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
And why does Putin orchestrate all these war crimes and advertise them so much?
Because he thereby displays his fascist philosophy that it's neither international law, nor agreements, nor moral values or human rights that dictate or limit his behaviour, but power only. Why?
2/
Because power is more power when it's on display.
Putin's onslaughts are senseless in the real world of objects, of people's lives, of Russia's (or anyone's) economy. It's senseless in terms of Russia's military might. It's only damaging to all of it.
[..] told about the work of the MAGURA V5 maritime attack drone.
✔️ The article about the newest Ukrainian weapon for fighting enemy ships and other targets describes its technical characteristics: length 5.5 meters, speed over 80 kilometers per hour, payload 250 kilograms.
2/
💥 Ukrainian Magura, recognized as the most effective naval strike drone: during the full-scale Russian invasion, the DIU's military intelligence successfully hit 18 Russian ships with this weapon, 9 of which were completely destroyed.
3/
🧵
What is the US afraid of when it comes to giving Ukraine what it needs to win?
The US mentioned 'escalation' but that's the wrong word. They probably chose it because they thought it was a non-technical word that the general public would understand.
What is it then?
1/
I suspect the US actually wanted to avoid what is called a 'runaway feedback loop'.
The concept originates from the field of engineering and involves mathematics and schematic descriptions. Many might find that too specialistic.
Let's apply it to Ukraine:
2/ pic: Russian bomb
Imagine this list repeating itself:
1. Ukraine get weapons that strike farther -> 2. Russia withdraws out of range, but continues bombing -> 3. Ukraine asks its friends for the next weapon -> 4. Initial hesitation causes public pressure -> 5. Governments give in -> back to 1
🧵It is getting more simple by the day to fight Russia in Ukraine.
Ukraine's allies must use their overwhelming economic and technical potential to help Ukraine.
Europe alone is 10 times larger than Russia in terms of technical and economic potential.
What does that mean?
1/
Let's look at it systematically:
Why simpler?
Because many alternatives have fallen away for Russia.
Before february 2022, Russia did large scale exercises near Ukraine's borders. They played out a large scale tank battle with their more modern equipment.
All gone now.
2/
Russia is now unable to wage a major tank battle. They now repair old T62 tanks for front line service, some of which cannot even shoot. Russia lost 8152 tanks amongst which almost all of their modern ones. No tank battles for Russia anymore.
The Guardian writes that Victor Orbán blocks another €6.5bn from the EU for Ukraine.
I suddenly had this great idea. I wonder why I didn't think of this before:
1/
Here's the full quote from the Guardian:
"EU officials have said an estimated €6.5bn for Ukraine remains stalled by the Hungarian government of Viktor Orbán, considered Russia’s staunchest ally in the union."
2/
the Guardian:
“That’s the sad thing that we have the cash, we have the capacity, but we are still pending decisions to implement” aid decisions for Ukraine, said the EU foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell. "
Blinken said Ukraine is free to use US weapons wherever they want.
This quickly provoked a flurry of statements by US government spokespeople, all stating that the US wants its weapons to be used on Ukranian territory.
Why?
1/
First of all: the US doesn't accept the role of warring party, which they would if they decided for Ukraine what to target and what not to target. That would end their role as just 'supplier'.
Within that frame, how to interpret the position of the US spokespeople?
2/
The various government spokespeople clearly try to get the genie back into the bottle. They think Blinken released it. They think they are moving things back to safety.
But they are wrong. The way they are stating it, is inching the US closer to being a warring party.
3/