Thread by @IlyaMatveev_

1) OK, my first thread. Last year I published an academic paper on the interplay of political and economic imperialism in Russia. I did try to read as much as possible and the article is quite comprehensive. I'm sharing it on Academia.edu.

academia.edu/61669024/Betwe…

2) In the paper I argue that up until 2014 Russia was negotiating its position within the global capitalist order dominated by the West. It was aiming at the 'subimperialist' role: a regional power with its own political-economic bloc, yet still integrated in the global economy.

3) In 2014, things changed. Instead of 'subimperialist' status, Russia shifted into full-on confrontation with the West. This marked the divergence between the interests of big capital and the state's geopolitical strategy.

4) I conclude that perceived security/geopolitical threats were so important for the Kremlin that it was willing to test its own relationship with big capital by threatening its integration into the transnational capitalist class.

5) As you can see, current events fit very well into this analysis. Geopolitical confrontation trumps capital accumulation on all counts. It's very difficult to see how any faction of capital, including even state corporations, can benefit from this, even in distant future.

6) However, current events forcefully demonstrate that I missed a very important point in my analysis. Russia's aggression goes beyond capitalist interests. Yet it also goes beyond pure geopolitical calculus; even from this point, it's madness.

7) What I missed was imperialist, nationalist ideology. It does play an independent causal role. Russian leadership is enthralled with the idea of restoring 'historic Russia' by rectifying the mistake which is the existence of Ukraine as a country.

8) It's not just about NATO and the West. It's about the 'Russian world' that goes beyond current Russian borders. These are genuine beliefs shared by a significant part of the political leadership, not a smokescreen for the public. There's a sense of 'historic mission' there.

9) I missed it because I thought the ruling circles were too cynical for this. I was wrong and I suspect this is where many Russian scholars made a mistake: they didn't consider imperialist nationalism as an elite ideology seriously enough.

10) Many questions follow: is the Russian public capable of sharing this level of imperialist, nationalist fervor? What lengths will the Kremlin go to in order to fulfill its nationalist dreams (which became nightmares for everyone else)? Will think about it in the coming days.