Good morning. It's time for cartoons (not a thread)
Much like the Ming to Qing transition, the Soviet to post-Soviet transition was the Golden Age of culture. Censorship was over, while much of Perestroika optimism was still alive. Today I'm gonna show you a couple of iconic cartoons that you absolutely must be aware of
"Treasure Island" by "Kyivnauchfilm". Kyivnauchfilm = Kyiv Scientific Movies. In the Soviet era this Ukrainian studio had to shoot some boring academic instruction videos. Thankfully, in Perestroika era they abandoned any false pretence of rigour and just started drawing cartoons
It may be literally the most iconic and memetic cartoon of the post-Soviet space. I have no idea how many times I've watched it. Here you can find it with English subtitles
The fact that the Kyivnauchfilm used to be a scientific movies studio before turning to something more worthy, is very illustrative of general trends of the Soviet society. Ideally, the central government would extirpate any nonconformity over the country. But it had constraints
Ideally Kremlin would extirpate any nonconformity over the USSR. And it did, in the humanities (which explains their current condition). But repressions against the STEM folk were costly, because the STEM folk had to produce stuff, So Kremlin needed to kinda tolerate them
That is not to say that the STEM folk didn't suffer. They did. Genetics for example was considered an imperialist whore, so the geneticists were massacred. Few decades later, cybernetics were suppressed, too. But as a general rule, Kremlin allowed the STEM folk to exist
As a result, by the late USSR the STEM became *the* only oasis for free thinkers and non conformists in the entire country. They were the only ones who were allowed for (some) freedom and nonconformity without the immediate repressions. In humanities it was far worse
For people from beyond the post-USSR it's difficult to grasp the cultural importance of the STEM culture (the only oasis of free thought and non conformity) for the post-Soviet culture in general. Pretty much anything else turned out to be intellectually and culturally futile
When discussing the post-Soviet space, you need to consider this STEM bias in their thinking. This bias exists because mental processes taking place outside of STEM ecosystem can't be really qualified as "thinking"
That bias produces negative externalities. Consider just one. A boy studied only math, physics and engineering in school, then in uni. Then he became an engineer, a manager and finally a CEO. Sounds good, doesn't it? On paper, yes, zero knowledge of humanities didn't hurt him
In reality it's more complicated. An intellectual with zero knowledge of humanities is nearly guaranteed to fall in love with the first theory he becomes acquainted of. That's why all those Soviet (and post-Soviet) STEM folk are such an easy prey for charlatans. Saw it many times
Many Westerners think that Russians are into mysticism. As a general rule, that's wrong. (Smart) Russians don't fall for mysticism that easily as Westerners could imagine. What Russians really fall for easily and enthusiastically is pseudo science
And yet, if you watch only one cartoon, that won't give you full and exhaustive understanding of the Eastern European culture. So you must watch two
I very much like this cartoon by the Borisphen studio. The Clinic
I heard that there is a theory that you should learn literature in the reverse chronological order. You study the modern culture, and then notice it's full of references you don't understand. So then you go by those hyperlinks, burying deeper and deeper. All the way to the roots
In this paradigm you shouldn't start with reading Shakespeare for example. You start watching the GOT instead. Through Lannisters and Starks you come to Lancasters and Yorks and through George R. R. Martin - to Shakespeare. Modern culture gives you references to the older one
Much like the Song of Ice and Fire can be described as a modern interpretation of Shakespeare, this Clinic cartoon is an interpretation of a certain Gogol's novel. It may be a good start. End of not a thread
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have recently read someone comparing Trump’s tariffs with collectivisation in the USSR. I think it is an interesting comparison. I don’t think it is exactly the same thing of course. But I indeed think that Stalin’s collectivisation offers an interesting metaphor, a perspective to think about
But let’s make a crash intro first
1. The thing you need to understand about the 1920s USSR is that it was an oligarchic regime. It was not strictly speaking, an autocracy. It was a power of few grandees, of the roughly equal rank.
2. Although Joseph Stalin established himself as the single most influential grandee by 1925, that did not make him a dictator. He was simply the most important guy out there. Otherwise, he was just one of a few. He was not yet the God Emperor he would become later.
The great delusion about popular revolts is that they are provoked by bad conditions of life, and burst out when they exacerbate. Nothing can be further from truth. For the most part, popular revolts do not happen when things get worse. They occur when things turn for the better
This may sound paradoxical and yet, may be easy to explain. When the things had been really, really, really bad, the masses were too weak, to scared and too depressed to even think of raising their head. If they beared any grudges and grievances, they beared them in silence.
When things turn for the better, that is when the people see a chance to restore their pride and agency, and to take revenge for all the past grudges, and all the past fear. As a result, a turn for the better not so much pacifies the population as emboldens and radicalises it.
The first thing to understand about the Russian-Ukrainian war is that Russia did not plan a war. And it, most certainly, did not plan the protracted hostilities of the kind we are seeing today
This entire war is the regime change gone wrong.
Russia did not want a protracted war (no one does). It wanted to replace the government in Kyiv, put Ukraine under control and closely integrate it with Russia
(Operation Danube style)
One thing to understand is that Russia viewed Ukraine as a considerable asset. From the Russian perspective, it was a large and populous country populated by what was (again, from the Russian perspective) effectively the same people. Assimilatable, integratable, recruitable
In 1991, Moscow faced two disobedient ethnic republics: Chechnya and Tatarstan. Both were the Muslim majority autonomies that refused to sign the Federation Treaty (1992), insisting on full sovereignty. In both cases, Moscow was determined to quell them.
Still, the final outcome could not be more different. Chechnya was invaded, its towns razed to the ground, its leader assassinated. Tatarstan, on the other hand, managed to sign a favourable agreement with Moscow that lasted until Putin’s era.
The question is - why.
Retrospectively, this course of events (obliterate Chechnya, negotiate with Tatarstan) may seem predetermined. But it was not considered as such back then. For many, including many of Yeltsin’s own partisans it came as a surprise, or perhaps even as a betrayal.
The single most important thing to understand regarding the background of Napoleon Bonaparte, is that he was born in the Mediterranean. And the Mediterranean, in the words of Braudel, is a sea ringed round by mountains
We like to slice the space horizontally, in our imagination. But what we also need to do is to slice it vertically. Until very recently, projection of power (of culture, of institutions) up had been incomparably more difficult than in literally any horizontal direction.
Mountains were harsh, impenetrable. They formed a sort of “internal Siberia” in this mild region. Just a few miles away, in the coastal lowland, you had olives and vineyards. Up in the highland, you could have blizzards, and many feet of snow blocking connections with the world.