Election headquarters of the Russian presidential candidate from the Civil Initiative party Boris Nadezhdin in Novosibirsk
Not beautiful. They are demanding that Nadezhdin be recognized as a foreign agent on the basis that I am Nadezhdin’s chief of staff in Novosibirsk and am a member of the Novosibirsk 2020 Coalition.
I officially declare that I have no relation to Navalny. I am a former member of Yabloko, I was not a member of Navalny’s headquarters, to be honest - I have not seen a single Navalny film (they are too long for me), I was not present at meetings with Navalny. But I’m not going to talk badly about him either - I just know little about his activities. My name in this story is far-fetched. I consider this Borodin’s denunciation to be slander.
Svetlana Kaverzina, chief of the Novosibirsk headquarters of Boris Nadezhdin
I meant to write a little paragraph on this but forgot, so thanks for reminding me.
Basically, the Kremlin has a half-dozen options to stop him running — deny his signatures are legit, declare him a foreign agent, pursue criminal charges, or kill him.
But all of these, to varying degrees, risks agitating the huge number of people who got behind Nadezhdhin. Maybe Putin doesn't care, which might be valid. Maybe he thinks he can permit Nadezhdin to run, then just hamper his campaign and use fraud to make them look marginal. But there's no objectively good option here, for the Kremlin. They all carry risks.
Great research on Nadezhdin. I know a little about him and unfortunately think he actually could be a convincing stooge to pad the ballot. As you say, he has a pro-putin past. I know putin will win no matter what, but how do you think he’ll process a large number of votes for Nadezhdin? Could putin incite even more repression actions on the dissenting public?
I started this research leaning towards the idea that Nadezhdin was a stooge. I finished it almost positive he is the real deal. The two big thing that influenced me were the reporting from Meduza, which is a really fantastic outlet that has a very useful vantage point into Moscow; and the opinion of Vladimir Milov. I've had the fortune of having dinner with Vladimir a few times, and I know he's a pretty skeptical guy who's been burned before. The fact that he's positive on Nadezdhin is a big green flag for me. (You may be hearing more from Milov on this newsletter in the near-ish future...)
This Kremlinology is probably better left to more plugged-in people than me, but my *feeling* is that falling short of 80% will be bad news for Putin, but it won't be the end of the world. If you start getting below 60%, and if Nadezhdin can surpass the Communists as the 2nd place party, that's a shocking failure for Putin. (Alternatively, if Nadezhdin's results have to be aggressively suppressed and Putin's totals have to be invented, instead of just padded, that's probably equally bad. Russians aren't stupid, they know the difference between a crooked system and a totally rigged one.)
I don't think the russian people are stupid at all, and I agree they'll know what's going on. My discouragement comes from observations that they're too beaten down and hopeless. Easier to close your eyes and carry on. I have hopes for the brave youth and people who feel they have nothing to lose.
Why I roll my eyes at the notion that another Trump election is the "end of democracy in the US". Dyer keeps pointing out that the most awful of tyrants for some reason want the legitimacy of kinda-sorta elections, and that these remain venues for progress. Tell it to the Brazilians who got through Bolsonaro.
Populations probably have relatively-narrow windows to reverse democratic backslide. I met Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya a couple of years ago, the woman who challenged Lukashenko for the presidency. She almost certainly won the vote, but the official tally had Lukashenko with 80%. Participating in those elections is probably an exercise in futility.
But you're right, another Trump term can probably be recovered from. But, not necessarily!
I think there's a (slow, frustrating) path back from feudalism (dictatorship, call them as you will) that can start at any point. Egypt briefly had, and tossed away, democracy, a decade back, now.
The narrative is that feudalism is the ground-state, the guaranteed-stable, minimum-energy trough you fall back to, whereas democracy is difficult, never more than meta-stable, and requires constant maintenance; that democracy is the hard climb, feudalism is the easy Fall.
But that refers to the feudal *system*, which has endless turns of the wheel, always a New Boss, same as the Old Boss of course, but at a year-to-year level, it's far more unstable than democracy. (Ask a Saudi billionaire who spent a night getting a "contribution" to MBS beaten out of him a few years back.)
Every one of those little feudal turnovers is another opportunity to bring in democracy. Will Sisi be replaced by another dictator in Egypt? Will the new guy repudiate old contracts?
Not certain, and thus Egypt is a bad place for investment, unstable. Those in Egypt who are rich and powerful would rather live in a democracy that attracted investment, (but not so democratic it deposed their high status). If they can find a Sisi replacement who can win a free election, but not raise their taxes much, they'll back him, and Sisi is toast.
A populace offered some democracy - even Chomsky's "managed" sorta-democracy - may take the offer. S. Korea, Japan, Mexico migrated, over decades, towards greater democracy from barely-democratic starts.
I can't recommend "The Dictator's Handbook" by Smith and Bueno de Mesquite, enough. Lays out a dictator's options with brutal clarity, and the dictator's dilemma doesn't change from Africa to Tierra del Fuego.
Is this all it takes?
