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
Fake jobs are completely normal & totally natural. The reason is: nobody understands what is happening and most certainly does not understand why. Like people, including the upper management have some idea of what is happening in an organisation, and this idea is usually wrong.
As they do not know and cannot know causal relations between the input and output, they just try to increase some sort of input, in a hope for a better output, but they do not really know which input to increase.
Insiders with deep & specific knowledge, on the other hand, may have a more clear & definite idea of what is happening, and even certain, non zero degree of understanding of causal links between the input and output
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.