Longer answer: What you think you know is probably wrong.
(A quick 🧵)
If you're following the news, you've probably seen polls suggesting that ~60% of Russians support the war. That's problematic, for a number of reasons, which I'll try to explain here.
First things first: there's an excellent piece on this in @meduzaproject by @abessudnv (in Russian).
As @abessudnv notes, there are reasons to be skeptical of these polls. The first is the fact that the questions use the term "special military operation" rather than "war" or "invasion", as stipulated by the Russian government. Vocabulary matters.
The second is that the polls are already a few days old, conducted at a time when most Russians were getting very little information about the war, and when sanctions hadn't really started to bite yet.
Third, there are Russians, and then there are Russians. For one of the polls, @abessudnv usefully digs into the data and finds important differences: younger people, women, residents of Moscow & St.Pete and people who watch less TV are much less likely to support the war.
To @abessudnv's points I'd add two more: one about how polls work, and one about how people work.
Polls -- even polls conducted by Kremlin-friendly agencies -- try to be representative, but it's hard. Not all people are equally likely to agree to be surveyed. In normal times, pollsters can correct for this by adjusting the demographics and re-weighting the data.
These aren't normal times, though. The war will inevitably be affecting survey response rates in ways that are linked to people's opinions about the war. Adjusting for that right now is basically impossible.
Thus, even if we take the polls at face value, they don't mean that ~60% of Russians support the war. They mean that ~60% of those Russians who are willing to talk to a stranger about the war support the war. That's not the same thing.
That brings me to the point about people. Two points about people, actually. First, people have emotions -- and one of those emotions is fear.
Now, I've always been skeptical of the idea that fear has much of an impact on people's survey responses in Russia, and there's not much evidence for it in the data. But again, times have changed.
Russians who spread what the gov't considers "disinformation" about the war (including calling it a "war") now face up to 15 years in prison. Many Russians may not be eager to find out whether that law also applies to replying to a pollster.
People who are usually outspoken are clamming up, and for good reason. As I wrote earlier, Putin is fighting two wars: one in Ukraine, and one at home. Both will have casualties.
The second point about people is that they are social animals. One implication of that is that people tend to hold opinions similar to those held by their social circle, not because they're conformist, per se, but because there are powerful psychological incentives to get along.
In Russia, @gbrunc and I have shown how these social incentives helped galvanize support for Putin's social conservatism in 2012-13, and for Putin himself after the annexation of Crimea for years to follow. For the science, see here: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…
What's happening now is very different. This is not a rally around the flag, as Crimea was. I'll write more about that later. But the social incentives haven't gone away.
I'm not saying that people are lying to pollsters. But I am saying that people are deriving their opinions at least in part from their sense of what the prevailing sentiment is in society. If that sense changes, so will their opinions.
So here's the TL;DR: polls right now are not measuring what people think about the war. Rather, they're measuring (1) how many people are willing to talk openly about the war, and (2) what those people think other people think about the war.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Vladimir Putin is increasingly fighting two wars: one in Ukraine, and one at home.
A week in, neither is going terribly well.
(A 🧵, in case that wasn't obvious.)
A summary of key points follow below. For the full story in a less cacophonous setting, see the latest TL;DRussia, which dropped yesterday. (And subscribe -- it's free!)
First, as @LawDavF has explained, Russia's invasion isn't going according to plan, and while Russia can still achieve its military objectives, it will come at an increasing cost.
So, as always, mixed signals, with basically two avenues of interpretation: either things are about to get better, or they're about to get a lot worse.
Here's what we know. The Russians and Ukrainians met, talked at some length, released very similar statements confirming that talks would continue, and returned to Moscow and Kyiv for consultations.
But that's only half the story. The other half is that Kharkiv came in for the most brutal air and artillery assault of the war to date (as best I can tell), attacks on Kyiv renewed, and Russia continued to mass troops and equipment outside the capital.
Anti-war protests in Russia do not appear to be waning. Per @OvdInfo, a further 2700 arrests today in 51 cities, bringing the total number of arrests since the invasion to nearly 6k.
Protests appear smaller than the Jan/Feb 2021 protests around Navalny’s arrest, but maybe not by much (good numbers are hard to come by). And the more frequently we see scenes like 👇, the bigger they’ll get.
The real question, though, is when scenes like the one above begin to interact with scenes like the one below, where people queue to get money out of their bank accounts:
Question for those who actually understand these things: @LawDavF@james_acton32@CameronJJJ@KofmanMichael — When Putin orders nuclear forces on “special preparedness”, what does that mean in practice? And what impact does that have on the posture of US forces?
The rhetoric is one thing — and entirely subject to interpretation. But presumably these sorts of orders also have a technical side to them, which can have its own consequences. Trying to understand that.
Apologies if you’ve written about this already and I’ve not been able to find it.
I’m not here to supplant the analysis of military experts: if you want to understand the ins and outs of the war, and of how Russia fights wars, follow @KofmanMichael@RALee85@LawDavF and others. But let me take a moment for a bit of politics.
When Putin announced the war, he talked about the invasion in the same breath as Russia’s wars in Chechnya and Syria. As @KofmanMichael mentions in the thread above, those wars were brutal. That’s one of the things that was so frightening about the possibility of war in Ukraine.
Sanctions have very rapidly escalated, as transatlantic consensus has consolidated. Two key things to note now: 1) Escalation is proactive, not reactive, for the first time since 2014; 2) Moscow has not responded.
It’s important not to exaggerate here. Economies, like wars, aren’t fully predictable. Putin may not have calculated such a rapid response, but he will have known that these kinds of sanctions were on the cards.
Moreover, Russia has a highly skilled central bank and finance ministry, who will have contingency plans. At best, though, those plans will slow the impact of sanctions, rather than eliminating it.