I think Kremlin may view nuclear strike on Ukraine (with an American retaliatory strike) as a rational move. It may not make much sense in the context of foreign policy, but it does in the context of domestic policy. Meanwhile foreign policy is just domestic policy by other means
My argument is based on three premises:
1. Foreign policy serves domestic policy goals 2. Keeping power is *the* top priority of domestic policy 3. Kremlin is looking for a way out of the conflict
Launching a nuclear strike and getting a retaliatory one may be seen as a way out
If Putin is looking for a way out, that probably means he is looking for a way out that would allow him to keep the supreme political power. Which may be incompatible with suffering a humiliating military defeat from a supposedly inferior force. Like Japan in 1905 and Ukraine now
Many argued that Putin should be allowed to "save face". The thing is: it is nearly impossible for him to save face at this point. Inability to crush Ukraine is already a loss of face, no matter how you frame it. For a simple reason that Ukraine had been considered an inferior
The very idea that Ukraine can stand its ground against Russia would have been considered totally insane at the start of this year, both in Russia and outside of it. The fact that it does means that Putin has already suffered a major loss of face, and will continue suffering it
To keep power, you need to save face. And how can you save face? One obvious solution is: try to engage with the U.S. Make a nuclear strike that would inflict an American retaliatory strike. If you and your power survives that, that gonna be total win. Absolute victory
Russian public opinion considers Ukraine as absolutely inferior. That is why standards for not losing face in this conflict are pretty high. Since Ukraine is so ridiculous, inability to crush it is humiliating, no matter how you frame it. You can't defeat it, you lose your face
But Russian public opinion does not view the US as inferior, it's the other way around. That is why standards for not losing face in a conflict with the US are so much lower. I would say that inability of the US to crush Russia would be seen as American loss and Putin's win
Compare two scenarios:
1. Russia engages Ukraine. Then Russia not crushing Ukraine is Ukrainian victory. High bar 2. US engages Russia. Then the US not crushing Russia is Russian victory. (Seemingly) low bar
He absolutely may choose 2 as the bar for not losing face is lower
I would even say that provoking an American retaliatory strike may boost the regime. The US tried to defeat us, used the deadly force, but we still exist - that's the story of honour, heroism and stoicism. For the Putin's target audience I mean. That's a great and powerful myth
Meanwhile, mobilisation may stabilise the regime by simply getting rid of young males that could otherwise create problems. For example, if they were recruited by anti-regime forces, should the supreme power weaken. The less young males in the country, the stronger is Kremlin
Engaging with the US directly may sound suicidal foreign policy wise. At the same time it may sound totally rational domestic policy wise. Simply because the bar for saving your face (=keeping power) in this conflict would be much lower. They didn't destroy you = you win. The end
PS For example, the US destroying the Black Sea Navy as a response for a Russian nuclear strike absolutely may count as Putin's victory. It is very, very much easier to frame this scenario as honourable, than let's say an obvious military defeat from Ukraine
PPS Withdrawing before the US is very much preferable than withdrawing before Ukraine. In the first case, you can frame it correctly, save your face and prepare for a round 2. If you withdraw before Ukraine though, there may be no round 2
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The OKBM Afrikantova is the principal producer of marine nuclear reactors, including reactors for icebreakers, and for submarines in Russia. Today we will take a brief excursion on their factory floor 🧵
Before I do, let me introduce some basic ideas necessary for the further discussion. First, reactor production is based on precision metalworking. Second, modern precision metalworking is digital. There is simply no other way to do it at scale.
How does the digital workflow work? First, you do a design in the Computer Aided Design (CAD) software. Then, the Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) software turns it into the G-code. Then, a Computer Numerical Controller (CNC) reads the code and guides the tool accordingly
Relative popularity of three google search inquiries in the post-USSR. Blue - horoscope. Red - prayer. Green - namaz. Most of Russia is blue, primarily googling horoscopes. Which suggests most of the population being into some kind of spirituality rather than anything "trad".
The primary contiguous red area is not in Russia at all, but in West Ukraine. Which is indeed the only remotely "conservative" (in the American sense) area of the East Slavic world. Coincidentally or not, it had never been ruled by Russia, except for a short period in 1939-1991
In the blue and occasionally red sea, there are two regions that primarily google namaz, the Islamic prayer. That is Moscow & Tatarstan
There are two ways for a poor, underdeveloped country to industrialise: Soviet vs Chinese way. Soviet way is to build the edifice of industrial economy from the foundations. Chinese way is to build it from the roof.
1st way sounds good, 2nd actually works.
To proceed further, I need to introduce a new concept. Let's divide the manufacturing industry into two unequal sectors, Front End vs Back End:
Front End - they make whatever you see on the supermarket shelf
Back End - they make whatever that stands behind, that you don’t see
Front End industries are making consumer goods. That is, whatever you buy, as an individual. Toys, clothes, furniture, appliances all falls under this category. The list of top selling amazon products gives a not bad idea what the front end sector is, and how it looks like.
Nation state is not some basic property of reality (as many falsely presume). They do not just organically grow out of the “ethnically drawn borders”. That is not how it works. They usually grow out of the *administratively* drawn borders, on whichever continent.
First they draw administrative borders based on whatever rationales and considerations. Then, these arbitrarily drawn administrative borders turn out to be surprisingly stable, more stable than anyone could ever expect. Eventually they become borders of the nation states.
States do not grow out of ethnicities. States grow out of the administrative zones, fiscal zones, customs zones et cetera. Basically, a Big Guy got a right to collect taxes and rents over these territories, but not those territories. Then the border between what he can milk…
Every election in the US attracts huge global attention. People in Pakistan, people in Paraguay, people in Poland, people in Papua New Guinea are monitoring the course of elections and tend to hold strong opinions regarding whom they would prefer to win
Why would that be the case? Well, one obvious reason would be that the US elections are, in fact, seen as the world elections. People in Paraguay do not vote in the US and yet, the US elections have a very strong impact on the fortunes of Paraguay.
Or Russia, in this case:
And I am not discussing the economic fortunes only. In terms of politics, in terms of culture, in terms of discourse, American relations with the rest of the world tend to be strikingly one-directional. Much or most of the global discourse comes downstream from the Unites States
There is hardly any other genre of literature more factual, and more realistic than the sci-fi. It is exactly its non-serious, seemingly abstract character that allows it to escape censorship and ostracism to a far greater degree than it is normally possible for a work of art.
Sci-fi allows you to to present the most painful, insulting, insufferable, obnoxious, criminal and traitorous arguments in a non-serious way, as a fun, as a joke. In this regard, it is far superior to any other genre. Compare three ways to sell a heresy:
By its very nature, sci-fi is inseparable from the social commentary. For this reason, quality sci-fi should be always read as a self-reflection and self-criticism of the society it is written in.
If the "Gulliver’s Travels" is a reflection on Britain…