Russia Is a Battleground Between Siloviks and Liberals, Country Close to Civil War!

... or at least this analyst thinks so.

The thesis that Russia is split up among factional lines between big-business Oligarchs (Liberals) and the security services (Siloviks) is hardly new. I’ve mentioned it in passing probably half a dozen times at this point. But, still, I figured that I’d take the opportunity to share this theory from a non-Rolo perspective, just so you know that I’m not making it up.

Luckily, Military Review provided me with the op-ed that I was waiting for. Now we can dive down into the rabbit hole - embark upon the eternal Quixotic adventure to figure out who actually runs Russia and how. Many have quested to attain this Holy Grail, none have come back with the answer. May we be pure and holy enough to have the secrets of the Kremlin revealed to us today …

Without further ado:

Now I would like to outline our military-political power structure at the time of the beginning of the SMO, as I see it from the height of my sofa.

Conventionally/simplified, it can be divided into 2 blocks: "liberals", responsible for the economy and finance, and "traditionalists", they are also "siloviki". And of course, the president is in charge of this, maintaining a balance between these blocs. I don't think I have discovered anything new. Now let's take a closer look at these blocks.

The "liberals" are supported by the banking sector and, let's say, the beneficiaries of the mineral resources (the very ones that allegedly belong to the people according to the constitution). The resource of the "siloviki" is much more modest - this is our long-suffering industry. True, a "man with a gun" is always stronger than a "man without a gun", and this compensates for the lack of resources. So, this balance was formed quite a long time ago and existed as of February 24, 2022.

I don’t personally subscribe 100% to the theory of the analyst, mind you, but many pundits and thinkers in Russia do. Even if it’s not correct or detached from reality, the very fact that many people act on these premises is important. This is how people in Russia conceptualize the power balance in their own country. It’s worth understanding this point of view, even if you disagree with it.

The SMO begins. From the speech of the president, and its purpose was declared something difficult to pronounce, which plunged me into bewilderment. Okay, I think, let's look at the implementation. The movement of military columns without cover and barriers is a shock. Single successes in the form of the capture of Gastomel, the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and the Zaporizhzhya NPP did not change the overall picture. By about 3 March, the failure of the blitzkrieg became apparent.

The next six months of the SMO showed the fallacy of the original plan. Ukraine not only survived, but forced us to switch to strategic defense, consistently forcing us to "regroup". First in Kyiv, Chernihiv, Sumy regions, and now in Kharkov. Western curators have prepared the Armed Forces of Ukraine well for defense, and now, having retrained and re-equipped, for the offensive.

What is the intermediate result for us? The stated goals have not been achieved. Despite local successes on the Donbass and Southern fronts, we have lost the initiative. It's at the front.

Now let's look take a birds-eye-view of the situation. Initially, the declared goals of the SMO were poorly understood by our society, but the high rating of the authorities and the president personally was projected onto the operation and reached 70% by the Kharkov "regrouping". Despite the fact that the vast majority of people are far from this conflict. But that's for now. The notorious import substitution, so publicized and carried out since 2014 in the industrial sector, has mostly failed. The "siloviki" could not implement it in a more or less acceptable form and were mainly engaged in fraud.

Yes, the import substitution racket consisted of bureaucrats collaborating with the FSB and the business class to secure government contracts to restart domestic enterprises. Unsurprisingly, most of the money was simply stolen.

Lukashenko even made fun of Russia for this. He pointed out that Belarus was a self-sufficient country, whereas Russia couldn’t even produce its own nails. As much as it may upset the Russian government, Luka has a habit of telling the truth, on occasion. He’s clearly not one of the 5D dunce types that believes in lying for the greater good.

In military terms, they were unable to ensure command and control of the troops at the proper level and to establish interaction between the branches of the armed forces (primarily infantry with artillery and aviation ). On the battlefield, things were even worse - a large number of platoon/company level officers were killed in frontal attacks, and the death of battalion level officers is also not uncommon. For comparison: Ukraine protects its officers. Interaction and supply with the Armed Forces of the LDNR is generally poorly established. The above is clearly expressed on the Northern Front, on the Southern, as far as I know, everything is much better. Well, it is clearly visible.

