Wars typically get a lot of coverage and much of it is criticism. Interestingly enough, even Ukrainians attacked by a huge heavily militarised aggressor are getting *lots* of it. Let me give some considerations on criticism - mostly to Ukrainians but to also to whoever. A short🧵
They gonna tell you that critics are not always the enemies. But the dark truth is that a good number of critics are. Human interactions necessarily include a political dimension. Neurotypical people do not just honestly tell what's on their mind. Instead they play a social game
What game are they playing? It depends. Some "critics" are haters who wish you death. There's an asymmetry between hatred vs sympathy. A fan is not *that* much of a fan, he has other interests, his life doesn't revolve around you. But the life of a hater absolutely fucking does
There's another category which might not wish you destruction. But if you make it, they'll be very very upset. This group may include some of those you consider to be friends. Your failure will cheer them up and vice versa. Finally, there are people influenced by first two groups
What unites them is that neither of these groups has you best interest in mind. However, they pursue different goals. Most typical games they are playing are:
1. Active subversion 2. Reputation destruction
Active subversion. They unconsciously (or consciously) try to figure out what course of actions would be worst for you. Then they socially pressure you to choose it. They'll criticise you for good moves and praise for bad ones. They guide you to your demise by booing and cheering
Reputation destroyers don't aim to guide you anywhere. They criticise whatever you do, both good and bad moves. If you are inactive they'll criticise your inaction, if you are active - action. They might not even think what would be worse for you, they just attack your reputation
So the test on active subverter vs reputation destroyer would be. Imagine you did so obviously disastrous, so clearly ruinous that he most probably understands you made a bad move? An active subverter will congratulate you on that. A reputation destroyer still gonna criticise
If you made a good move, you can't really tell a difference. For example when Ukraine declared mobilisation, both active subverters and reputation destroyers were booing. However, subverters did it cuz they thought it's a good move, while reputation destroyers didn't think at all
But if Ukraine didn't do that, then we would see the difference. Active subverters would be praising Ukraine for this ethical, reasonable approach. Meanwhile reputation destroyers would be criticising their cowardice and lack of will to exist (which proves they are a fake nation)
It's all about priorities. Since active subverters aim to guide you to your demise, they're trying to use both "carrot" and "stick" approaches. They fear that if they criticise you for a disastrous move, then you might reconsider and change your course of actions. Unacceptable
Reputation destroyers don't guide you anywhere. Thus they use only a "stick" all the time. That makes them very easy to recognise: they're non stop producers of negative affirmations. Which are also performative in a sense they're aimed both to your self-image and public image
Much of criticism is purely malevolent. And many critics don't really hide it. They don't even pretend to act in your best interest. If they criticise you, that's just a white noise. Ignore. But if they praise you (however they frame it), that's a reason to be concerned. End of🧵
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In August 1999, President Yeltsin appointed his FSB Chief Putin as the new Prime Minister. Same day, he named him as the official successor. Yet, there was a problem. To become a president, Putin had to go through elections which he could not win.
He was completely obscure.
Today, Putin is the top rank global celebrity. But in August 1999, nobody knew him. He was just an obscure official of Yeltsin's administration, made a PM by the arbitrary will of the sovereign. This noname clerk had like 2-3% of popular support
Soon, he was to face elections
By the time of Putin's appointment, Russia already had its most favoured candidate. It was Primakov. A former Yeltsin's Prime Minister who broke with Yeltsin to contest for power. The most popular politician in Russia with massive support both in masses and in the establishment.
In Russia, the supreme power has never ever changed as a result of elections. That simply never happened in history. Now that is because Russia is a (non hereditary) monarchy. Consequently, it doesn't have any elections. It has only acclamations of a sitting ruler
Obviously, there has been no elections of Putin in any meaningful sense. There have been only acclamations. And that is normal. His predecessor was successfully acclaimed with an approval rate of about 6%. Once you got the power, you will get your acclamation one way or another
Contrary to the popular opinion, Russia doesn't have any acclamation ("election") problem. It has a transition of power problem. Like Putin can get acclaimed again, and again, and again. But sooner or later, he dies. What next?
My team has documented the entire Russian missile manufacturing base. That is 28 key ballistic, cruise, hypersonic and air defence missile producing plants associated with four corporations of Roscosmos, Almaz-Antey, Tactical Missiles and Rostec
The link is in the first comment
Our report How Does Russia Make Missiles? is already available for download
By the next weekend, we will be publishing the first OSINT sample, illustrating our methodology & approach. The rest of our materials will be made available laterrhodus.com
Key takeaways:
1. Missile production is mostly about machining 2. You cannot produce components of tight precision and convoluted geometry otherwise 3. Soviet missiles industry performed most of its machining manually
That was extremely laborious and skill-intensive process
No one gets famous by accident. If Alexey @Navalny rose as the unalternative leader of Russian opposition, recognised as such both in Moscow and in DC, this indicates he had something that others lacked. Today we will discuss what it was and why it did not suffice 🧵
Let's start with the public image. What was so special about the (mature) @navalny is that his public image represented normality. And by normality I mean first and foremost the American, Hollywood normality
Look at this photo. He represents himself as American politicians do
For an American politician, it is very important to present himself as a good family man (or woman). Exceptions do only corroborate the rule. Notice how McCain defends @BarackObama
Should Putin just suddenly die, @MedvedevRussiaE is the most likely compromise candidate for the supreme political power. He is the inaugurated President for God's sake. Which means, the anointed King.
"Not a real king", "Figurehead", "Nobody takes him seriously" is just intangible verbalism. Nothing of that matters. What matters is that he is the inaugurated President, consecrated by God. Opinions are subjective, anointment is objective
It is the fact
Medvedev may be one single person in the entire Russian establishment with a decent chance to keep power, should Putin go. For this reason, he may not even need to fight for power. The power will very probably be handed to him
On Friday, @navalny died (most probably killed) in prison. This is a good time to discuss the prospects of Russian opposition and the future transition of political power, once Putin is gone. This is also a good occasion to debunk some pervasive myths on the mechanics of power🧵
First, getting rid of @navalny was probably a correct decision on behalf of Kremlin. Execution of this murder may have been suboptimal (unprofessional, etc.). But the very idea to eliminate him was reasonable and makes total sense. There is nothing crazy or irrational about it
This remark may sound as cynical or paradoxical. So let me present you another paradox, which is yet to be fully processed by the political theorists. And the paradox is:
Bloody tyrants rule longer
The Russian history may possibly demonstrate this better than any other