Kamil Galeev Profile picture
May 30, 2022 39 tweets 15 min read Read on X
Native Siberians and North Caucasians* are hugely overrepresented among the Russian casualties in Ukraine. Consider these estimates of the Free Buryatia Foundation. It looks like Russia is ready to fight till the last indigenous person, solving two problems at once Image
* There is however an exception in the North Caucasus. It is Chechnya. Compare two neighbouring regions Chechnya and Dagestan. Chechnya has 1,5 million people, Dagestan has 3,1 million. Despite being just about 2 times more populous than Chechnya it has 40 times more casualties Image
What does it mean?

1. Dagestanis fight in the regular Russian army, comprising disproportionate number of troops and of casualties in Ukraine
2. Chechens do *not* fight in the regular Russian army. Whatever badges they have, it doesn't matter. They're the Kadyrov's personal army
It's very important to understand the difference between the authority-based formalised and bureaucratic Russian army and the power-based informal Chechen army. Ofc Chechens have some kinds of documents and badges. But in the Chechen army it doesn't matter at all Image
Among from Kadyrov's three top aides it is Delimkhanov who is constantly seen in Ukraine. Notice that Kadyrov didn't send the Lord who commands his army or the Patriot who commands his personal guard. He sent Delimkhanov who leads his personal team of assassins in Moscow Image
In normal times the Lord and the Patriot stay with Kadyrov in Chechnya. They have job there. But Delimkhanov normally stays in Moscow as an MP of the Russian Parliament. He doesn't show up in parliament often, cuz he needs it for the formal status and legal immunity Image
Delimkhanov has been an MP of the Russian parliament since 2007. For 15 years he never ever gave a speech. But he was suspected in organising murders of:

- Movladi Baysarov
- Sulim Yamadayev
- Boris Nemtsov

and killing or trying to kill many others in Moscow, Dubai, Turkey, etc Image
What is interesting here is that Movladi Baysarov and Sulim Yamadaev were both Chechen rebels who switched to the Russians, like Kadyrov. Baysarov was formally an officer of FSB and Yamadaev - of GRU. It didn't help them. Both were killed and FSB did nothing Image
Why? Well, Carl Schmitt explained it far better than I ever could. He gave the most beautiful definition of a colony:

"A colony is country's territory from the perspective of the international law, but it is a foreign territory from the perspective of the domestic law" Image
From the perspective of the international law Chechnya is just a regular Russian territory. From the perspective of Russian formal law, too. BUT. Nobody in Russia thinks this way. Not a single person believes that Chechnya is really Russia Image
While Russian formal law and the international law, Chechnya is Russian territory, Russians *really* view it as a foreign territory. Which makes it a classic colony according to the Carl Schmitt's definition. It is a personal kingdom of Kadyrov in personal vassalage to Putin Image
It is personal Kadyrov's vassalage to Putin that explains the special status of Chechnya within the Russian Federation. Kadyrov proclaimed himself a "Putin's infantryman" and stressed that he is loyal only personally to Putin and to nobody else. That's personal informal relation Image
It's clear why Kadyrov needs this relationship. It's the sole basis of his power. Without Putin he won't live for long. But why Putin needs it? Well, Russia is so formal and authority-based structure that you *need* some informal power-based element within to keep power Image
This guy on the left, Zelimkhan Israilov, had been constantly based in Moscow. Where was he based? In President Hotel ofc Image
President Hotel serves as the main Chechen barracks in Moscow. Up to 200 militants are living here permanently. FYI, it's not just a regular hotel. It's a hotel located across the Moskva river from Kremlin. It belongs to the Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation ImageImage
Location of a Chechen barracks in the hotel belonging to the Directorate of the President so close to the Kremlin doesn't look like a random decision at all. It looks very deliberate. They're purposefully located so near, so that they would be always available Image
Available for what? Well, first of all obviously for the everyday business - for the assassinations. They have to do assassinations for Kremlin and I'm not sure how well they're compensated. In return, they are allowed to do "business" = violent entrepreneurship purely for profit Image
More importantly however, I strongly suspect that they're kept in Moscow for a much more important reason. They're the last line of defence for the regime. Purely formal structures are super fragile. You must have an informal element within to make the system more robust Image
Consider the following. In 1917 Russian Empire had the largest army in the world all of whom swore to give their life for their Tsar. Did it help him? It didn't. When general Alexeev telegrammed Russian generals with a question would they support his abdication, 100% supported Image
I lied. In fact, two generals rejected the plans of abdication and offered their services to drown the mutiny in blood:

Khan Hussein of Nakchevan
Count Fyodor Keller

Not a single Russian general remained loyal to the beloved Tsar. Only an Azeri Shia and a German Lutheran did ImageImage
Now consider 1991. Where were the Soviet officers who swore to give their life for the socialism? Here you see as they are dismantling Dzerzhinsky's monument in front of the KGB/FSB HQ. It's full of armed KGB officers who worshipped Dzerzhinsky. Not a single one intervened Image
We have a paradox. In 1917 Russia had the largest army in the world and in the 1991 the second largest. In 1991 it also had the largest and strongest state security with the entire Moscow and nearby filled with operatives and Special forces. Not a single one lifted a finger Image
That's a paradox of a hyper centralised regime. It looks robust on a surface. But it's not robust, it's just hard. In reality, it's fragile. And the more centralised it is, the more fragile it becomes. Centralisation extirpates *any* agency, be it pro- or against the regime Image
Let me give you an example. During the Korean War my grandpa who was a young Komsomol member came to the local office and told that he wants to volunteer:

