Yes, but that is very gentle mode of war from the Russian perspective. Those who decry happening as "madness" or call it "unimaginable" are either clueless (Westerners) or liars (Russians). Russian war in Ukraine is going on *extremely* soft mode. Because Ukraine has air defence
Soviet Union had the largest and the most comprehensive air defence system in the world. It was largely developed as a countermeasure against the U.S. airforce superiority. You have a large and great airforce? Fine, we'll build the large and great air defence. And they did
After the collapse of the USSR, the bulk of the Soviet military was inherited by Russia. But Ukraine also got a substantial part of it, including the air defence. It declined through the 1990-2000s and by 2014 Ukraine was effectively demilitarised. Its army was dysfunctional
After Crimea and the start of the war in Donbass, the army improved significantly, including the air defence. Old Soviet air defence system was reinforced by the modern digital equipment and software, specifically the PLC industrial computers
In 1991-2014 Russia fought in countries with zero or weak air defence. Thus it resorted to the indiscriminate use of airforce, bombing cities like Grozny or Aleppo to the ground. Neither Chechens, nor Syrians could do anything against the airforce turning their cities to the dust
Syrian example illustrates the Russian mode of war and its consequences. Syrian war was *way* worse than the Iraq or Afghanistan. Look at the population graphs for all three countries and you may notice a very particular trend for Syria. Russia enters the game
If Ukraine didn't have significant air defence, Russia could have resorted to the same indiscriminate use of the airforce as in Syria or Chechnya. But it can't. A thorough air defence system made the use of the airforce very risky and difficult. Russia will just lose its aviation
Russian war in Ukraine is unprecedentedly soft and gentle. Consider this. They are raising a Peski town with thermobaric artillery rather than with a bomber. Why? Ukraine has air defence. That's why Russia is so gentle and slow. It can't bomb everything to the dust as in Syria
To sum up:
1. Russian war in Ukraine isn't cruel. It's very gentle, because Ukraine has means of defence. Previous victims of Russia did not
2. Russian mode of war is pure evil
3. Russian public opinion preferred not to notice or condone that evil till they got hurt themselves
4. The strange softness of the Russian army in Ukraine results from Ukraine being armed. Therefore, arming Ukraine is the single best way to deescalate this conflict. The better is Ukraine armed, the more Russia will deescalate. At some point they'll try to back off
5. Russia is a large and strong military machine without *any* ethical or humanitarian concerns. In Syria they literally depopulated a large country. Russian public opinion ignores or endorses it. Ergo, Russia must be demilitarised to minimise the danger it poses to the world
6. Demilitarisation of Russia requires its breakup. Should Moscow keep control over its colonies, it will endure through the hard times and then rebuild its military again. The only way to prevent it is to allow the colonies to break away from under the power of Moscow
7. Russian Federation is the extreme anomaly. It is the last European colonial empire that still continues to exist. Some of these colonies are predominantly white, others are POC-populated. All of them however, should receive a chance for independence from the metropole. The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In August 1999, President Yeltsin appointed his FSB Chief Putin as the new Prime Minister. Same day, he named him as the official successor. Yet, there was a problem. To become a president, Putin had to go through elections which he could not win.
He was completely obscure.
Today, Putin is the top rank global celebrity. But in August 1999, nobody knew him. He was just an obscure official of Yeltsin's administration, made a PM by the arbitrary will of the sovereign. This noname clerk had like 2-3% of popular support
Soon, he was to face elections
By the time of Putin's appointment, Russia already had its most favoured candidate. It was Primakov. A former Yeltsin's Prime Minister who broke with Yeltsin to contest for power. The most popular politician in Russia with massive support both in masses and in the establishment.
In Russia, the supreme power has never ever changed as a result of elections. That simply never happened in history. Now that is because Russia is a (non hereditary) monarchy. Consequently, it doesn't have any elections. It has only acclamations of a sitting ruler
Obviously, there has been no elections of Putin in any meaningful sense. There have been only acclamations. And that is normal. His predecessor was successfully acclaimed with an approval rate of about 6%. Once you got the power, you will get your acclamation one way or another
Contrary to the popular opinion, Russia doesn't have any acclamation ("election") problem. It has a transition of power problem. Like Putin can get acclaimed again, and again, and again. But sooner or later, he dies. What next?
My team has documented the entire Russian missile manufacturing base. That is 28 key ballistic, cruise, hypersonic and air defence missile producing plants associated with four corporations of Roscosmos, Almaz-Antey, Tactical Missiles and Rostec
The link is in the first comment
Our report How Does Russia Make Missiles? is already available for download
By the next weekend, we will be publishing the first OSINT sample, illustrating our methodology & approach. The rest of our materials will be made available laterrhodus.com
Key takeaways:
1. Missile production is mostly about machining 2. You cannot produce components of tight precision and convoluted geometry otherwise 3. Soviet missiles industry performed most of its machining manually
That was extremely laborious and skill-intensive process
No one gets famous by accident. If Alexey @Navalny rose as the unalternative leader of Russian opposition, recognised as such both in Moscow and in DC, this indicates he had something that others lacked. Today we will discuss what it was and why it did not suffice 🧵
Let's start with the public image. What was so special about the (mature) @navalny is that his public image represented normality. And by normality I mean first and foremost the American, Hollywood normality
Look at this photo. He represents himself as American politicians do
For an American politician, it is very important to present himself as a good family man (or woman). Exceptions do only corroborate the rule. Notice how McCain defends @BarackObama
Should Putin just suddenly die, @MedvedevRussiaE is the most likely compromise candidate for the supreme political power. He is the inaugurated President for God's sake. Which means, the anointed King.
"Not a real king", "Figurehead", "Nobody takes him seriously" is just intangible verbalism. Nothing of that matters. What matters is that he is the inaugurated President, consecrated by God. Opinions are subjective, anointment is objective
It is the fact
Medvedev may be one single person in the entire Russian establishment with a decent chance to keep power, should Putin go. For this reason, he may not even need to fight for power. The power will very probably be handed to him
On Friday, @navalny died (most probably killed) in prison. This is a good time to discuss the prospects of Russian opposition and the future transition of political power, once Putin is gone. This is also a good occasion to debunk some pervasive myths on the mechanics of power🧵
First, getting rid of @navalny was probably a correct decision on behalf of Kremlin. Execution of this murder may have been suboptimal (unprofessional, etc.). But the very idea to eliminate him was reasonable and makes total sense. There is nothing crazy or irrational about it
This remark may sound as cynical or paradoxical. So let me present you another paradox, which is yet to be fully processed by the political theorists. And the paradox is:
Bloody tyrants rule longer
The Russian history may possibly demonstrate this better than any other