Mihail Pojarsky/the military in autocracies and democracies

There are more and more videos where the "heroes of the SMO (Special Military Operation)" communicate with ordinary citizens. On one, for example, the hero of the SMO is filming a security guard in the club - they say that the hero of the SMO did not like the fact that they refused to give him a 50% discount. On the other, the hero of the SMO hit some young lady in the face and swears with several more. In both cases, the heroes of the SMO are filming and inciting opponents: "Come on, come on, say that you are against the special operation!" As if hinting that a denunciation would immediately follow. It is this kind of behavior, of course, that you expect from real men, military men and other gigachads. This is not liberal soy cuckolds for you.

If you listen to the "good Russians", then our whole country supports the war in unison. If you listen to the "turbopatriots", then the opposite is true: the people do not want to volunteer, they do not want to donate to copters, and now they do not want to respect veterans either. They are really waiting there for what we will have like in the USA, where the soldier is just descending from the ladder, and everyone is like to him: thank you for you service! Why doesn't this happen to us?

I'll explain now. I remember in The Dictator's Handbook the authors described the Six Day War. When Israel, as they say, fought in earnest. And in the same Syria, during the hostilities, the public lived an ordinary life and sat in cafes, not at all interested in what their army was experiencing at that time. It is simply explained. In democratic societies, the ruling coalition is not all, but rather a wide range of people. Therefore, this wide range of beneficiaries from the state. In autocracies, the circle of beneficiaries is narrow. Therefore, in a warring democracy, people are included in the process voluntarily: the victory of their state is their well-being. War is a public matter. In autocracies, the victory of the state is the benefit of about a miserable percentage of the population. Therefore, everyone else prefers to chill in cafes. Which is perfectly rational when war is a private affair of the rulers. Therefore, in the USA they say to soldiers "thank you for your service". It may not be clear why the hell they flew to distant Afghanistan, but it is assumed that there are some "interests of America." And "American interests" means that the establishment will eat better, but some John from Iowa will pay less for gasoline.

Autocracies also, of course, try to mobilize the masses, but the most effective motivation is not available to them - they cannot offer a piece of the common pie. It remains only to pollinate the audience with propaganda and feed crumbs from the master's table. But even those who have noodles hanging from their ears to the very waist, vaguely guess that the benefits of the elites and the simple Vasya are different for us. More precisely, there is only the first. Therefore, the attitude towards the soldiers may be different. They may be pitied as victims of recruiting. May be feared as a source of increased danger. But what will not happen is thank you for your service. Where there is no common good, there is no gratitude for upholding it. Moreover, the demands of such an attitude will only cause irritation. Our autocracy is not the Middle Ages, where war is a purely private affair of the king. Modern autocracy strives to privatize profits and nationalize losses. They say that victory is a national one, and defeat is a common misfortune. Here from requirements to give a discount in a tavern blows the same. The state promised you salaries and benefits, but you come to demand discounts from the owner of a small business, from whom they are already tearing three skins.

Mihail Pojarsky 2023-08-22