Gorbachov's funerals dilemma. Gorbachov allegedly destroyed the USSR. Still, he is an ex-Tsar which is super important in Russian quasi-monarchy. Disrespecting him would undermine the awe before the institution of Tsar's power. So Putin's private farewells were still broadcasted
Many things about Gorbachov would be counterintuitive for the American public. First, few things undermined his reputation in Russia more than his relationship with his wife. They were very close, he took her everywhere and she tried to play a figure of her own. People hated that
In America being a "good family man" is usually considered a prerequisite for the high political career. You must be one, or at least persuade enough voters that you are. So Americans casually assume Russian politics work just like this. But they don't
I don't really like the term "democracy" for too many reasons. I don't want to go into discussion into whether "the people" do actually rule anywhere. I would ask another question. Is this or that regime
1) Contractual 2) Non-contractual
Russia falls under the second category
The thing about the USSR/Russia is not that it is "not democratic". It is that is not contractual. Any contracts dishonour the Tsar. Why?
If Tsar made an agreement with X, it means:
1) X forced him to limit his own power 2) to secure X's interests
That's a huge dishonour
Kirienko's statement that "Russian state is not based upon agreements" should be read in this context.
Contractual = Limited = Dishonourable
Contractual = You faced the interest of the second party and had to back off, giving them concessions. What kind of Tsar you are?
Russian people mostly accept the idea of the non-contractual supreme power. It won't bind itself with agreements with anyone. You can't (openly) lobby your own interests or fight for them, you gonna be destroyed for such blasphemy. You may only accept the sacred will of the Tsar
Accepting the sacred will of the Tsar without questions or complaints is regarded as a semireligious virtue. All the money are the Sovereign's money. All the power derives from the Sovereign. Many regard their obedience as a true, moral behaviour. Unquestioning obedience = virtue
You may think I'm exaggerating. But I'm not. Consider this post by Chadaev - ex official of the Putin's administration. It is very important and I strongly recommend anyone who wants to get Russian political culture or the current war to read it through
You must keep this in mind to understand why Gorbachev's relationship with his wife brought so much hatred. People will obey to the supreme power humbly and patiently, seeing it as a semi religious virtue. The power is unquestionable, impenetrable, no one can influence the Tsar
But. If *someone* can question the Tsar or influence him, even his wife, that destroys our mental model of the world. Is he even a real Tsar? If she questions him, then why don't we? Is our virtue really so much of a virtue?
That's desecration. And a personal attack upon us all
Unlike in America, in Russia too close familial relations are a liability for a politician, and certainly for the supreme ruler. In the public consciousness, Gorbachev rhymes with Nicholas II
Whimp
Henpecked
Destroyed his empire
They're not really hated. They're mostly despised
Meanwhile, Putin's divorce with his old wife - is *correct* behaviour for the Tsar. He is not dependent upon her in anyway. If he is not influenced by her, then he probably can't be influenced by us, his subjects either. Everything is fine and our mental model is undisturbed
PS As a very brief and sketchy introduction to the public perception of monarchs/quasimonarchs and its dynamics, I strongly recommend listening to this song "Tsar Nicky". See lyrics in the description. The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Tu-160M, the "White Swan" is the largest, the heaviest and the fastest bomber in the world. Originally a Soviet design, the plane you see today has limited continuity with the USSR. It was created in late 2010s, as a combined project of Putin's Russia and Siemens Digital Factory
Original Tu-160 was created as a domesday weapon of the Cold War. Designed in the 1970s, it was officially launched into production in 1984. And yet, with the collapse of the Soviet Union the project was aborted. In 1992, their production ceased.
No Nuclear War, no White Swans.
With the fall of USSR, Russia suffered a catastrophic drop in military expenditures. As the state was buying little weaponry (and paying for it highly erratically), entire production chains were wiped out. That included some ultra expensive projects such as strategic bombers.
I have repeatedly pointed out that the modern Russian military industry has little continuity with the Soviet one. Destroyed in the 1990s, it was effectively created anew in the Putin's era. Still, it may sound too abstract, so I will zoom in on one specific example:
Stankomash
Located in Chelyabink, Stankomash industrial park hosts major producers for the nuclear, shipbuilding, oil & gas and energy industries. It also produces weaponry, including mine trawls and artillery ammunition (based on the open sources)
All under the umbrella of Konar company
Some examples of the Stankomash manufacture. These photos well illustrate the philosophy of Soviet/Russian dual use industry. In the peace time, you focus primarily on civilian products, in the war time you convert it all to the production of weaponry.
No offence, but this is a completely imbecile, ignorant, ridiculous framing. I have no explanation for all this debate except for a complete & determined ignorance of the foreign policy making class, and their refusal to learn literally anything about the material world.
"Components" framing makes sense when we are discussing drones. Why? Because drones are literally made from the imported components. You buy like 90% of them in China, and may be you make like 10% domestically. For the most part, you just assemble what you bought in China.
Not the case with missiles. Most of what the missile consists of, including its most critical, hard to make parts is produced domestically. Why? Because you cannot buy it abroad. More often than not, you cannot buy it in China. You can only make it yourself, domestically.
Contrary to the popular opinion, Andrey Belousov's appointment as a Minister of Defense makes perfect sense. From the Kremlin's perspective, war is primarily about industry & economy. Now Belousov is the central economic & industrial thinker (and planner) in the Russian gov.
Born into a Soviet Brahmin economist family, Belousov is an exceedingly rare case of an academician making a successful career in the Russian gov. Even more noteworthy, he rose to the position of power through his academic work and publications.
This is unique, ultra rare.
Belousov's career track:
1976-1981 Moscow State University ("economic cybernetics"). Basically, economics, but with the heavy use of then new computers.
1981-1986 Central Economic Mathematical Institute
1986-2006 Instutute of Economic Forecasting
2006-2024 Government
If you want to imagine Russia, imagine a depressive, depopulating town. Now on the outskirts of a town, there is an outrageously over-equipped, overfunded strategic enterprise that has literally everything money can buy in the world. It feels like a spaceship from another planet
Strategic industry is extremely generously equipped. Western companies look scoundrels in comparison. That’s why I am so sceptical about the whole “corruption” narrative. Not that it’s wrong. It’s just that it is the perspective of a little, envious bitch.
What needs to be funded, will be funded. It will actually be overfunded and most literally drowned in money. Obviously, overfunding the strategic sector comes at the cost of underfunding almost everything else (like urban infrastructure). That’s why the town looks so grim.
We have successfully documented the entire Russian missiles industry, mapping 28 of its key enterprises. Read our first OSINT sample focusing on the Votkinsk Plant, a major producer of intercontinental ballistic missiles. How does it make weaponry?
The strategic missiles industry appears to be highly secretive and impenetrable to the observers. And yet, it is perfectly OSINTable, based on the publicly available sources. This investigation sample illustrates our approach and methodology (31 p.)
Our first and invaluable source is the state propaganda, such as the federal and regional TV channels, corporate media, social media and so on. It provides abundant visual evidence, particularly on the hardware used in the production of weaponry.