Thread by @kamilkazani

Gorbachov's funerals dilemma. Gorbachov allegedly destroyed the USSR. Still, he is an ex-Tsar which is super important in Russian quasi-monarchy. Disrespecting him would undermine the awe before the institution of Tsar's power. So Putin's private farewells were still broadcasted

Many things about Gorbachov would be counterintuitive for the American public. First, few things undermined his reputation in Russia more than his relationship with his wife. They were very close, he took her everywhere and she tried to play a figure of her own. People hated that

In America being a "good family man" is usually considered a prerequisite for the high political career. You must be one, or at least persuade enough voters that you are. So Americans casually assume Russian politics work just like this. But they don't

I don't really like the term "democracy" for too many reasons. I don't want to go into discussion into whether "the people" do actually rule anywhere. I would ask another question. Is this or that regime

1) Contractual
2) Non-contractual

Russia falls under the second category

The thing about the USSR/Russia is not that it is "not democratic". It is that is not contractual. Any contracts dishonour the Tsar. Why?

If Tsar made an agreement with X, it means:

1) X forced him to limit his own power
2) to secure X's interests

That's a huge dishonour

Kirienko's statement that "Russian state is not based upon agreements" should be read in this context.

Contractual = Limited = Dishonourable

Contractual = You faced the interest of the second party and had to back off, giving them concessions. What kind of Tsar you are?

Russian people mostly accept the idea of the non-contractual supreme power. It won't bind itself with agreements with anyone. You can't (openly) lobby your own interests or fight for them, you gonna be destroyed for such blasphemy. You may only accept the sacred will of the Tsar

Accepting the sacred will of the Tsar without questions or complaints is regarded as a semireligious virtue. All the money are the Sovereign's money. All the power derives from the Sovereign. Many regard their obedience as a true, moral behaviour. Unquestioning obedience = virtue

You may think I'm exaggerating. But I'm not. Consider this post by Chadaev - ex official of the Putin's administration. It is very important and I strongly recommend anyone who wants to get Russian political culture or the current war to read it through

t.me/chadayevru/474

You must keep this in mind to understand why Gorbachev's relationship with his wife brought so much hatred. People will obey to the supreme power humbly and patiently, seeing it as a semi religious virtue. The power is unquestionable, impenetrable, no one can influence the Tsar

But. If *someone* can question the Tsar or influence him, even his wife, that destroys our mental model of the world. Is he even a real Tsar? If she questions him, then why don't we? Is our virtue really so much of a virtue?

That's desecration. And a personal attack upon us all

Unlike in America, in Russia too close familial relations are a liability for a politician, and certainly for the supreme ruler. In the public consciousness, Gorbachev rhymes with Nicholas II

Whimp
Henpecked
Destroyed his empire

They're not really hated. They're mostly despised

Meanwhile, Putin's divorce with his old wife - is *correct* behaviour for the Tsar. He is not dependent upon her in anyway. If he is not influenced by her, then he probably can't be influenced by us, his subjects either. Everything is fine and our mental model is undisturbed

PS As a very brief and sketchy introduction to the public perception of monarchs/quasimonarchs and its dynamics, I strongly recommend listening to this song "Tsar Nicky". See lyrics in the description. The end