The 'Russian imperial mindset' is very strongly present in many Russians. It is not a 'stand-alone' kind of thing. Jung might have described it as a 'complex' accompanied by a few other peculiarities.
Here's a list:
[..]
1/
Elements of the Russian Imperial Mindset:
- a sense of how big Russia is
- an assumption of invincibllity, based on sheer size
- that the size of Russia needs a strongman to be governed
- that this requires a hierarchy with the strongman at the top holding absolute power
2/
- that only one law applies to those lower in the hierarchy: loyalty (and obedience) or death
- that resistance is futile
- that individuals are dispensible/disposable
- individuals lower in the hierarchy deserve contempt
3/
- social relations are governed by contempt, loyalty, showing off richess and power-ralations over morality
- individual drive is governed by attempting perfection (like high notes in education), rising in the hierarchy or acquiring richess, while...
4/
- inherent cruelty in Russian society is directly related to contempt for those who are (relatively) failing in terms of social or academic success or perceived lack of loyalty or obedience.
6/
- the combination of hierarchy, required loyalty and the drive to acquire richess causes excesses of exploitation and corruption of those lower in the hierarchy with contempt serving as lubricant
7/
- at any level, except at the highest position, you may be treated as a doormat at which point excess vodka is the solution.
8/
- Bragging, showing off richess, social/hierarchical contempt, loyalty as a driving social force and shielding oneself from blame is so pervasive in Russian society that they tend not to be aware that it may not be that pervasive elsewhere.
9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Trump thinks about trade in a very 2-dimensional way, in terms of trade deficit or trade surplus with single trade partners.
So in this picture he thinks the red countries are the bad guys while green ones are good.
But is that real?
1/
It's not real.
In the example of Canada/US we see that the US buys crude oil from Canada. Why? Because when you calculate both transport and price it is most profitable for American companies to do so.
Does offering the most profitable option make Canada a bad guy?
No.
2/
That's how trade works. Canada helps US refineries make the most profit and both shareholders profit and the American public profits.
The US could do more shale gas, shale oil and fracking, but oil companies aren't silly. They calculated that option: profit will go down.
Current US politicians are blind to the historical division of tasks within NATO. The US after WW2 saw itself as the 'managing director' (so to speak) of NATO.
Other NATO members offered military details for projects that the US deemed necessary.
1/
Other NATO countries don't even have the software to organise a coordinated military operation.
Fighter jet squadrons to the Middle East? OK. Or covertly listening in to Russian nuclear subs? OK. Protecting merchant shipping in the Atlantic, the Red Sea? OK.
2/
Watching russian hackers and reading their screens as they were hacking into US servers? OK.
We offered these pieces of the overall military puzzle and the US was all too happy to keep things that way.
3/
150 years ago, guano and similar fertiliser used to be mined from Peru and Chile. Later on it was produced using natural gas (producing lots of CO2) by countries like Russia that have an abundance of gas.
But that's going to change.
1/
Natural gas based fertiliser has certain disadvantages:
1. It's the chemical process that produces the most CO2 of all - all things being equal, we'd prefer a process that produces less of it;
2. In the case of Russia: we'd like less of that as well.
Why?
[,,]
2/
Because Russia abuses its power everywhere.
3. It's centrally produces and needs a lot of oil to be transported to faraway countries where it is needed. Actually, the numbers are staggering. The CO2 produced in transporting fertiliser can multply the price 4 to 5-fold.
How does Russia's 'small step' advance on the battlefield actually work?
How do the pieces of the puzzle fit together?
I will describe the essence here.
We all heard that Russia changed its 'meat grinder' tactics - but why did the number of casualties go up?
1/
It took an interview with a defected Russian soldier and some Telegram messages to make the pieces fit together.
The general background picture is firstly that Russia is in a 'make do' situation: this is the best they can do with their present weapons and men.
Meaning?
2/
Meaning, they're maxed out.
It also means that Russia can be pushed over the edge.
Secondly, Putin conveys to his subjects and believers that he is convinced he will win this war. In reality, he cannot pull out (which in itself would be wise). It would be political suicide.
Russia is sliding downwards in every sense: their stocks of weapons are almost empty, production doesn't keep up, the normal economy goes downhill fast, the war economy is paid for with money they don't have.
Should the world be in a hurry to negotiate peace?
No.
1/
Military aid for Ukraine is picking up. The West has increased its production of shells. More weapons of every kind are on the way. Ukraine's own weapons inventions prove very effective.
Yes, countering glide bombs and meat wave tactics are still a challenge to be resolved.
2/
This study suggests three approaches against Russian glide bombs.
The Ruble doesn't find support. It entered into a fee fall. Now Russia has stopped trading. This means that the exchange rate will just SEEM to have stabilised, but that's not the case. The Ruble has become a 'black market only' currency.
What's a free fall?
1/ pic: Moscow
It means the value goes down and nothing stabilises it, nothing moves it up. It means the Ruble is not supported anymore. Not by foreign buyers who need Rubles to buy Russian exports. And not by short term measures of the Russian Central Bank.
For instance [..]
2/
[..] the Russian Central Bank buying Rubles with Dollars. Bank president Nabiullina doesn't anymore.
Maybe the coffers are empty, maybe she just decided that throwing good money after a collapsing Ruble makes no sense.