Yes. That's a complete misunderstanding of how categorisation and statistics work in Russia. My family used to have relatives: three brothers from the same parents: Kurt, Walter and Horst
According to their passport data, Kurt was German, Walter was Tatar and Horst was Bashkir
Discussions on "percentage" miss one key factor. In most regions population is heavily mixed. In reality you gonna have many ancestries and many bloodlines. So who you identify with is mostly a matter of choice. And the question is - on basis of what is this choice made
For example, in Tatarstan around half marriages are mixed marriages. Who will the children identify with? USSR era was characterised by the heavy domination of ethnic Russians, so almost all children from mixed marriages would become "Russian" - the higher status community
In 1989-1991 the ethnic hierarchy changed quickly. That partially resulted from the renegotiation of political balance and partially from the fact that till 1991 Tatarstan was poor, but after 1991 it lived way better than most regions in Russia. The hierarchy changed accordingly
This is the only author that I am aware of that managed to adequately describe what happened in Tatarstan after 1991. She noticed that the program of Beautification of Kazan for example wasn't merely "urbanism". It was a political project of massive importance
Beautification of Kazan (and smaller towns) was political because it helped to renegotiate the ethnic hierarchy. Let's be honest, if Tatarstan cities objectively look better than most Russian ones, that does lead to renegotiation of status, both internally and externally
With the renegotiation of ethnic hierarchy, behaviour changed accordingly. Previously almost 100% of Tatarstan kids from mixed marriages had Russian names. But not anymore. In a heavily mixed area ethnicity is a matter of choice. In the unmixed area, too, it's just less obvious
That becomes even more obvious if you go in Siberia. Consider a very popular "chanson" (criminal songs) singer Ivan Kuchin. You can hear him very often in provincial cabs or cafes. On this photo he looks more "European"
On this older photo, much less so. You can be quite sure he has Asian blood
Which makes total sense if you consider that he is from the Chita region. Almost on the border with Mongolia and with heavily mixed population. When you think of Russia, think about the Iberoamerica. Much of the Urals and Siberian hinterland is the country of Mestizos
When you think about Russia imagine the following. Imagine that we still have the Spanish empire that is run by the Bourbon king from Madrid in the same old ways with peninsulares ruling over everyone else. That wold be the closest analogue to the modern Russia
Arguing that Russia should remain intact because "80% are Russian" is like saying that 90% of the Spanish Empire are actually Spanish, because they are all Castilian speaking Catholics and therefore should stay under the power of Madrid forever. Sounds good, doesn't work. The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Global politics are usually framed in terms of kindergarten discourse (“good guys” vs “bad guys”) with an implication that you must provide “good guys” with boundless and unconditional support
BUT
Unconditional support is extremely corrupting, and turns the best of the best into the really nasty guys, and relatively fast
Part of the reason is that neither “bad” nor “good” guys are in fact homogenous, and present a spectrum of opinions and personalities. Which means that all of your designated “good guys” include a fair share of really, really nasty guys, almost by definition.
Purely good movements do not really exist
That is a major reason why limitless, unconditional, unquestioning support causes such a profound corrupting effect upon the very best movement. First, because that movement is not all
that purely good as you imagine (neither movement is),
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