Russian bureaucracy is *massive*. It's also diverse. Judging from my observations, it's less integrated than let's say the apparatus of the U.S. federal bureaucracy. Different agencies have different cultures and operate by different rules. Avoid sweeping generalisations (not🧵)
I see a very common attitude among the Russian pro-war community. It can be summarised this way:
"We expected dumb and incompetent bureaucrats to destroy our economy. But our glorious army would prevail against all odds. It turned out we were wrong. It's the other way around"
Now much of the Z-community argues that they greatly overestimated the Russian army (and the military apparatus). It's very, very much worse than anyone thought before. But they underestimated the economic bureaucracy. Which is very much better than they could have thought
That kinda makes sense. Portraying *all* of the federal bureaucracy as stupid incompetent thieves is a lie. That's simply not true. Some of the agencies indeed are absolutely rotten and crony (Foreign Ministry). Some are incredibly meritocratic (Ministry of Economy)
There's only one way to get into the foreign ministry. You need to get into their university MGIMO and do step by step linear career after the graduation. They're carefully protected from the competition with outsiders and nonames. The result is expectedly horrendous
Ministry of Economy is exactly the opposite. When Oreshkin became a minister he published a post:
1. Anyone can send me a CV via Facebook 2. I'll personally read each one
I don't know if he read them himself. But I know a number of ppl who just sent him their CVs and were hired
Ministry of Economy is extremely competitive and meritocratic. They are actively hunting for ppl. Like I know a girl who worked in Google in an Asian megapolis and the ministry invited her back to Moscow to work with them. She agreed. Most probably, their conditions were good
In 2021 they tried to invite me for an interview five times and I didn't even apply. As I said, they're actively headhunting. I didn't say yes or no directly, because I waited for my U.S. visa and chose to тянуть резину, until my flight. Sometimes ambiguity is the best strategy
There's a huge contrast between the super open, competitive and meritocratic economic bureaucracy and let's say the unhealthily sheltered diplomatic corps which works just the other way around. From my perspective economic bureaucracy is objectively very good
That is not to say it doesn't have its own drawbacks. In the recent years, the concept of the "Deep State" entrenched in the English vocabulary and the political discourse. Indeed, the US or the UK states are objectively very deep. Which is not the case with Russia. It is shallow
The US and the UK are deep and mechanistic. Russia is shallow and manual. Let me give you an illustration. Lots of pharmaceutical industry regulations were personally made by one single deputy minister of economy. He just sat at his office and made all the regulations "manually"
Theoretically his decisions could be overruled. By whom though? Let's be honest, a minister never gonna get into the meticulous details of regulations in every single industry. That's absolutely impossible. He just delegates it to his deputies. PM or President won't either ofc
As a result, the entire pharmaceutical industry would be "manually" directed by one deputy minister sitting in his office. No one above him will ever go through all the paperwork and documentation to get even the slightest understanding of what's going on. His decisions are final
That's what I call a "shallow" state. Government official takes *all* the decisions which in practice can't be overruled. There is no permanent bureaucracy staying in shadow like in England. There is no congressional authority like in the US. Deputy minister decides and that's it
As a result, changing individuals has far deeper effect than in the West. In the West a new official or a politician coming after his predecessor often understands he can't really change much. And soon his term is over. In Russia you often can overturn anything at any moment
What I find puzzling is the obsession of so many US conservatives with Russia. Imagine that in the US the federal bureaucracy in DC could literally decide *everything*. They would just take all decisions for Texas or Oklahoma which can't be overruled. That's how Russia is ruled
That doesn't necessarily mean that all of this bureaucracy is vile or corrupt. The economic apparatus is quite competent and conscientious. They use their power according to their best judgement. It's just that they have too much power and no human on earth should have so much
In the U.S. many blame the party politics for all the ills of the country. I disagree. I'd argue that the party politics are a *healthier* element of the US political system. They introduce an element of healthy randomness into the otherwise too technocratic federal government
I would argue that the centralised rule by the honest and competent bureaucracy may work out only in very, very small polities, where the bureaucrats can see and feel the immediate effect of their actions on their own skin. This model works, but it doesn't really scale up
Centralised technocratic rule in a massive country of continental scale is a guaranteed recipe for a disaster. The bigger a country is, the slower is the feedback, the slower the learning process. The more catastrophic mistakes you can afford to make before reality strikes back
When discussing the Putinism, we concentrate too much on its kleptocratic element. It exists indeed. But if the system works, it can't be purely kleptocratic. It works thanks to smart, competent and conscientious technocracy. Which is too powerful and that's exactly the problem🧵
PS obsession with PR masters as Surkov, or even worse Dugin proves that the quality of expertise available to the English-reading audience is below any criticism. If those opinion makers in media and in academia had a grain of competence, they would write about Andrey Belousov
• • •
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.