- How do you dare to offer yourself as a volunteer. If the Party wants, it will send you as a volunteer, - was the answer Image
Some presume that centralisation extirpates anti-system agency. That's wrong. It extirpates any ability for agency at all, be it pro- or anti regime. Formalised, centralised systems turn their members into the army of droids who just can't show any initiative themselves
Some presume that Bolsheviks won Russia with millions of soldiers during the major fields battles of the Civil War, 1918-1921. That's wrong. In in early 1918 Lenin declared:

"We must bring to the village the Civil War that just finished in our cities"

He thought the war is over Image
And it was over. In late 1917 Bolsheviks took over the major urban centres, most importantly Moscow and St Petersburg with only hundreds of militants. After they did that it was almost impossible to defeat them. After that they had total superiority till the end of the war Image
Interestingly enough, Moscow, St Petersburg and other major cities had tens of thousands of decommissioned or serving officers, not counting the file and rank. They were many times more numerous than the Bolsheviks. And they did nothing. Most of them were shot later Image
Reading the memories of the very first days of the Soviet era is funny. Like Bolsheviks took control of a southern city. The Cheka secret police ordered all the officers to register. And they indeed came to the Cheka to register! Image
"It was winter. The queue for the registration was long. Officers argued and quarrelled for the places in that queue. They were many times more numerous than Cheka operatives. If they just dared, they could capture the Cheka. But they didn't. I couldn't look at those cowards" Image
Calling them cowards may not be fair. Most fought in a war and risked their lives. But they did it under a formalised and centralised system which extirpated their agency. Once the system has fallen, the military turned into sheep and obediently came to register for the execution Image
Let's sum up. Observers are wrong about the super centralised regimes when they think they command loyalty. Nope. They command obedience, which is totally opposite. An obedient person will be obedient to anything as 1917 and 1991 showed most spectacularly Image
Mughals understood that. Consider that there were too large ways of promoting the Hindus to the upper ranks: first under Akbar and then under Aurangzeb. What is interesting is that Akbar predominantly promoted Rajputs and Aurangzeb - Marathas. The promoted those they fought with Image
Of course Akbar and Aurangzeb's decision to promote their hard enemies was largely motivated by the desire to get rid of such an enemy. But it could be also motivated by a desire to gain truly useful vassals (worked with Rajputs). Ultimately, you can rely only on what can resist Image
Putin's decision to create a vassal kingdom out of Chechnya can be motivated by very similar considerations. Chechens proved they can resist. Therefore, they can be relied upon. Russians on the other hand are too obedient and this are unreliable. They'll be obedient to anyone Image
This line of reasoning could explain the decision to quarter the Chechen barracks across the river from the Kremlin. When Putin's power is shaking the army won't help. And even the FSB & FSO might not help, not in a sense that they rebel but in a sense that they'll wait who wins Image
Yeah, they can give their word that they'll support you under any circumstances. But they or their fathers took an oath of fealty to defend the socialism at the cost of their life. And?...

The oath of a Russian officer is a white noise. It's not worse a damn and Putin knows it Image
Chechens in President Hotel are different. Not in a sense that they worship Putin, that's simply not true. They're often mocking him privately. But they:

1) have agency, unlike Russians
2) have no choice, unlike Russians

Which makes them Putin's last line of defence. End of🧵 Image
If you are interested in Chechnya, you can look up my earlier thread with a very short introduction into its history

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kamil Galeev

Kamil Galeev Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kamilkazani

Jul 1
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:

“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry

(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)

So, yes, living under the actual communism sucks
Read 5 tweets
Jun 28
Some thoughts on Zohran Mamdani’s victory

Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc

Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one Image
1. Public outrage does not work anymore

If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while

For a while, this tactics worked

Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed
Read 8 tweets
Jun 28
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
Theory: X -> Y

Reality:

There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.

Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation

And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
Read 6 tweets
Jun 26
Some thoughts on Zohran Mamdani's victory:

1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.

In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings

Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women
Read 12 tweets
Jun 21
What does Musk vs Trump affair teach us about the general patterns of human history? Well, first of all it shows that the ancient historians were right. They grasped something about nature of politics that our contemporaries simply can’t.Image
Let me give you an example. The Arab conquest of Spain

According to a popular medieval/early modern interpretation, its primary cause was the lust of Visigoth king Roderic. Aroused by the beautiful daughter of his vassal and ally, count Julian, he took advantage of her Image
Disgruntled, humiliated Julian allied himself with the Arabs and opens them the gates of Spain.

Entire kingdom lost, all because the head of state caused a personal injury to someone important. Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 19
On the impending war with Iran

One thing you need to understand about wars is that very few engage into the long, protracted warfare on purpose. Almost every war of attrition was planned and designed as a short victorious blitzkrieg

And then everything went wrong
Consider the Russian war in Ukraine. It was not planned as a war. It was not thought of as a war. It was planned as a (swift!) regime change allowing to score a few points in the Russian domestic politics. And then everything went wrong
It would not be an exaggeration to say that planning a short victorious war optimised for the purposes of domestic politics is how you *usually* end up in a deadlock. That is the most common scenario of how it happens, practically speaking
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(