Kamil Galeev Profile picture
Nov 21, 2022 10 tweets 4 min read Read on X
👇When we are talking about a truce or even peace, we should keep in mind that Russia won't be honouring it. Any ceasefire will be used for regrouping, restocking and then attacking again with a better chance of success. Notice that they compare Russian situation to Khasavyurt
First Chechen war 1994-1996 ended with Khasavyurt Accords. Russia withdrew it forces from Chechnya. Independence of Chechnya remained an open question which had to be determined by 2001 Image
Next year, in 1997 Russia signed a peace treaty with Chechnya. President Yeltsin agreed on "rejecting forever the use of force" and "developing relations on the norms of international law". Many viewed it as the de facto recognition of independence Image
"Forever" lasted for two years. In 1999 same president Yeltsin who signed the treaty invaded again. This war played a key role in Yeltsin to Putin transition, allowing Yeltsin to boost the heir his family chose from a nonane to the national leader just in a few months Image
Interestingly enough, it was around 1997 when Russia stopped its effective de-militarization continuing since collapse of the USSR (mostly for the lack of funding) and started figuring out how to rebuild it - now on much more limited resources. 1997 can be seen as a turning point
Post-Khasavyurt era was characterised by the massive promotion of state security to the upper echelons of power. All three Yeltsin's last Prime Ministers were state security officers. Putin's succession was no accident, it was a deliberate choice of Yeltsin to hand power to KGB Image
One could argue that the Khasavyurt did not deescalate the situation, it escalated it. In Russia this truce still serves as an epitome of cowardice and betrayal. It is a dishonour that can be cleansed only by a new offensive

Second Chechen War was predetermined in Khasavyurt Image
The same way that the Khasavyurt accords of 1996 and the peace treaty of 1997 predetermined the second war that started already in 1999, now ceasefires or peace treaties will predetermine the next Russian invasion. It will only buy Russia the time to regroup, like Khasavyurt Image
Appeasers assume that Russia will honour a treaty. What they don't get is that from Russian perspective it is *honouring* such a treaty that would be seen as shameful and dishonourable. Breaking it would be seen as an act of national redemption. Like it happened in 2000 Image
Putin's reputation as a national saviour was earnt by *breaking* a peace treaty. Treaty is shameful = breaking it is seen an act of national redemption. Same will happen this time, too. After all, as Sergey Kirienko pointed out, "Russian state is not based on treaties". The end Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kamil Galeev

Kamil Galeev Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kamilkazani

May 2
Fake jobs are completely normal & totally natural. The reason is: nobody understands what is happening and most certainly does not understand why. Like people, including the upper management have some idea of what is happening in an organisation, and this idea is usually wrong.
As they do not know and cannot know causal relations between the input and output, they just try to increase some sort of input, in a hope for a better output, but they do not really know which input to increase.
Insiders with deep & specific knowledge, on the other hand, may have a more clear & definite idea of what is happening, and even certain, non zero degree of understanding of causal links between the input and output

(what kind of input produces this kind of output)
Read 6 tweets
Apr 12
There is a common argument that due process belongs only to citizens

Citizens deserve it, non citizens don’t

And, therefore, can be dealt with extrajudicially

That is a perfectly logical, internally consistent position

Now let’s think through its implications
IF citizens have the due process, and non-citizens don’t

THEN we have two parallel systems of justice

One slow, cumbersome, subject to open discussion and to appeal (due process)

Another swift, expedient, and subject neither to a discussion nor to an appeal (extrajudicial)
And the second one already encompasses tens of millions of non citizens living in the United States, legal and illegal, residents or not.

Now the question would be:

Which system is more convenient for those in power?

Well, the answer is obvious
Read 10 tweets
Apr 5
I have recently read someone comparing Trump’s tariffs with collectivisation in the USSR. I think it is an interesting comparison. I don’t think it is exactly the same thing of course. But I indeed think that Stalin’s collectivisation offers an interesting metaphor, a perspective to think aboutImage
But let’s make a crash intro first

1. The thing you need to understand about the 1920s USSR is that it was an oligarchic regime. It was not strictly speaking, an autocracy. It was a power of few grandees, of the roughly equal rank.
2. Although Joseph Stalin established himself as the single most influential grandee by 1925, that did not make him a dictator. He was simply the most important guy out there. Otherwise, he was just one of a few. He was not yet the God Emperor he would become later.
Read 30 tweets
Mar 16
The great delusion about popular revolts is that they are provoked by bad conditions of life, and burst out when they exacerbate. Nothing can be further from truth. For the most part, popular revolts do not happen when things get worse. They occur when things turn for the better
This may sound paradoxical and yet, may be easy to explain. When the things had been really, really, really bad, the masses were too weak, to scared and too depressed to even think of raising their head. If they beared any grudges and grievances, they beared them in silence.
When things turn for the better, that is when the people see a chance to restore their pride and agency, and to take revenge for all the past grudges, and all the past fear. As a result, a turn for the better not so much pacifies the population as emboldens and radicalises it.
Read 6 tweets
Mar 1
Three years of the war have passed

So, let’s recall what has happened so far

The first thing to understand about the Russian-Ukrainian war is that Russia did not plan a war. And it, most certainly, did not plan the protracted hostilities of the kind we are seeing today Image
This entire war is the regime change gone wrong.

Russia did not want a protracted war (no one does). It wanted to replace the government in Kyiv, put Ukraine under control and closely integrate it with Russia

(Operation Danube style) Image
One thing to understand is that Russia viewed Ukraine as a considerable asset. From the Russian perspective, it was a large and populous country populated by what was (again, from the Russian perspective) effectively the same people. Assimilatable, integratable, recruitable Image
Read 32 tweets
Feb 8
Why does Russia attack?

In 1991, Moscow faced two disobedient ethnic republics: Chechnya and Tatarstan. Both were the Muslim majority autonomies that refused to sign the Federation Treaty (1992), insisting on full sovereignty. In both cases, Moscow was determined to quell them. Image
Still, the final outcome could not be more different. Chechnya was invaded, its towns razed to the ground, its leader assassinated. Tatarstan, on the other hand, managed to sign a favourable agreement with Moscow that lasted until Putin’s era.

The question is - why. Image
Retrospectively, this course of events (obliterate Chechnya, negotiate with Tatarstan) may seem predetermined. But it was not considered as such back then. For many, including many of Yeltsin’s own partisans it came as a surprise, or perhaps even as a betrayal.

Let's see why Image
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(