Some believe that the current escalation between Russia and the West is just a personal decision of Putin. Not quite. Watch this Yeltsin's speech in Beijing in 1999 before meeting Li Peng. Three weeks later Yeltsin abdicated, leaving the PM Putin as the acting President of Russia
Many in Russia presumed that "good" Yeltsin made a horrible mistake, accidentally appointing "bad" Putin as his successor. I don't believe that. Three last Yeltsin's PMs were all career intelligence officers. He was actively looking for such an heir and was vetting the candidates
Putin's track was kinda typical. Consider his predecessor Stepashin. The FSB Chief. Then Minister for Internal Affairs under Kirienko. Then the Prime Minister. It's a track very similar to Putin's except in the end the Tsar made a different choice. Poor Stepashin (on the right)
Would Stepashin be any different? Doubt. In this interview he basically admits that in 1991 when the KGB was under a risk of dissolution he preserved the state security intact
The problem is not in Putin. The problem is not in Yeltsin making a wrong choice (he knew perfectly well what choice he was doing). The problem is in Tsar's uncontested right to just appoint an heir at his own discretion
The Tsar's power is the real problem here
It's also wrong to paint Putin as some sort of dark & powerful personality who just submitted everyone to his will. Watch this interview upon his appointment President's Property Management Service in 1996. Humble, shy. Proud of his acquaintanceship with Chubais and Berezovsky
Putin's badass image is not based on his personality. It's based on his position. It's based on him being the Tsar in a political system that grants the unconstrained power to the Tsar
The foundation of Putin's power is the quasimonarchic political culture which is very common in Russia and absolutely dominant among the central political elite, the courtiers. This culture is well reflected in the language. Consider this famous quote by Matvienko
Or the answer of Miller, CEO of Gazprom to a journalist's question on whether his contract gonna be renewed:
"I am a Sovereign's [государев] человек. If I am offered to stay on my job, I'll stay"
Some would argue that Russian courtiers call Putin the "Sovereign" ironically. I'm not so sure. I'd argue that these casua and not well thought remarks reflect their real way of thinking. Sovereignty is an attribute of the the Sovereign who is the only source of power in Russia
The problem is not in Putin. The problem is in the quasi monarchic political structure of Russia. Therefore, this problem can not be solved by changing Putin to "someone better". It can be solved only by dismantling the system of imperial power entirely
Why is quasimonarchic culture so prevalent in Russia? Well, it all comes to leverage and incentives. Tsar's Court has leverage to obliterate anyone who raises a voce against them and they will use it. So others are incentivised to never object. That's why Russia is so obedient
The entire discussion about whether the Russians "support" or "not support" the regime is insane. First, it treats Russia as something homogeneous. Second, it is based on assumption that raising a voice against the regime is even an option. It is not
Yeah, theoretically supporting the regime or standing up against it are both free choices. In reality though there's a huge asymmetry here incentives-wise. You don't lose much by supporting the Kremlin or just shutting up. But if you stand up you can lose hella lot
That doesn't mean everyone will actually work hard for the regime. It just means that you won't see a public dissent of the elites because anyone who raises a voice will be selected out immediately. Any real dissent will go only in the form of silent sabotage
It's not gonna be open, idealistic and collective action that gonna destroy the Russian Federation. To the contrary, it gonna be the silent, pragmatic and individual actions by elites. Such as the growing economic protectionism of regions, breaking the national economic cohesion
Dismantling the Russian empire is a necessary prerequisite for enfranchising the Russian people. "Support" of the regime is not so much a support as learnt helplessness due to anyone objecting to the Tsar's Court being destroyed. Thus destruction of a Court is necessary
*Any* politician who takes Putin's place in Kremlin will act much like Putin. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Human beings of such integrity, selflessness and humility that won't be corrupted by the Tsar's power just don't exist
Tsar's power is based on the quasi-monarchic political culture in Russia. And the quasi-monarchic culture is based on anyone raising the voice against being crushed. The Tsar's Court has the leverage, others have an incentive to shut up. That's a vicious cycle. It must be broken
The only way to break it is for as may regions as possible breaking free, thus getting out of the reach of Kremlin. If you are independent, it becomes much harder for Kremlin to crush the dissent and silence other voices. That's a necessary prerequisite for enfranchisement
For some reason inconceivable to me, the potential dissolution of Russian Federation is being viewed purely through the ethnic lenses, as "minorities breaking away" and Russians staying under the agency-extirpating power of Kremlin. But Russians deserve agency, too. End of 🧵
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In August 1999, President Yeltsin appointed his FSB Chief Putin as the new Prime Minister. Same day, he named him as the official successor. Yet, there was a problem. To become a president, Putin had to go through elections which he could not win.