This morning, Jan 29th 2024 on Telegram:
Election headquarters of the Russian presidential candidate from the Civil Initiative party Boris Nadezhdin in Novosibirsk
Not beautiful. They are demanding that Nadezhdin be recognized as a foreign agent on the basis that I am Nadezhdin’s chief of staff in Novosibirsk and am a member of the Novosibirsk 2020 Coalition.
I officially declare that I have no relation to Navalny. I am a former member of Yabloko, I was not a member of Navalny’s headquarters, to be honest - I have not seen a single Navalny film (they are too long for me), I was not present at meetings with Navalny. But I’m not going to talk badly about him either - I just know little about his activities. My name in this story is far-fetched. I consider this Borodin’s denunciation to be slander.
Svetlana Kaverzina, chief of the Novosibirsk headquarters of Boris Nadezhdin
I meant to write a little paragraph on this but forgot, so thanks for reminding me.
Basically, the Kremlin has a half-dozen options to stop him running — deny his signatures are legit, declare him a foreign agent, pursue criminal charges, or kill him.
But all of these, to varying degrees, risks agitating the huge number of people who got behind Nadezhdhin. Maybe Putin doesn't care, which might be valid. Maybe he thinks he can permit Nadezhdin to run, then just hamper his campaign and use fraud to make them look marginal. But there's no objectively good option here, for the Kremlin. They all carry risks.
It’s a strange feeling I’m getting after reading this, is it...hope?
Thanks for this peek into Russia's rotten politics.
Typos? Drop the "o" in "calculous".
Good catch! Thanks.
Great research on Nadezhdin. I know a little about him and unfortunately think he actually could be a convincing stooge to pad the ballot. As you say, he has a pro-putin past. I know putin will win no matter what, but how do you think he’ll process a large number of votes for Nadezhdin? Could putin incite even more repression actions on the dissenting public?
I started this research leaning towards the idea that Nadezhdin was a stooge. I finished it almost positive he is the real deal. The two big thing that influenced me were the reporting from Meduza, which is a really fantastic outlet that has a very useful vantage point into Moscow; and the opinion of Vladimir Milov. I've had the fortune of having dinner with Vladimir a few times, and I know he's a pretty skeptical guy who's been burned before. The fact that he's positive on Nadezdhin is a big green flag for me. (You may be hearing more from Milov on this newsletter in the near-ish future...)
This Kremlinology is probably better left to more plugged-in people than me, but my *feeling* is that falling short of 80% will be bad news for Putin, but it won't be the end of the world. If you start getting below 60%, and if Nadezhdin can surpass the Communists as the 2nd place party, that's a shocking failure for Putin. (Alternatively, if Nadezhdin's results have to be aggressively suppressed and Putin's totals have to be invented, instead of just padded, that's probably equally bad. Russians aren't stupid, they know the difference between a crooked system and a totally rigged one.)
I don't think the russian people are stupid at all, and I agree they'll know what's going on. My discouragement comes from observations that they're too beaten down and hopeless. Easier to close your eyes and carry on. I have hopes for the brave youth and people who feel they have nothing to lose.
Absolutely.
Why I roll my eyes at the notion that another Trump election is the "end of democracy in the US". Dyer keeps pointing out that the most awful of tyrants for some reason want the legitimacy of kinda-sorta elections, and that these remain venues for progress. Tell it to the Brazilians who got through Bolsonaro.
Populations probably have relatively-narrow windows to reverse democratic backslide. I met Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya a couple of years ago, the woman who challenged Lukashenko for the presidency. She almost certainly won the vote, but the official tally had Lukashenko with 80%. Participating in those elections is probably an exercise in futility.
But you're right, another Trump term can probably be recovered from. But, not necessarily!
I think there's a (slow, frustrating) path back from feudalism (dictatorship, call them as you will) that can start at any point. Egypt briefly had, and tossed away, democracy, a decade back, now.
The narrative is that feudalism is the ground-state, the guaranteed-stable, minimum-energy trough you fall back to, whereas democracy is difficult, never more than meta-stable, and requires constant maintenance; that democracy is the hard climb, feudalism is the easy Fall.
But that refers to the feudal *system*, which has endless turns of the wheel, always a New Boss, same as the Old Boss of course, but at a year-to-year level, it's far more unstable than democracy. (Ask a Saudi billionaire who spent a night getting a "contribution" to MBS beaten out of him a few years back.)
Every one of those little feudal turnovers is another opportunity to bring in democracy. Will Sisi be replaced by another dictator in Egypt? Will the new guy repudiate old contracts?
Not certain, and thus Egypt is a bad place for investment, unstable. Those in Egypt who are rich and powerful would rather live in a democracy that attracted investment, (but not so democratic it deposed their high status). If they can find a Sisi replacement who can win a free election, but not raise their taxes much, they'll back him, and Sisi is toast.
A populace offered some democracy - even Chomsky's "managed" sorta-democracy - may take the offer. S. Korea, Japan, Mexico migrated, over decades, towards greater democracy from barely-democratic starts.
I can't recommend "The Dictator's Handbook" by Smith and Bueno de Mesquite, enough. Lays out a dictator's options with brutal clarity, and the dictator's dilemma doesn't change from Africa to Tierra del Fuego.