Fair enough. While Crimea had separatist attitiudes, Donbass did not. In fact, it was a major power center of pre-2014 Ukraine. While Russia is picturing Ukrainian political system as dominance of Galicia, picturing it as Donetsk & Dnipro dominance may be more factually accurate
I would argue that the actual political influence of the West Ukrainian interest groups on Kyiv politics had been exaggerated. While the influence of interest groups from the large industrial cities of the South East: especially Dnipro and Donetsk had been vastly underrated
In 2014 Donetsk interest group lost massively. They chose to welcome the Russian involvement. A dog was losing in a fight and called for the wolves to help. As a result, the Donetsk group not only lost everything but the Donbass itself turned into the country of depopulated ruins
Azovstal where the Ukrainian defenders of Mariupol took their last stand was the major asset of Rinat Akhmetov. The richest businessman of Donetsk, who was the force standing behind Yanukovich and who was a big loser of the 2014 Maidan
There is a strong reason to believe that the "Owner of Donetsk" as he was styled helped the Donetsk People's Republic on its very early stages, securing the smooth switching of allegiance by the local police and state security. But then Russia took direct control, kicking him out
When discussing the "separatism" of Donetsk we miss the elephant in the room: the massive switching of colours by the local state security and the cops. Which was massive. It was probably orchestrated by the businessmen of the Donetsk interest group who lost during the Maidan
Consider the following. All of the "heroes of the Russian spring", separatist commanders in Donetsk were later cleansed by Russia. Kremlin killed every single of them, even those who left to Russia. Yes, they were kinda useful but too chaotic and unruly from Kremlin's perspective
Only two early DPR commanders are still alive: Strelkov and Khodakovsky. Two things in common between them:
1. They're both alive. Russians did not kill them like the rest 2. They're both from the state security. Strelkov from the FSB, Khodakovsky from the SBU
Yeah, the only Donbass separatist commander of Ukrainian origin the Russians did not kill used to be a career officer of the Ukrainian state security. From the FSB perspective it makes him socially adjacent. He will be spared and allowed to command, he is kinda one of us
The elephant in the room is that the institutional gap between Russian and Ukraine before 2014 was not great. It was basically the same military industrial complex. Dnipro played the key role in Russian missiles production, Zporizhya in engines, Mykolaiv in shipbuilding
Russian army and state security worked very closely with the Ukrainian ones and in a sense comprised one organism. It was in 2014 when these ties were finally broken. Some would argue that the USSR fall in 1991. I would argue that the Soviet Union died for real only in 2014
The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s
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