Kamil Galeev氏論考「ロシアの未来、3つのシナリオ：2. 帝国の再始動」仮蔵氏訳

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

That's liberal politician Sobchak discussing the Ukrainian problem in 1991. This interview shows a deep-rooted imperialist mindset under a liberal disguise. The metropoly will weaponize *any* ideology to assert its dominance over the colonies. Any rhetorics will serve the empire pic.twitter.com/V8azk1W2Oo

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

According to Sobchak Ukraine is governed by the alliance of "extreme nationalists" and "conservative Communist nomenklatura". Any minorities the refuse to abandon their identity are extreme nationalists. And they're closely connected to the Communists of course pic.twitter.com/6at4YaiCbf

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Ukrainian leadership is annoying Sobchak by constantly talking of independence instead of the "human rights". That shows that every and any ideology (or rather phraseology) will be weaponized by the imperialists to justify their rule and deny agency to their colonies pic.twitter.com/Hr5o508IMm

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Metropoly always portrays a colony as flawed and in need of intervention by the metropoly. Specific ideology doesn't matter, only the asymmetry of power does. If we believe in Communism, Ukraine isn't Communist, but if we believe in democracy, it suddenly becomes too Communist pic.twitter.com/TMQmLpAasW

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

I find the argumentation of Sobchak in this interview on Ukraine strikingly similar to Navalny's argumentation in his investigation on Tatarstan. It's the same logic and same mindset. Let me give you some quotes from Navalny's paper navalny.com/p/6427/ pic.twitter.com/XK2xUKn8no

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

"Tatarstan is a place where there emerged a real Sultanate, Khanate, Tsardom" Notice their vocab. First they say "Sultanate" and "Khanate" and then use politically correct "Tsardom". The problem with Tatarstan is that it is an oasis on non-Russian statehood within Russia pic.twitter.com/v3g9019PSv

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Commenters see Navalny's messageL "Tatarstan is Asiatic republic. They're ok with Khan swimming in gold, if the rest of the people get something (and they get). Republic is one few donor regions in Russia" That's a great slip of the tongue. These Asiatics pay the Russian bills pic.twitter.com/UVIxgoXeyT

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

It reflects the true structure of Russia. Asiatics are financial donors and pay the bills of the empire. They're however deeply flawed and need the constant supervision by the said empire. You feed Moscow and in return enjoy its wise guidance. See the map of donor regions, 2020 pic.twitter.com/gmF5MD24kT

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Navalny portrays a colony as much more flawed than the metropoly: "...Putin allows Tatars elites to steal more than the most impudent United Russia members in Moscow could ever dream of" That's a bold claim. @fbkinfo @navalny the burden of proof is on you as you made this claim pic.twitter.com/9Yu6JKjO82

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

"[Tatarstan] ruling clan became the richest people of the country and may be even the world [sic!]" That's a perfect smear. @navalny @fbkinfo make an obviously false claim [they may be the richest people of the world] but use "may be" to avoid responsibility. I'm quite impressed pic.twitter.com/keWYFsx1pt

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

It's a great smear tactics. You make a claim that you know to be false - that a ruling clan in a Russian region "may" belong to the richest people of the world. But since you don't *technically* assert that, you bear no burden of proof @navalny @fbkinfo pic.twitter.com/EnBmGzBM3b

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Navalny @navalny @fbkinf claims that Tatarstan president Shaimiev "stood at the origin of the United Russia party". That's a lie which sheds Navalny's strategy to blame minorities for Putinism. Which sheds a light on what he's gonna do once he gets absolute power pic.twitter.com/YVvAAqhVoi

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Shaimiev was indeed one of key figures of a certain political party. But it wasn't the United Russia. It was a party "Fatherland: All of Russia" which united most of regional elites. It was a party led by ex Prime Minister Primakov and 84/89 Russian governors supported it pic.twitter.com/n9pwUt1669

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

In late 1990s three prime ministers founded their own parties *after* being appointed as a Prime Minister (well, technically Primakov did it after having been fired). Primakov created "Fatherland: All of Russia", Chernomyrdin - "Our Home Russia" and Putin founded "Unity" pic.twitter.com/WggSRxCrsF

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Putin's "Unity" didn't support of regionaд elites. It was led by little known Putin's pal Gryzlov and еру popular minister Shoygu became its "face". It's Shoygu who borrowed much of his popularity and authority to Putin when the latter desperately needed it. He's a great courtier pic.twitter.com/INoLFjsZvA

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Key role in boosting Putin's "Unity" out of nothing was played by Yeltsin's official Surkov. He would personally meet with governors and "persuade" them to leave Primakov and join Putin. Dossiers on the entire ruling class which Putin collected as the FSB Chief might be a factor pic.twitter.com/GTih9Ufcsc

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

One by one governors joined Putin. But Tatarstan wasn't one of the first, it was one of the last. See parliamentary elections 1999: Dark blue - Putin's "Unity", Red - Communists, Light blue - Primakov's "Fatherland". Tatarstan and Bashkortostan stood against Putin till very late pic.twitter.com/XAG3l2XPnT

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Why do @navalny @fbkinfo so blatantly misrepresent the history of United Russia? Why do the portray staunch supporters of a party that opposed Putin and was absorbed by Putin's Unity so late, as founders of the United Russia? Because they preventively accuse colonies of Putinism pic.twitter.com/uNnvJaCRI9

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

The dominance of metropoly over the colonies is secured not only by military, legal or economic instruments, but also via ideology. Colony is always flawed in comparison with the metropoly and is in dire need of leadership/being disciplined by the latter pic.twitter.com/KbAdeleLOX

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Consider Sobchak's interview. We in Russia stand for the current thing (Democracy). They in Ukraine stand for the former thing (Communism). Pseudoliberal language disguises imperial ambitions of the metropoly pic.twitter.com/Cwm7t7ujob

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

They're playing the same trick now. Tatarstan didn't originally support Putin, its leaders supported another party till the very end. And yet now @navalny @fbkinfo misrepresent this story. They aim to destroy the rival non-Russian statehood by weaponizing anti Putinist rhetorics pic.twitter.com/1hrVd5dLHe

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

I'll clarify: the problem is not in Putin. Neither it is in Navalny. The problem is in imperial structure of Russia and in its imperialist mindset. Any ideology be it Orthodoxy, Communism, Liberalism will be weaponised by the metropoly to dominate and discipline its colonies pic.twitter.com/QRdJX7TBAm

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

We don't need a Good Tsar who'll replace a Bad Tsar. Good Tsar can become a Bad Tsar overnight. He can give whatever guarantees now, but nothing will stop him from breaking them later. Even if he doesn't break them, his successor will. There will be no checks on his power anyway pic.twitter.com/ODvnB7s9Px

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Omnis determinatio est negatio. Whatever determined by a statute, can and will be abolished by a statute. Whatever Moscow gave it can take back later. Whatever it created, it can later destroy. Thus freedom can't be given by Moscow. Even the best Tsar ever can't grant you freedom pic.twitter.com/xrAPhwcPgd