Just watched Russia’s main political talk show with notorious propagandist Soloviev (Mar 9). Couldn’t believe my ears. Two hardcore pro-Putin guests - Shaknazarov and Bagdasarov - acknowledged the impact of sanctions, military failures, and called for an end to the invasion.
1/ Many Russian elites are dissatisfied with the war. But these two could not say it spontaneously. This show is pre-recorded and carefully orchestrated. Which means that these discussions were approved and permitted.
2/ Shaknazarov acknowledged that Ukrainian government has unified the country against Russia. Ukraine has well-trained military forged by 8 years of war in Donbas. There is no way to install pro-Russian government because nobody influential would agree to be in this role.
3/ At the same time, sanctions are taking effect and can change public opinion in Russia. I can lead to protests, destabilisation, and regime change. Sanctions also lead to international isolation. The last allies of Russia - India and China - will leave Russia.
4/ Russian army achieved its goals. Donbas is “liberated”. NATO only benefits from the protracted conflict. Shaknazarov called for an end to the “operation”.
5/ Another notorious guest of the program Bagdasarov said that sanctions are likely to be lifted from Iran soon. Iran oil will replace Russian oil. Other countries, such as Kazakhstan, are likely to trade with the West, not Russia. It can lead to full International isolation.
6/ The army destroyed the main Ukrainian forces and demoralised the government achieving its goal. Russia cannot “denazify” Ukraine. It should be done by Ukrainians themselves. Russia should make Ukraine neutral but it cannot risk new Afghanistan. Stop the invasion.
My previous tweet went viral because it resonated with what most people want today - Putin out of Ukraine (and hopefully in The Hague). Many saw a sign of an off-ramp. Unfortunately, I don't think it is. Some context about how these propagandists shows work in Russia (14).
1/ In the past decade, and especially after 2014, numerous political propagandist talk shows appeared on state television in Russia. They are used to deliver pro-regime narratives to audiences. They focus on criticism of NATO, Ukraine, praising Putin, etc.
2/ But they also represent an innovation in genre. Vera Tolz and Yuriy Teper has come up with the term “agitainment” for it - a mix of ideological messaging and entertaining formats to enhance the effect on the viewer.
Re my last tweet which (accidentally!) went viral. Several remarks.
1/ Just to be clear, it was a paraphrase! I was just describing what they said. Obviously, I don’t think that Ukrainian forces are destroyed or other bs they said.
2/ I don’t think it should be read as a sign that Putin is going to retreat. The overall framing of the show was still very supportive of the invasion. Other guests said that Putin should proceed with the invasion.
3/ But the fact that these two people spoke agains this invasion was markedly different from the completely monolithic pro-invasion narrative on state channels before.
Since the beginning of the war, Russian pollsters have been publishing terrifying results suggesting that the majority of Russians support the invasion. Here is my take on why these results are inflated for @opendemocracyru
1/ Self-selection bias. Regime critics have reasons to be afraid to express their views. They trust surveys less than regime supporters and are less likely to participate. More supporters in a sample -> the results look like more people support the government’s actions.
2/ Social desirability. Regime critics may lie about their real preferences. Sometimes this effect does not happens, but in the current context it is likely. Last year 50% were afraid of repressions. Today Russia is experiencing much more cruel and visible repressions.