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
Ivan the Terrible's rule was a demographic and socio-economic catastrophe. By the end of his rule, tax documents draw a picture of desolation. Entire regions devastated, farmland grown with thick forest. Regime stands as a rock 💪
50 years reign 👑
Nobody ever ruled longer 😎
If Ivan the Terrible ruled longer than any other Tsar, Stalin ruled longer than any other dictator. 26 years of reign. The longest non hereditary rule in Russian history.
That is absolutely amazing. He did something right
What that could be?
This is a very interesting paradox. The very same rulers dismissed as bloody maniacs, as crazy, paranoid people have actually ruled longer than anyone. So, were they that crazy after all?
Let me introduce you one basic concept necessary for the further discussion
The Kronos Principle
To keep the power you must eliminate competition. Best of all, you must eliminate competitors preventively, before they could ever challenge you. Just like the Good Old Kronos did
Once again, the Kronos Principle doesn't suggest you must eliminate those who already challenge you. That goes without saying. It suggests you must eliminate those who might potentially challenge you in the future. Eliminate even the possibility of a successful competition
When you Kronosmax, you weed out the seeds of a potential competition (and growth). And you must Kronosmax to stay in charge in longer. That is why optimising for the length of rule you necessarily degrade the society/institution you happen to lead
Long rule = Kronosmaxer
If you have been overthrown, you were probably not kicking the ladders away hard enough
And vice versa, if you were kicking them carefully & attentively, you will probably never ever be ousted out
Eliminating the competition is reasonable, rational and makes total sense
So once again, eliminating a threat is not crazy. To the contrary, that means that the ruler is sane, ruthless and willing to do what is necessary to guard his power for as long as possible
The real question is who are these competitors? How to identify and prioritise them
Navalny being kept alive for so long suggests that taking him out was relatively deprioritised. Which means that neither support of the West, nor sympathies of the urban youth counted much in the eyes of Kremlin
You can't do a coup with the urban youth
(or support of the West)
Don't take me wrong, I respect those who protest. I just point out that the people can never win against the army. Like, if I were to make up a stupid idea, I couldn't come up with anything stupider than that
If you don't believe me, consult the recent footages from Levant
That's why Prigozhin could not be kept alive for long. He harnessed a very dangerous energy: the discontent of boots. What was scary about his revolt, is the very wide sympathy, non resistance or even active collaboration by much of the military, including the elite troops
Urban youth is not scary
Western support is not too scary either
The Boots are extremely scary
95% of your concern must be how to prevent any potential or hypothetical threat from the Boots. Because all the other threats are made up
The "Opposition" is toothless and inconsequential. The central political problem of Russia is how to keep the Boots down. It is very important to fully interiorize that the Boots present the only external threat to the regime. For that reason, they have to be kept very, very low
Preventing the Bonabartism of the military has been the central concern of Kremlin through the entire Soviet to Russian era. Again, all the other threats are largely made up. The Rise of the Boots, however, is real. It took extreme effort to prevent it from materializing
Keeping the power requires eliminating the threats, both external or internal. Now what makes one dangerous is not so much an intention as the capacity. For this reason, if I were to name a particular personality I see as in potential danger, that would be Dmitry Medvedev
As a person of above average intelligence, Medvedev sees this and self eliminates himself preventively. That is a smart thing to do. Reputational self damage made him less of a threat -> allowed him to live. I wonder whether this little trick will suffice in the future
The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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…
Tatarstan is a large and wealthy ethnic republic located, in the very middle of Russia. While being culturally and institutionally distinctive, it is not really peripheral. It sits in a few kilometres from the population centre of Russia🧵
While Tatarstan does not sit in the centre of Russia geography-wise, it does so demography-wise. The Russian centre of population (red star), located somewhere in southwest Udmurtia, is literally in a walking distance from the Tatarstani border.
It is the very middle of Russia.
If you look at the Russian administrative map, you will see that most ethnic republics (colored) occupy a peripheral position. The main exception are republics of the Volga-Ural region (green), located in the middle of Russia & surrounded by the Slavic sea.
Wagner march was incredible, unprecedented to the extent most foreigners simply do not understand. Like, yes, Russia had its military coups in the 18th c. But those were the palace coups, all done by the Guards. Purely praetorian business with zero participation of the army.
Yes, there was a Kornilov affair in 1917, but that happened after the coup in capital. In March they overthrew the Tsar, then there was infighting in the capital, including a Bolshevik revolt in July, and only in September part of the army marches to St Petersburg.
Half a year after the coup. Not the same thing
I think the last time anything like that happened was in 1698, when the Musketeers marched on Moscow from the Western border. And then, next time, only in 2023.
(Army leaves the border/battlefield and marches on the capital without a previous praetorian coup in the capital)
As a person from a post-Soviet country, I could not but find the institutions of People’s Republic of China oddly familiar. For every major institution of the Communist Russia, I could find a direct equivalent in Communist China.
With one major exception:
China had no KGB
For a post-Soviet person, that was a shocking realisation. For us, a gigantic, centralised, all-permeating and all powerful state security system appears to be almost a natural phenomenon. The earth. The sky. Force of gravity. KGB
All basic properties of reality we live in
It was hard to come up with any explanation for why the PRC that evolved in a close cooperation with the USSR, that used to be its client state, that emulated its major institutions, failed to copy this seemingly prerequisite (?) institution of state power
Soviet output of armaments was absolutely gargantuan, massive, unbeatable. “Extraordinary by any standard” , it was impossible for any other country to compete with.
From 1975 to 1988, the Soviets produced four times as many ICBMs and SLBMs, twice as many nuclear submarines, five times as many bombers, six times as many SAMs, three times as many tanks and six times as many artillery pieces as the United States.
Impossible to compete with.
Which raises a question:
How could the USSR produce so much?
It is not only that the USSR invested every dime into the military production. It is also that the Soviet industry was designed for the very large volumes of output, and worked the best under these very large volumes