We presume that history moves by "reasonable" things happening. More importantly though, it moves through crazy stuff nobody had expected. That stuff may seem reasonable now, retrospectively, but previously it would have been dismissed as impossible/improbable. Until it happened
That's crucial for understanding both economy and politics. In fact, many seemingly reasonable scenarios had not happened and won't happen *exactly* because they are too reasonable = foreseeable = preventable. Consider the October Revolution. It happened *because* it was insane
In March 1917 Tsar was overthrown and a coalition of various oppositional forces became the Provisional Government. What could they legitimately fear? A military coup and a subsequent military dictatorship ofc. Experience of English and French revolutions suggested exactly that
A reasonable analyst would've said that it is the Commander-in-Chief General Kornilov whom the Prime Minister Kerensky should legitimately fear. Indeed, the military dictatorship by Kornilov looked very plausible in summer 1917. That's why Kerensky made every effort to prevent it
Indeed, in September 1917 Kornilov attempted a military coup. Kerensky had foreseen it. He mobilised all political forces to stand against Kornilov. Including the Bolsheviks ofc. The government encouraged and assisted the mass expansion & armament of the Bolshevik paramilitary
In November 1917 Provisional Government was overthrown by a coalition of the radical left military & paramilitary, including the Bolsheviks, the anarchists, the left Socialist Revolutionaries, etc. Whose build-up the same government had encouraged just a couple of months before
October Revolution is not an exception. It is a rule. Very often, probably more often than not, a power is overthrown by those they helped, promoted, assisted, rather than by those whom they persecuted severely. Because those whom they persecuted for real had been selected out
Provisional government feared a new Bonaparte. So it prevenedt this scenario. It didn't fear the Bolsheviks that much. In September they even tried to weaponise them against Kornilov. Two months later, they were overthrown by those they had tried to weaponise. Many such cases!
Reasonable scenario had been prevented. Therefore, the unreasonable and absurd scenario turned into reality. Because it was so absurd, that the old powers did not even put much effort into preventing it. They tried to use Bolsheviks as a tool and the tool backfired
Picturing the October Revolution as purely Bolshevik is wrong. It was a broad assabiyah of various radical left that overthrew the government. In several years, Bolsheviks cleansed them all. They hadn't seen it coming either. That was too absurd to even consider. Thus it happened
History doesn't move by likely and reasonable stuff happening. In fact, those in power put great effort into preventing the negative (from their perspective) *reasonable* scenarios and usually succeed. That's why the dumb and unreasonable stuff becomes the game changer. The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'd argue that before 2014 Ukraine had almost zero *Ukrainian* right-wing movement. Because the right wing movement it had was inseparable from the Russian far right. Back in 2011 the leader of Azov proclaimed confederation with Russia (with capital in Kyiv) as the ultimate goal
Sounds crazy? That is a good indicator that we lack historical reasoning. We have no idea how drastically and quickly the things change. We fundamentally underestimate how much the present is different from the past, and thus how different the future will be from the present
We also underestimate the fundamental is the effect of what happened after 2014. Prior to 2014, the Ukrainian state, the army, the state security, the military industry, and of course the far right were tied with *tons* of connections with their colleagues in Russia
I saw a grain of a factual counterpoint in your comment, so I'll answer
I think you are delusional. This war won't end with some moral catharsis with all the bad guys punished proportionately to their guilt. Nope. The unlucky ones will. But that's only because they're unlucky
I understand that you would like to interpret some war criminal getting a shell to his trench as a moral retribution. But it isn't. He just was unlucky enough to get a shell, that's it. Were he more lucky, he would return home with a handsome loot
*Any* regimes that may emerge on the territory of the Russian Federation or what used to be the Russian Federation will have to employ people with guns. And they will depend upon those who either fought in Ukraine, or guarded the Putin's regime back at home. That's reality
It's a correct message to the Russian public opinion
Any moral or humanitarian criticism of Putin is usually dismissed in Russia as демшиза (demshiza). Reasonable people support the regime and only a few schizophrenics stand against it. Healthy people are too busy with consumption, so only the mentally ill would do anything against
Limiting tourism = limiting the consumption choices of the better-off population. It hurts those who have influence and whose voice may matter. It is sending them a signal that something may *not* be going right. Consumption choice has been limited and will be limited even more
Yes. There's another thing. Do you *personally* feel the danger or not? If you do, you'll be genuinely interested in what's happening. If not, you'll engage into abstract rhetorical exercises. That may explain the difference between Western vs Eastern Europe's attitude to the war
There's a lot of hatred towards the Western media/NGO in the Third World. Their negative image is too generalised and often unfair. But if I had to summarise this common feeling, I'd say:
"They don't give a damn of what's happening. They're busy with their rhetorical exercises"
When a Western journalist or consultant talks about the "principles", locals might not say anything. But their blood will be boiling. Because the fucker is committed the virtue signalling, no matter the cost for them. He won't have to deal with the consequences. They will have to
Yes, but that is very gentle mode of war from the Russian perspective. Those who decry happening as "madness" or call it "unimaginable" are either clueless (Westerners) or liars (Russians). Russian war in Ukraine is going on *extremely* soft mode. Because Ukraine has air defence
Soviet Union had the largest and the most comprehensive air defence system in the world. It was largely developed as a countermeasure against the U.S. airforce superiority. You have a large and great airforce? Fine, we'll build the large and great air defence. And they did
After the collapse of the USSR, the bulk of the Soviet military was inherited by Russia. But Ukraine also got a substantial part of it, including the air defence. It declined through the 1990-2000s and by 2014 Ukraine was effectively demilitarised. Its army was dysfunctional
Analysts may be focusing too much on restricting the Russian fossil fuels export and too little on restricting the Russian import of:
1. industrial equipment 2. components
necessary to keep the Putin's war machine going. Most of it is probably coming from Europe, not from China
Russian import dynamics suggest that import from China has actually *decreased* since the start of the Special Operation. In other words, individual Chinese companies might have avoided doing business with Russia to avoid repercussions. Those that remained boosted the prices
Meanwhile, the export from Turkey increased significantly. It is partially the Turkish production, including the foodstuff, etc. But much of it is probably the Western European technological export. In this case Turkey probably serves as a proxy and as a smuggling hub