sectors, Front End vs Back End:
Front End - they make whatever you see on the supermarket shelf
Back End - they make whatever that stands behind, that you don’t see
Front End industries are making consumer goods. That is, whatever you buy, as an individual. Toys, clothes, furniture, appliances all falls under this category. The list of top selling amazon products gives a not bad idea what the front end sector is, and how it looks like.