Correct. But it lacks the context. On the same day, June 30 the Donetsk People's Republic ruler Pushilin signed the order № 338 prohibiting the free entrance of humanitarian aid from Russia to the DPR. NB: Much (most?) of this aid was not really humanitarian, but army supplies🧵
DPR introduced the "accreditation" of humanitarian aid. Previously Russian citizens could purchase in Russia whatever and ship it to the DPR as "humanitarian aid". That was a legal way to supply the pro-Russian militias in Ukraine with arms/equipment by individual contributions
Now the DPR introduced the accreditation so shipping there anything gonna be harder. Besides, the order № 338 prohibits importing:
1. guns & ammo 2. lots of modern radio sets 3. quadcopter (technically)
to DPR from Russia as "humanitarian aid" for pro-Russian militias
The DPR restricted/prohibited much of the supplies for the pro-Russian militias in Donbass. Previously they were collected in Russia by various nationalist activist groups, pro-Z officials an oligarchs, etc. and shipped to Donbass. Now you can't do that
Why would they do that? Well, it perfectly illustrates the logic of the Russian state which may be counterintuitive for Westerners. The Russian government are total control freaks and are determined to extirpate *any* agency and activism. Including the pro-Kremlin activism
When the Donbass War only started, many pro-Russian militias there were not fully controlled by Kremlin. Some pro-Russian warlords in Donbass were genuine believers, some adventurers, some mix of both. Motorola used to wash cars in Russia, but left to Donbass and became a warlord
Whether they were adventurers or genuine Russian nationalists, most of these guys were upstarts, alien to the Russian political regime. Kremlin used them, but would never tolerate them
Every single pro-Russian warlord in Donbass was assassinated. Some in Donbass, some in Russia
Except for one. There's only one early Donbass warlord who's not only alive, but still in power. Khodakovsky. Why Kremlin didn't cleanse him like others?
Because he's different from them. Others used to wash cars. Khodakovsky used to serve in the Ukrainian state security - SBU
Every single of pro-Russian warlords in Donbass died under the mysterious circumstances, some in Donbass, others in Russia. Kremlin cleansed everyone. The only one they left alive and in power is the former Ukrainian intelligence officer. That makes perfect sense
First, he is tainted. He's a turn cloak and everyone knows that. So it's super easy to control him. Most probably Kremlin has Kompromat on him that would absolutely destroy his reputation. He knows that and will never trespass or object to Kremlin under any circumstances
Even more importantly, he is from pre-2014 SBU. Let's be honest, Ukraine did its dramatic breakup with the Soviet tradition and model of governance only in 2014. Before 2014, it was much like Russia and SBU was much like the FSB. They were not *that* different as many presume
The meaning of Maidan is *vastly* underrated. It was the 2014 when the USSR died for real. Before 2014 Ukrainian military, intelligence and even more importantly the military industrial complex kept the same ties with their Russian colleagues as before. That was Soviet continuity
Russia is FSB-run state and the FSB openly call themselves "the new nobility". This should be taken literally. They *are* the new nobility. So it makes total sense that during the conquest of Ukraine they'll rely on noblemen like Khodakovsky rather than on peasants like Motorola
Kremlin is genuinely and sincerely horrified of where Ukraine is drifting after 2014. Before 2014, they perceived the Ukrainian elite as similar to them, may be somewhat inferior. Soviet community and Soviet continuity didn't finish in 1991. It finished in 2014
Maidan, Crimea and the Donbass War - that's what killed the USSR. How? Before 2014 Ukrainian security apparatus was largely Soviet. After 2014 they had quick and massive cadre change. It seems that in the state security it was especially massive and profound. It was a revolution
When we are discussing the popular support of revolutions, we typically miss the elephant in the room. Namely, the cadre change. Almost every revolution decreases the general quality of life for years. But they still generate tons of staunch supporters through the cadre change
Yes, social collapse makes the life worse. But it allows *tons* of ambitious upstarts to rise. Would a simple Cossack NCO, Semyon Budyonnyy have any chance to be the Commander of Cavalry under the old regime? No. But Soviets cleansed the upper ranks and opened him the way
The White propaganda depicted the revolution as "Jewish". In reality though, with most of nobility and officer corpse cleansed, it were mostly young Great Russian peasants who were quickly trained to take their places. They were absolutely happy and would fight for the new regime
Revolutions almost always decrease the general quality of life for years to come. Also the purges may be very cruel. But with the old elites purged, you need to recruit someone else on their places. You must do a cadre change. Accelerated social mobility generates a mass support
French or even more so Russian revolutions are extreme cases, which I chose because they are so well-known and illustrative. What is important here is the causal link:
Regime change -> Purges -> Cadre change -> Tons of new upstarts -> Tons of staunch supporters for the new order
Maidan was not as radical as 1789 or 1914. But Russia was so much appalled with it that it escalated the armed conflict. And the armed conflict led to the cadre change. Much of the old army establishment was not that reliable. And much of state security absolutely wasn't
