Regarding mobilisation, Putin can declare it, indeed. But it will be a risky decision. The USSR maintained a massive infrastructure for the total mobilisation which has been mostly dismantled in post-Soviet Russia. Mobilisation is more likely to trigger political chaos
short🧵
Imagine, the government declared a total mobilisation and millions of young males are drafted into the army. What next? Now you need to:
1) test & allocate them (who goes where) 2) train & arm them 3) quarter & feed them 4) place them under the capable officers and NCOs
In order to execute 1-4 in case of the war, you need to maintain massive *excessive* capacities in the peace time. And the Soviet Union, did. One reason why Soviet army was so horribly excessive is that it maintained enormous excessive capacities just in case of mobilisation
Soviet army maintained lots of excessive training schools and centres, training grounds, rooms to quarter the soldiers, excessive arsenals and storages of well, everything. *Way* more than it would ever need in the peace time. That was for the total mobilisation
Moreover, Soviet army maintained plenty of "incomplete" military units - just in case. These were military bases with all the infrastructure & weaponry, lots of officers and NCOs and very, very few soldiers. These units could not and were not supposed to fight in the normal time
Incomplete units were maintained for one single purpose. When the USSR launches total mobilisation and drafts millions into the army, these units gonna absorb them. Excessive officers gonna get tons of soldiers under their command. And incomplete units gonna become full ones
In other words, much of the Soviet army wasn't and couldn't be functional in the peace time. These were not the functional units, but the *frames* of military units that would be filled with the human meat only in the case of total mobilisation . That was their only purpose
For many decades the USSR maintained all the infrastructure for the total mobilisation, but never launched it. That was horribly expensive. Soviet Union made every effort to maintain its overblown military, but after its fall Russian military expenditures collapsed
In the first half of the 1990s military establishment refused to accept the new reality and demanded to fund the army on nearly Soviet level (impossible). In reality the chronically underfunded army lost its capacities. In 1991-1996 Russia went through de facto demilitarisation
I would say that the turning point came around 1997. Consider the military industry. Around 1997 the official narrative of "conversion" (= produce civilian goods and pay your own bills) changed to the narrative of "survival" (= which military plants have actually survived?)
I think this was largely a result of the Chechen wars. Sometimes around 1996-1997 Kremlin took a decision to stop the de facto demilitarisation and try to maximise its military capacities with those minimal resources they had. So they appointed Sergeyev as a minister of defense
Generalising a bit, I would say that the concept of Sergeyev was:
1) build as strong Strategic Rocket Forces as we can 2) maintain a small expeditionary contingent for the foreign wars
That's it, in theory. In reality around 1997 he had money just for (1), but not for (2)
Still, the eidos of the new Russian army worked out in Sergeyev's era was:
1) Very strong "Rockets" arm (high priority) 2) Not so strong "Land army" army (low priority)
In reality we just need to be able to launch a limited foreign expedition, that's it
Sergeyev was too busy building (1). Plus his resources were limited. So it was only Serdyukov who actually started building (2) - a strong expeditionary corpus style land army. Modern, functional but limited in size
PS We're lucky Putin fired this guy and purged his team
In other words, the post-1997 eidos of the Russian army amounted to:
There was no place for the Soviet style total mobilisation army in this paradigm. New paradigm excluded possibility of mobilisa
New Russian leadership de facto abandoned any plans of total mobilisation. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't about saving human lives. That was about the optimal allocation of financial resources for the most part. If you need to build (1) and (2) you need to cut other expenses
Once Russian military leadership accepted the idea it gonna survive on the very limited budget (1997), they had to accept very economic & accountant style thinking. Efficiency, optimal allocation of resources. Cut the inefficient expenses and invest into something more efficient
What expenses were the least efficient in their new paradigm? Well, everything associated with the obsolete Soviet paradigm. Everything necessary for the total mobilisation. Excessive infrastructure, excessive units, excessive cadres, that was all inefficient expenses to be cut
That's why Serdyukov is hated so much. Rule of thumb. If someone is universally hated within a professional corporation, that almost always means he is acting agains the corporate interests. Serdyukov was cutting the excessive infrastructure & units, firing people. Hence, hatred
Dismantling of the infrastructure built for the total mobilisation, firing the officers who were supposed to lead the mobilised, dismantling the "incomplete" army units meant that Russian army lost capacity to absorb the millions of new recruits. It can't do mobilisation anymore
That doesn't mean Putin won't declare mobilisation. That just means it would be really stupid for him to do so. There are no excessive schools and grounds to train of new recruits. There are no excessive longings to quarter them. There are no excessive officers to lead them
Paradoxically enough, it is much harder to conduct a proper mobilisation in the course of the foreign war. First, most of the capable officers who could've trained and led new recruits are in Ukraine. Many of them are dead already
Many cadre units which could have either served as "sponges", absorbing new recruits, or as a source of officers/NCOs for the new units are already destroyed. They could've been promoted into officers in the new levee en masse. If they were not KIA months ago
Which means Putin absolutely can launch a mobilisation. He just won't be able to build a capable army out of this recruits. There is no frame that could absorb this new cannon fodder to form the new, capable military units. Actually there is much less frame now than 7 months ago
Now add to this a logistics problem. Russia is absurdly centralised country. All the airlines, all the autoroutes, and most importantly all the railways are centred in one single hub. The city of Moscow. That is *by far* the most important logistical hub in the country
Let me give you an example. Consider the warehouse building statistics, 2004-2009. As you see, the lion share of new warehouses are being built in Moscow (red). For logistical reasons, almost all goods in Russia will pass through Moscow and will be store here. Same with soldiers
Just as trade flows necessarily pass through Moscow and goods are being stored on Moscow warehouses, human flows will be passing here as well. In case of mobilisation, Moscow will be flooded by the mobilised troops. Many of whom gonna be stuck here for long (cuz bad logistics)
In case of mobilisation, there will be:
1) tons of new, unmotivated recruits 2) aware they'll be sent to Ukraine, where they likely die or get maimed 3) stuck in Moscow, in proximity to the seat of power
That's revolutionary situation
That is btw exactly the scenario of 1917 revolution in Russia. In November 1916 Nicholas started suspecting his ministry for internal affairs Protopopov of disloyalty and started vetting other candidatures. He offered Protopopov's position to Krzhyzhanovsky
Krzhyzhanovsky said yeah, I could be a minister, but I have a condition. There are 460 000 reserve troops quartered in the imperial capital of St Petersburg. These are mobilised peasants, very unmotivated. They know, they'll soon be sent to the WWI trenches, where they die
I want you to:
1. Transfer some of them to the city police with an exemption from the military service 2. Relocate the rest the FUCK OUTTA THE CAPITAL
That's my condition if you want to see me as a minister. Nicholas ignored it. 3 months later the Russian empire fell
It were not the "workers" or "peasants" who did the February and then the October revolution. It were first and foremost the 460 000 conscripts of the St Petersburg garrison. Who were stuck in the capital cuz logistics and found themselves close to the seat of power. 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