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
Since the beginning of the war, Russia has been borrowing Rubles from Russian banks in exchange for Government bonds in Rubles. Banks are forced into buying these paper promises (no collateral).
1. It means that savings and pensions are being converted into worthless paper.
2. It also means that Putin's war chest is empty. Officially it is claimed there is still money in the national welfare fund, but this may not be true.
3. By september Putin already surpassed the level of 2024. Het already borrowed the equivalent of €34 bn.
2/
4. Borrowing is steeper every year (i.e. higher sums & starting earlier).
5. You can also see that Putin can extract only a certain volume every year from the Russian banks. The line goes flat in december.
3/
Contrary to the information that Americans are being fed by Russia, Europe doesn't lack an army. Adding things up, the US Army has 452689 active duty personnel, adding the National Guard and reservists, you get 954875 uniformed personnel, yet Europe has twice as many soldiers.
1/
And the European army is well equipped. Lots of US gear too.
Before the war in Ukraine it could be argued that there wasn't enough ammunition for more than a few weeks of intensive fighting, but ammo production has geared up. Besides the US had exactly the same problem.
2/
What if Russia would have attacked a NATO country in Europe? NATO would probably have given the Russian army a knock-out blow. And very quickly too. That was the strategy all along.
What is the truth about the story of 'the US paying for Europe's defence'?
Why does the US have a higher defence expenditure than other NATO countries?
How is that story being used politically?
1/
1. Historically, the US basically didn't want European countries (outside of the UK and France) to be independent military powers: they had support roles to the US army.
2/
2. In Trump's FSB-written talking points, Europe is being depicted as the minor military force in Europe and the US delivering the bulk. Reality is: Europe has 2.1 million well equipped soldiers, the US only 80.000 (less nowadays).
3/
Putin's Russia is not after any rational advantage of a military land grab in Ukraine. If we expect rationality, in the sense of a positive cost->profit outcome like 'realists' assume, we won't find any. Instead, private and domestic reasons may explain the Kremlin's choices.
1/
We should instead consider: 1. Putin's private motives 2. Paranoia from the KGB kitchen 3. Stories (for the home front) in which Russia is threatened 4. Perceived cultural/racist superiority on which Russian imperialism floats.
2/
More on 1: Putin's private motives.
Putin started this war amidst a wave of social discontent, part of which centered around corruption and self-enrichment of Putin's elite. We remember Navalny exposing Putin's palace and that video being widely downloaded.
3/
And not just average people who have other jobs, but the very people whose job it is to gather intelligence and make sense of it, like Isa Yusibov mentioned:
The basic error in the West is that they attribute rationality to Kremlin leaders.
They're wrong. Kremlin leaders can perfectly _MIMIC_ rational thought, but that's not the same.
Their lead ideology is imperialism and their modus operandi is sabotage, bluff and opportunism.
2/
Behind their imperialism is a sense of cultural superiority based on 'greatness', the country is great, so if over time they were able to dominate it all, they themselves must necessarily be great as well.
People are very much interested in how cheaply Ukraine is able to kill Shaheds.
Everyone sees that Ukraine kills them in high numbers.
Does taking them out cost more than it costs Russia to make them?
1/
The answer is no. Ukraine destroys the Shaheds at a fraction of Russia's cost to build one.
Let's break it down:
Russia produces the simplest Shaheds for around 15.000 USD.
Ukraine shoots down 80% of them with plain air defence machine guns.
At what cost?
2/
Ukraine shoots Shaheds down with air defense machine guns (very effectively and very cheaply). 12.7 mm (.50) rounds as bought by governments are well under 1 USD. A few bursts = a few hundred dollars.