War with Russia brought the cadre change in the state security and intelligence. First, it expanded. Second, it was cleansed from the old cadres creating a social elevator. Yesterday you'd catch fish and cook it in a bucket on open fire. Tomorrow you'd be a Special Forces officer
It's quite typical for Ukrainian intelligence officers to be much younger than their Western colleagues they meet with. Why? Well, largely because the old Soviet cadres were cleansed. That's what changed the face of regime and that's what generated mass of staunch supporters
2014 killed the Soviet Union. Cadre change in Ukraine broke the former community between the Russian and Ukrainian state security. Old Soviet cadres were gradually cleansed, breaking the continuity. And those that came to their places would not like the old order to return
Honestly, I think that if Putin did a massive invasion in 2014, he would succeed. First of all, many East Ukrainians still thought of themselves as Soviet/Russian. But by 2022 many of them just died or turned too old to make any real effect. History moves one death at a time
Second, he absolutely would be able to make a horse trade with much of the Ukrainian military and state security. Yes, many would refuse. But there would be enough of collaborators to secure a quick victory. "People's revolt" in Donbass were largely local Siloviki changing colors
Putin's decision to keep a small scale war for 8 years and then do a mass invasion was insane. First, identity of East Ukraine changed over these years. Many of those who held old Soviet identity were just too old now. Second, security apparatus went through a cadre change, too
In 2014 Putin could realistically expect that many powerful interest groups in Ukraine would assist in his invasion. But then he for some reason took a pause of 8 years. By February 2022 most of them were fired, dead on under arrest. Medvedchuk is the best known example of course
So let's return to the initial question. Why would Kremlin restrict supply of the "humanitarian aid" making supplies of its own militias in Ukraine harder? Because even Russian imperialist activism is still activism. And the Kremlin never ever allows any type of activism. Ever
If nationalist and imperialist circles in Russia continue shipping the valuable aid to the Russian/Donbass troops ad they did before, they may establish too many valuable horizontal connections. Fighters on the frontline may like those guys and even start depending upon them
That's exactly what many Russian imperialists hoped for. Consider Chadayev. He writes that collecting and shipping the valuable equipment to Donbass, we build our own, patriotic, civil society
What he didn't said is that we establish direct connections with guys on the frontline
Kremlin would never allow it. Any genuine believer, even Russian imperialist, is suspicious. Now you may stand for the Tsar, because of your views. But that implies that tomorrow you may stand against the Tsar, because of your views. Strong personal opinions are problematic
Russian imperialists who thought they would be allowed to build a "real civil society" by organising the supply the Russian troops in Ukraine were naive. That's 1) personal initiative 2) collective action. And Kremlin is strongly determined to uproot your capacity for either
Irrespectively of Putin, Russian political system depends upon uprooting the ability for personal initiative and collective action. Any ruler in Kremlin will be forced to uproot them to save the empire. Dismantling the empire is the only way to enfranchise its people. End of🧵
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's have a look at these four guys. Everything about them seems to be different. Religion. Ideology. Political regime. And yet, there is a common denominator uniting all:
Xi - 71 years old
Putin - 72 years old
Trump - 79 years old
Khamenei - 86 years old
Irrespectively of their political, ideological, religious and whatever differences, Russia, China, the United States, Iran are all governed by the old. Whatever regime, whatever government they have, it is the septuagenarians and octogenarians who have the final saying in it.
This fact is more consequential than it seems. To explain why, let me introduce the following idea:
Every society is a multiracial society, for every generation is a new race
Although we tend to imagine them as cohesive, all these countries are multigenerational -> multiracial
In 1927, when Trotsky was being expelled from the Boslhevik Party, the atmosphere was very and very heated. One cavalry commander met Stalin at the stairs and threatened to cut off his ears. He even pretended he is unsheathing he sabre to proceed
Stalin shut up and said nothing
Like obviously, everyone around could see Stalin is super angry. But he still said nothing and did nothing
Which brings us to an important point:
Nobody becomes powerful accidentally
If Joseph Stalin seized the absolute control over the Communist Party, and the Soviet Union, the most plausible explanation is that Joseph Stalin is exercising some extremely rare virtues, that almost nobody on the planet Earth is capable of
Highly virtuous man, almost to the impossible level
Growing up in Russia in the 1990s, I used to put America on a pedestal. It was not so much a conscious decision, as the admission of an objective fact of reality. It was the country of future, the country thinking about the future, and marching into the future.
And nothing reflected this better than the seething hatred it got from Russia, a country stuck in the past, whose imagination was fully preoccupied with the injuries of yesterday, and the phantasies of terrible revenge, usually in the form of nuclear strike.
Which, of course, projected weakness rather than strength
We will make a huuuuuuge bomb, and drop it onto your heads, and turn you into the radioactive dust, and you will die in agony, and we will be laughing and clapping our hands
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.