Thread by Kamil Galeev

twitter.com
1 Mention
1 Collection
Recommend
Post
Save
Complete
Collect
Thread
I see why many would want to pressure Ukraine to "negotiations" (=concessions). At the same time, I think proponents of appeasement do not understand Russian motives at all. The Russian invasion is motivated by *domestic* policy concerns. Which are still valid -> war can't stop

The early Putin's era was marked by the quickly rising oil prices. Russia was showered in oil revenues and the standards of life were objectively improving with every year. Incomes and quality of life improving, boosted Putin's legitimacy greatly
So early Putinism mostly operated with:

Economy rising -> More legitimacy

That wasn't the sole mechanism of regime legitimisation (wars also played a part), it was just an objectively more important part of the mix. People attributed their rising standards of life to Putin
After 2011 this gradually stopped working. First, oil prices stopped rising -> economic boom finished. Second and most importantly, Kremlin saw that the mechanisms of attribution don't work anymore. People attribute their relative prosperity to his good graces less and less
I think this 2011 Emelianenko-Monson fight could be the turning point. Putin visited the stadium and once the Russian fighter won over an American won, Putin took the microphone to make a speech. He was booed by the 22 000 stadium and had to leave

www.gazeta.ru/news/blogs/2011/11/20/n_2103490.shtml
This must have hurt:

First, Putin doesn't go out much. Most of his public appearances are fake. It is the same group of FSO officers posing as "fishermen", "church visitors", etc. He doesn't go outside very often
Second, why did he even go to stadium? Most likely he assumed: the rotten intelligentsia may be against me, but at least my core audience, "the real men" remain true. So I need to rally them around the flag. Sounds good, doesn't work
Since around 2011 the legitimacy mix of the Putin's regime starts changing quickly. The role of economic boom as the source of legitimacy declines (well, there is no more boom anymore) and the role of foreign policy making increases quickly

Escalation = main source of legitimacy
What I find utterly absurd about much of the Putinology is that it tends to attribute Putin's decisions to foreign policy concerns, while ignoring the domestic policy almost completely. It's always about "geopolitics", "geosecurity". Never about keeping power at home
Don't get me wrong, that's not about Putin being some evil genius who controls everything. It is the other way around. He follows the public opinion, not in a sense what people say explicitly (nobody cares), but in a sense what they desire implicitly. And the people desire war
Peaceful Putin who doesn't start wars for too long -> Laughable and pathetic

Warlike Putin who does global escalation and "fights NATO" -> Genuinely popular

And he wants to be popular. Ergo, he must launch wars, because that it was people desire and how they want to see him
Let's sum up:

It is not the evil genius of Putin that is the main driver of this war. It is the Russian public opinion. Putin must follow the popular sentiments if he wants to stay in power. People desire war and escalation


This war can't end with peace. Ofc, Kremlin may sign whatever the "treaties" you want: buying time to regroup. But why on earth would it honour them? As Sergey Kirienko pointed out:

"Russian state is not based on treaties"

People will hate the treaty and cheer when it's broken
Many Americans perceive the war in Ukraine as some regional conflict far off from the US borders. But that's not how it looks from Russian perspective. From the Russian perspective it is the global war with the US. If Russia gets concessions -> we have won (the first round)
In other words, making peace with Russia will make it far more aggressive. Once again, from Russian perspective it is the global war against the US. When the war started many in Russia were hesitant "that's too risky". Now they'll see there's no risk at all. Just keep on
Last but not least. It's not "Putin's war". It is more of a "Russian war", where Putin has to follow the public sentiments just to stay in power. It is waged under the public pressure. And *any* of his successors be it "liberal" or "patriotic" will be subject to the same pressure
The end
Mentions
See All
Collections
See All