🧵 If you want to understand what Russia believes it's doing in invading Ukraine, crying wolf about "NATO" and the West, and risking much bigger wars, you have to understand the history of Russian messianism.
The idea that Russia has a peculiar "messianic" destiny - it and its people are fated to play a leading and often martyring role in world history - goes back hundreds of years.
Russia found itself the sole defender of Orthodox Christianity when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire in the 15th Century. Russia anointed itself the "Third Rome," the defender of the faith after Rome and Constantinople.
A jumble of often contradictory notions have been attached to the core of the "messianism" narrative, but broadly speaking, the idea is that Russia is always under threat, that threats are often abstract, and that there is something uniquely spiritual in the people and state.
In times of crisis the ideas seems to have flared up: when Peter the Great tried to modernize Russia, the Church split into the state church and "Old Believers"; the turn of the 19th-20th centuries; and, of course, in 1917.
The "messianism" idea fuelled a lot of Bolshevik and Soviet thinking, which is essentially eschatological and apocalyptic: it's formed around great turning points - 1905, 1917, the Second World War - that would herald new utopias. Each time, shady enemies opposed the faithful.
Of course, within the USSR, the Russian nation played the leading role. Part of the justification for that was spiritual, not logical: the Russian nation simply *was* the chosen nation, the nation with the messianic destiny.
Even in the apparently atheistic late Soviet Union, messianism grew with the rebirth of Russian nationalism (Peter Duncan has a great book that discusses this). When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russians interpreted history even more apocalyptically.
You all know by now that Putin promised stability and new wealth when he came to power. Since Crimea & the ensuing economic decline, it's been obvious that's not happening. So the government's propaganda is whipping up ever more messianic visions of Russia's role in the world.
We're seeing it in Putin's speeches, in school lessons, and in the ever more obviously militarized role of the Orthodox Church and the patriarch.
Russians are told that, just as was the case however many times in the past, their destiny is to "save the world" from forces that are as incomprehensible as they are evil. If you're "saving the world," you can do anything you like: use murder, illegal weapons, etc.
This is of course abhorrent. It doesn't make sense from the outside, just as any religion can't be explained if you're a non-believer. But when the propaganda and the cultural life of the country have been infused with this heady stuff for years, it must be influencing things.
Where we see Russians ranting about a crazy "World War III," they hear themselves summoning visions of post-apocalyptic, religious utopias. Young soldiers who know nothing else will genuinely believe that they're on the side of right. It's bananas, but that's the history.
I probably explained all of that terribly, but there you have it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reading Dmitry Trenin’s history of Russia you see how even “respectable” Russian intellectuals buy into nationalist myths that run very deep.
After USSR collapsed, Trenin argued that “some 25 million ethnic Russians ended up on the wrong side of [new national] borders.” One word undermines the whole sentence: what is “wrong”? Why is it right that ethnicities belong in an ethnic ‘motherland’?
It’s a typical sleight of hand. There’s no interrogation of the claim, no questioning of why or how it should be true, or - worst of all - why non-ethnic Russians don’t even get a mention in this equation.
🧵 It would be good not to see any more posts containing:
- “Russians have always been X”
- “Russian history is just this way”
- “The Russian soul is…”
It’s temping to join the dots to make these claims, but it’s dangerous.
Firstly, and sorry, conservatives everywhere, but nations don’t have “souls.” It’s a Romantic nationalist idea that’s not really supported by any of the serious history done anywhere in the last, well, forever. It's also a dumb idea. What's the "Ukrainian soul"?
Secondly, what is “Russia”? When we say “Russia” is this way, are we talking about Moscow? White ethnic Russians? The Russian state? The former Russian empire? All of the citizens?
Thread 🧵: We’re almost 2 months into the war. Here’s some thoughts on where Putin’s propaganda successes and failures have been (and my own failures as a propaganda watcher).
TL;DR: All is bleak.
The headline message: the government’s propaganda hasn’t been clever or surgically precise, but it’s done its job.
In the early days of the war, I commented that I thought Ukraine was winning the propaganda war. I still think, on balance, that’s true: Ukraine has overperformed, and Russia has not managed to win significant victories abroad.
Le Pen says she still believes Crimea is Russian. Let's see how that's going down among Russians...
"That's why she won't win the election" (implication is 'conspiracy' not 'unelectable')
"They all say 1 thing then do the opposite"
"Consistency...a rarity among Euro politicians"
"She's the ace up our sleeve"
"Are the Ukronazis in a tizz about it?"
"Fuck Ukraine"
"2 faced b*tch"
Somebody shares a picture of Le Pen with Oleh Tyahnybok, far right Ukrainian politician and all-round villain in Russian social media land
🧵 The Daily Mail, never one to miss the chance to be racist, attacks Ukrainian women & does Putin’s dirty propaganda work for him.
Western media are returning to old ways & reframing attitudes to 🇺🇦
The Mail’s headline isn’t true - the figure given is from one small police operation, not the whole of Sweden - and the police spokesman there makes it clear they are going after the men using these women, not the women themselves. Yet the Mail leads with that headline.
The Mail’s story is being shared widely on pro-regime Russian Telegram as (yet more) evidence of Europe’s awfulness & Ukrainians’ immorality.
One of the more unpleasant things about the Russian media feeds today is the lack of empathy for the Ukrainian dead. Their images are constantly reshared with the claim that their deaths "prove" the West is evil, that the world hates Russians, and that Russia is under threat.
Civilian deaths are instrumentalized as a means to persuade the viewer that the war is necessary, justified, not yet broad enough in scope, that it cannot stop until the "end" is reached. What that end is, of course, remains unspecified, but we know it has to be *extreme*.
All the while, of course, the Russian media is screaming that the West/Ukraine has faked evidence of killings or even killed civilians deliberately in order to justify a war against Russia. It's all projection. It's all totally topsy turvy.