The CEO of Russian aerospace (& missiles producing) state company Roskosmos Rogozin published this video in his telegram channel РОГОZИН. It may look weird for foreigners but Russians understand this allusion very well (not a thread)
In his video Rogozin is basically threatening the outer world with the nuclear war, while reading some silly childish sounding poem. For context let's have a look on another video, also from his Telegram channel t.me/rogozin_do. Russian fighters are reading the same poem
Pretty much every modern Russian can easily understand the reference. It is a poem from the Brat-2 movie, where Russian mafia members are departing to the US to take revenge against an American criminal boss
The poem is repeated twice. First the protagonist visited a school in Moscow and heard a child reading it. He kinda caught the vibe
Later, he got to Chicago and found a skyscraper where his enemy's office is located. While climbing there through a fire escape he's reading the same poem by heart
Here you can see the entire scene with Brat's revenge. Yeah, it looks kinda like a trashy criminal movie. No wonder so many underestimated its cultural impact in Russia. For Russia it's not a random film. It's the integral part of the state cult
Yes, part of intelligentsia mocked the Brat movies as trashy and tasteless. I personally like this parody the best But while the part of intelligentsia viewed them ironically, the wider masses took them unironically as a source of the eternal wisdom
Why would Brat movies play such an important role? They kinda resonated with the national vibe. By 2000 Russians felt humiliated and wanted revenge. It was the spirit of age and not the initiative of Putin as many think. His predecessor Primakov had also tried to play this card
NB: A very important detail. While a movie is about a Russian bandit's revenge against the American criminal boss, he doesn't kill his enemy in the end. He visits him, massacres his workers and henchmen, but doesn't kill him. His real goal is to demonstrated his superiority
Whom do two Brats kill then? Well, as I said, Chicago criminal boss' henchmen and workers, the random folk. But also the Ukrainian bandits. Their death is also portrayed as a sort of ethnic/national revenge. Which they deserved by refusing to accept a Muscovite as their brother
I am very much inclined to think that the Brat-2 movie is a reflection of the Russian ruling class feelings and the worldview. That's why they were advertised and propagandised so massively, endorsed by the state-controlled media, especially in the context of the war with Ukraine
If we analyse Kremlin's motivations through the Brat-2 lenses, what they would look like?
The archenemy is the Chicago mafia boss (DC elites). But our goal is not to destroy them. Our goal is to inflict a defeat upon them, see their fear and humiliate them. To restore our pride
On our way to meet our archenemy however, we will have to kill tons of folk who may not be complicit in his crimes (like his night club personnel) but just happen to be there and stay on our way to:
1. take money from the nightclub office 2. more importantly, restore our pride
If we view the war in Ukraine through the Brat-2 lenses the fault of Ukrainians consists largely in being there, standing on our way to meet the true boss and restore our pride. The war in Ukraine is primarily a leverage to get a better negotiating position with the DC
That is not to say that Moscow wouldn't attack Ukraine if not for its conflict with the US. Moscow never truly recognised the independence of Ukraine and viewed post-Soviet states as breakaway provinces to be saved from themselves. Z-war is a war of the imperial restoration
But Kremlin also views Z-war as a proxy war against the US, which is really fought to take revenge for the prior humiliation. In this context Ukrainians are more of misfortunate fooled guys, whose real fault is just staying on a way of a rightful avenger. End of 🧵
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
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)
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
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
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.
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
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