At the very beginning of the war, I outlined the logic of the functioning of tyranny

At the very beginning of the war, I outlined the logic of the functioning of tyranny, which distinguishes it from ordinary “autocracy”. Tyranny, through threats and lies, isolates itself from the disciplined influence of reality. At the micro level of an individual functionary, this is done with selfish goals - to steal, cover up a joint, knock out a momentary result. But a specific functionary only reproduces a behavior model that is adaptive to the environment. It is important how the network of these functionaries together cope with the tasks set at the level of the state, and not of an individual manager. In tyranny, the network works to reproduce the virtual world-for-itself, so that managerial decisions, even where they are made in good faith, are out of touch with reality and ineffective.

The links of the managerial network systematically misinform themselves both about the current circumstances and about the means of coping with them. Maintaining such self-deception requires remarkable strength, in which, however, tyranny willingly invests. Those who speak the truth and try to bring the disciplinary factors back into government through criticism are indeed an existential threat to tyranny. When propagandists of tyranny falsely portray opposition activists as intelligence agents and enemies of the state, they are not exactly lying. Rather, in their myth-making, they express genuine anxiety.

War has become an objective disciplinary factor and a serious problem for tyranny. The facts of the loss of control over the territory, especially the one that has already been declared its own, cannot be hidden. Reality penetrates the virtual management space, threatening to bring down its supporting pillars. We see how a "military opposition" is emerging - people who admit that state institutions are rotten and demand radical reform. They essentially repeat the theses of the conditional Navalny about lies, theft and negative selection at the micro level, the level of specific managers. Instead of Alexei, a propagandist of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company Sladkov demands a cardinal military reform. The “military opposition” is right that the established administrative practices make the state as such simply dysfunctional, it cannot do anything complicated, including winning the war.

Part of the "military opposition" participates in it for purely selfish purposes. The Ministry of Defense is a tidbit, and any reform in it is a chance to win something for those who were previously not allowed there, or were allowed in reluctantly. The presence of mercenary allies only increases the chances of the "military opposition" for local success and the adoption of some personnel decisions. Could such a success be consolidated systemically, pushing tyranny to abandon its logic, at least isolated in the sphere of military affairs? Probably not. Tyranny from within itself does not provide the means by which part of the state apparatus can be disciplined while the rest lives in a much more comfortable virtual space. Preservation of freedom of speech and press regarding criticism of the Ministry of Defense is a local introduction of civil society mechanisms into a tyrannical order. But precisely because these tools are nasty and will be fought against, the Department of Defense will seek to use the logic of tyranny—bribery, lies, and threats—to counter them.

The biggest tragedy of the "military opposition" is that they decided that the war for the worthy existence of Russia is going on in Ukraine. Some decided this back in 2014, and went to serve the regime, which itself is the main enemy of a worthy existence of Russia. Not because it is full of bad people, but because its very mechanics do not suggest a different result. The struggle for Russia should go not with Ukraine, and not with the United States, but in Russia itself. And here we come to another supporting pillar of the virtual space of tyranny, the key moment of the self-deception reproduced by the system - the idea that no matter how bad the state way is, it is "one's own", but "there" there are fundamental enemies who need to be repulsed right now, otherwise the country will perish altogether. And, as we see, the "military opposition" is allowed to exist only as long as it, undermining one pillar of tyranny, strengthens the other with all its might.

Artyom Seversky 2022-10-02