I finally read the whole book by @A_SHEKH0VTS0V on the relationship between Russia and the Western far right. It is essential reading for academics, journos, and think tankers working/writing on the topic.
1. For me personally, it was more insightful on Russia's position on the far right than the far right's position on Russia. This is not just because I know the far right better, but because Anton's analysis of the Kremlin and Russian politics is excellent.
2. He highlights how Russia prefers mainstream political actors ("Putin Versteher") but is kind of forced to rely increasingly on "radical" actors because of Russia's increasingly toxic image in the West.
3. What was the most novel, for my point of view, was how he shows that Russian political entrepreneurs use their connections with the western far right to wins favors from the Kremlin. 🚨
4. On the far right, he notes how marginal most of the groups are that engage with Russian far-rightists and entrepreneurs.
5. He also shows how instrumentalist the relationship is, not just for the Russians, but also for most western far-rightists, particularly the more relevant ones, focusing on Austria, France, and Italy.
6. Overall the book is very nuanced in its arguments. Sober and scholarly. Only the conclusion is a bit (too) speculative, but that is quite common.
Great thread by my colleague @AmandaMurdie (read it!). Some additions:
1. Journals require too many reviews (2 is enough). 2. Pool of reviewers of most journals is too small. 3. Pools overlap too much. 4. Too many submissions!
The debate about democratic erosion continues to make the classic mistake of externalizing the threats, focusing on the extremist margins rather than the political mainstream. 🧵
1. Case in point, with regard of #January6th almost all focus is on the people who storming the Capitol rather than those inside of it.
2. People and organizations we should focus less on:
Most non-Americans have no clue how acute and significant the threat to US democracy really is. More problematically, most Americans do not either.
I know many people will find this "alarmist", but I have been studying the far right for almost three decades, and have never been an alarmist - in fact, have often been accused of underestimating it.
"Fascism" is not around the corner. This is a different threat! And while the far right is global, the threat of the far right is minor in most countries. But in some, and this includes the biggest democracies (🇧🇷🇮🇳🇺🇸), the threat to liberal democracy is acute and significant!.
Fox News does not need to spread the Great Replacement "Theory" (GRT) anymore as we have all been doing it the last days, giving more exposure to a dangerous conspiracy theory than the terrorist could have ever hoped for.
1. I have been studying the far right for almost 30 years now, having published academically on it, but also given interviews to media since graduate school. I have made many mistakes along the way, some I know about, many I don't. So, clearly, treat everything with care.
2. I strongly believe academics should share their insights to a broader audience - particularly those working at public institutions or (partly) funded by taxes.
Although this has become more broadly shared view today, and universities encourages it, no one trains you for it.
The Great Replacement "Theory" is not just about demographic change or a racist idea that (non-white) immigration is bad.
What sets GRT apart from these much older ideas is that there is an active attempt to change the population to regain or sustain power by a specific elite.
Obviously, racist theories are not new. And countries like the US are founded on racism. And GRT is a racist theory. But it is a SPECIFIC racist theory, which is not very recent, but also not centuries old.
Of course, the particular irony of the Great Replacement "Theory" being so popular here, is that like any other immigration country, the US is a country characterized by continuous demographic change and design.