Summary
Highlights
The discussion opens by questioning the health and functionality of the current Russian political system, moving beyond a focus solely on Putin to examine the system itself. The recent events surrounding Adam Delimkhanov and the conflicting reports about his status highlight the fog of war and the challenges in discerning truth from rumor.
The current state of affairs is described as 'militarized chaos,' rather than regular warfare, characterized by the inability of the state to maintain a monopoly on violence. This dysfunction is seen as an export of the Putin system into warfare, where competing interests and individuals squabble, leaving Putin as the ultimate arbiter, but he is increasingly absent or unwilling to fulfill this role. This leads to a declining capacity to fight wars effectively, despite the machismo integral to Putin's image.
The analysis points to a deteriorating scenario for the Russian system, with a decline in Putin's direct engagement and the cancellation of public events in late 2022. This suggests a loss of spirit or a 'fiasco,' as Putin himself reportedly indicated. The absence of Putin from his traditional role as arbiter of elite disputes poses a systemic challenge, as his failure to resolve these conflicts could lead to a decay in the system's legitimacy and control over coercive apparatuses.
The control over the security apparatus is becoming less certain, with instances like disgruntled National Guard members feeling betrayed. Financially, while Russia can afford the war for the short term, tougher prioritization choices will be necessary later. The regime's plan relies on outlasting Ukraine and the West politically, a strategy previously successful due to Western attention deficit and other crises like Syria.
The system is characterized by a lack of new faces and career opportunities for young talent, leading to stagnation. Despite promises of creating new elites in newly acquired territories, significant career rises are scarce. The war, unlike a revolution, is not creating vacancies, and the system is attempting revolutionary-scale changes while preserving its existing nature, refusing to allow new people into positions of power.
The healthy parts of the Russian system are identified as the financial and economic block (Central Bank, Ministry of Finance) and the civic bureaucracy, which prevent administrative collapse. Conversely, the political leadership, military, military intelligence, and secret services (in their external functions) are seen as dysfunctional. The current state is one of internal repression and adaptability to difficult circumstances, indicating a strong inertia.
A key division exists between the autocratic regime, which believes it can shape reality by decree, and the technocracy, which aims for practical functionality. This is exemplified by the efficient, yet overly bureaucratic, multi-functional centers for government services. This tension highlights Russia's hybrid regime, where the technocrats strive for efficiency amidst political demands.
The next political generation, driven by kleptocratic interests, might seek to normalize relations with the West to secure their ill-gotten gains. The hope is that this generation, for cynical reasons, will prioritize a return to a rule of law, even without democracy, to protect their wealth and families. This could lead to a gradual shift away from the current isolationist policies.
Historical parallels are generally avoided due to their inherent limitations, but the discussion touches on the comparison of current Russia to post-WWI Germany. The primary concern is the potential for a young generation, raised in isolation and propaganda, to embrace a leader fueled by genuine resentment, akin to the rise of Hitler's 'uncompromising generation' in Germany after national humiliation and economic hardship.
Isolation is seen as counterproductive, fostering authoritarianism and future aggression. There's a strong argument for maintaining Western engagement with Russia to prevent it from becoming a hostile border state. The conversation then shifts to the experience of Russian emigrants, highlighting the challenge of reconciling integration into new societies with preserving Russian identity and culture, especially in a context where Russians abroad face scrutiny and judgment.
The Russian system is determined to hold elections to maintain a facade of legitimacy, using electronic voting and extended voting periods to bypass voter dissatisfaction. The war's unpopularity means the government will attempt to normalize it and divert public attention, selling even minor successes as victories. However, the exact consequences of these manipulated elections remain unpredictable, as authoritarian regimes learn from past mistakes (e.g., Belarus 2020) but still face societal acceptance issues.