Yes, and there is a book I strongly recommend for the better understanding of *modern* Russia and its origins
"The Time of Berezovsky" by Petr Aven
Absolute, absolute gem. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any translation into English
Shame
The Time of Berezovsky is not really a narrative. It is a collection of interviews on the 1990s, centred around the figure of the most flamboyant of the oligarchs. Interviewer (himself an oligarch) talks with politicians, businessmen, journalists
A great glimpse into the era
The book is unique, really. Most of what you read about Russia is useless or worse. It's like pseudo Chinese cuisine you often find in major Western cities. Total fake, constructed to suit Western tastes and sensibilities. Zero authenticity, zero to negative value
Skip it
Time of Berezovsky is different. It is a collection of actual primary sources (interviews), containing the actual, un-laundered perspectives of the actors who made this era
I will later make a thread on it. For now I urge publishers to consider translating this gem to English
And many thanks to @ivanbogatyy who had originally recommended it to me!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. There were (allegedly) hundreds of thousands Chechens willing to be a part of Russia 2. Yeltsin bombed them to ashes Mariupol-style 3. "Not clear what was an alternative"
How exactly are these guys different from Putin? Same crazy, murderous mindset
Fact
Modern Russia is more of a product of Chechen Wars than of Putin's personality. Remilitarization, buildup of security state, they all started due to the First War. By the late 1990s Yeltsin was actively looking for a KGB heir. All his three last PMs were from state security
Moscow liberals want to portray Putin as an "accident". He was not. The system chose Putin, not the other way around. Yeltsin elevated Putin from nothing, started another war to facilitate his succession and used the lowkey nuclear blackmail when Clinton tried to argue
3. Many independence movements (including your own), did not start as such. They aimed for very moderate goals. Or at least we nowadays retrospectively see them as moderate. Their agenda was pronouncedly loyalist. There was little open separatism except for a handful of radicals
4. Many independence movements (including your own) were not led by some cartoonish "regime fighters". They were led by the moneyed, landed, influential individuals who had been *successfully integrated to the previous regime*. Think about Washington or Franklin
This is correct. When forming your opinion about @navalny movement, consume as much of their *external* propaganda specifically directed at foreign audience (=you) as you can. Do not look at their *internal* propaganda though
@navalny@k_sonin's comment is very telling. Notice that he directs you to the content (Op-Eds, movies) constructed specifically for the foreign audience by the largely clueless Western media:
Moscow cultural establishment -> Western media -> You
That's just perspective laundering
The power of the imperial capital is not based only on force. It is also based on the *monopoly of representation*. Verified facts about Russia are being constructed by the Western media. But these media are largely clueless, drawing their opinions from the Moscow establishment
To be fair it may also mean that court politics >>> military considerations
And Shoigu is really good at court politics. Uniquely good, I'd say. He's been serving in central government since 1991 surviving plenty administrations and plenty purges. That's absolutely unprecedented
* I know that between his two ministries he's served as a governor of Moscow oblast. Not the point. The point is him never ever being ousted, a singular, unprecedented case. It seems he's just got rid of a potential competitor and returned back to the pre-invasion power balance
I really want to write on Shoigu vs. Serdyukov one day. "Do your job well and ignore the court politics" formula doesn't work in reality. You'll end up vilified, ousted, universally hated and despised. Absolute destruction - that's the normal price for ignoring the court politics
Great example of totally irresponsible behaviour by someone too sheltered from any consequences. Mr. Röpcke is doxing the exact coordinates of Ukrainian solders, putting them at risk of a strike
But when his *personal* safety may be slightly compromised, he’s acting shocked
1. Enjoy personal safety in your home in Germany (?)
2. Disregard the safety of others, putting them at risk of a violent death
3. Act shocked when getting a negative “he must be shot for it” comment
Röpcke’s problem is that he’s too sheltered from consequences of his actions
Unfortunately this may be a very typical pattern in the media/NGO class. Many First Worlders act with the total disregard of the consequences they are inflicting on others. At the same time, they expect to be personally sheltered from any consequences of *their own* actions
To be fair, I think that "Russian people are not at fault, they can't do anything" argument has an *element* of truth in it. I just don't see how it is compatible with the "Russian empire should continue to exist" argument. I think these two ideas inherently contradict each other
First, if a nation is helpless and bears no responsibility for its own fate, this nation may not be *so* great as it claims to be. You are either great or helpless. Choose one. At this point pro-Russian writers choose helplessness thesis. That's ok. But this may exclude greatness
Second, if a nation got to this sorry, helpless condition as described by its own advocates, then it may bear responsibility for having fallen to this condition in the first place. There was no foreign conquest, so it's probably a chain of your own poor choices. You choose badly