He was completely obscure.
Today, Putin is the top rank global celebrity. But in August 1999, nobody knew him. He was just an obscure official of Yeltsin's administration, made a PM by the arbitrary will of the sovereign. This noname clerk had like 2-3% of popular support
Soon, he was to face elections
By the time of Putin's appointment, Russia already had its most favoured candidate. It was Primakov. A former Yeltsin's Prime Minister who broke with Yeltsin to contest for power. The most popular politician in Russia with massive support both in masses and in the establishment.
In Russia, the supreme power has never ever changed as a result of elections. That simply never happened in history. Now that is because Russia is a (non hereditary) monarchy. Consequently, it doesn't have any elections. It has only acclamations of a sitting ruler
Obviously, there has been no elections of Putin in any meaningful sense. There have been only acclamations. And that is normal. His predecessor was successfully acclaimed with an approval rate of about 6%. Once you got the power, you will get your acclamation one way or another
Contrary to the popular opinion, Russia doesn't have any acclamation ("election") problem. It has a transition of power problem. Like Putin can get acclaimed again, and again, and again. But sooner or later, he dies. What next?
My team has documented the entire Russian missile manufacturing base. That is 28 key ballistic, cruise, hypersonic and air defence missile producing plants associated with four corporations of Roscosmos, Almaz-Antey, Tactical Missiles and Rostec
The link is in the first comment
Our report How Does Russia Make Missiles? is already available for download
By the next weekend, we will be publishing the first OSINT sample, illustrating our methodology & approach. The rest of our materials will be made available laterrhodus.com
Key takeaways:
1. Missile production is mostly about machining 2. You cannot produce components of tight precision and convoluted geometry otherwise 3. Soviet missiles industry performed most of its machining manually
That was extremely laborious and skill-intensive process
No one gets famous by accident. If Alexey @Navalny rose as the unalternative leader of Russian opposition, recognised as such both in Moscow and in DC, this indicates he had something that others lacked. Today we will discuss what it was and why it did not suffice 🧵
Let's start with the public image. What was so special about the (mature) @navalny is that his public image represented normality. And by normality I mean first and foremost the American, Hollywood normality
Look at this photo. He represents himself as American politicians do
For an American politician, it is very important to present himself as a good family man (or woman). Exceptions do only corroborate the rule. Notice how McCain defends @BarackObama
Should Putin just suddenly die, @MedvedevRussiaE is the most likely compromise candidate for the supreme political power. He is the inaugurated President for God's sake. Which means, the anointed King.
"Not a real king", "Figurehead", "Nobody takes him seriously" is just intangible verbalism. Nothing of that matters. What matters is that he is the inaugurated President, consecrated by God. Opinions are subjective, anointment is objective
It is the fact
Medvedev may be one single person in the entire Russian establishment with a decent chance to keep power, should Putin go. For this reason, he may not even need to fight for power. The power will very probably be handed to him
On Friday, @navalny died (most probably killed) in prison. This is a good time to discuss the prospects of Russian opposition and the future transition of political power, once Putin is gone. This is also a good occasion to debunk some pervasive myths on the mechanics of power🧵
First, getting rid of @navalny was probably a correct decision on behalf of Kremlin. Execution of this murder may have been suboptimal (unprofessional, etc.). But the very idea to eliminate him was reasonable and makes total sense. There is nothing crazy or irrational about it
This remark may sound as cynical or paradoxical. So let me present you another paradox, which is yet to be fully processed by the political theorists. And the paradox is:
Bloody tyrants rule longer
The Russian history may possibly demonstrate this better than any other