Now let's see how this affected the structure of our power.

The "liberals" were able to keep the economy and finances from collapsing, while the "siloviki" messed everything up. It is obvious that the balance has changed in favor of the “liberals”. Does anyone else have any questions why the president doesn't remove the "liberals" from the government? I have never been a liberal, but I see obvious things: “liberals” make decisions and are not afraid to take responsibility for them (although they will be reprimanded for failure at the most). I realize that behind them is a colossal resource of "plundered loot of the people's resources" and the banking sector that promotes them.

As long-term fans of the blog know, I was always talking about how the real battlefield was inside Russia and I was certain that the war would lead to much-needed internal reforms. I was also hopeful that the military people would be able to leverage their positions to gain more power and prestige as the conflict escalated.

But, this analyst says that the siloviks bungled their chance, basically.

Again, I am not sure about this simplified, old-school analysis. First of all, I would divide the “silovki” category further. There are the military people and the strictly security state people. I believe that there is enough daylight between them to treat them as two separate factions.

Secondly, the Liberals will only be able to leverage their position if the war is ended. Escalation of the war and more resources being prioritized for it would mean that the need for the services of the military people would only increase.

That being said, there is very little to indicate that Russia is gearing up for the next phase of the conflict.

The "siloviki" with the “support” of a stunted industry and rigidity in the Armed Forces lost this round. The Leaders of Russia program should have been launched not only in the civilian sector, but also in the army. Although only victorious reports and the readiness to defeat everyone went up from the army. Just like in 1941, the outcome is known. Our economy continues to be critically dependent on resource exports. The revival of the industry, which collapsed in 10 years after the fall of the USSR, has not been adequately implemented. And the "raw resource extractors" do not want its revival, otherwise they will lose influence. With the agricultural sector, everything is much better.

As a result, the "liberals" who were against the SMO and who fully admit our loss in it, are beginning to gain the upper hand. Hence the gradual liberalization of the financial system, which was severely limited at the beginning of the SMO, and the renewed outflow of capital from the Russian Federation. Despite all sorts of statements, in my opinion, our budget will soon become deficit, and inflation will go off scale.

I don't know how to move from the conditions of a liberal economy to a mobilization one, having "liberals" in control. Probably not possible. Our military-industrial complex is trying to mobilize its capacities. Even the staff is trying to recruit at 20-30 thousand rubles for a salary for a qualified specialist. Oh well.

The idea that Russia might try to cut its losses makes sense and I see why this analyst hints at it. But, who exactly is going to allow Russia to cut its losses? NATO isn’t going to let up anytime soon. Russia is committed now, regardless of what the Liberals, the chinovniks, the siloviks, the spooks, the priests, the peasants, the proles and the pundits say.

Russia is embroiled in a war that it can’t lose because an army of hundreds of thousands of NATO-armed Ukrainians are now poised on Russia’s borders. Bafflingly, despite the dire state of affairs, there is still no sign that Russia will start using her entire military might or mobilizing the population, for some reason. Perhaps the Liberals know that forcing the military to fight under such conditions will make them look bad. If Russia were to lose the war, and then her sovereignty, they could then act as colonial satraps for the West again.

Now let's look at scenarios that can be implemented in the current conditions.

1. The President speaks and declares that the goals of the NWO are changing and are limited only to the Donbass, Kherson and part of the Zaporozhye regions. The reasons for the change indicated in the application are absolutely not important. This is followed by negotiations with an attempt to establish a new status quo. I realize that attempts to implement such a scenario might be met with failure. The West, through the lips of Ukrainian puppets, and not only, has repeatedly stated - to the point of victory. The maximum that they can go to is the borders of 1991. Will Russia roll back to these borders? Extremely unlikely. This will most likely lead to a change of power in Russia and a possible civil war.

Russia losing this war would lead to a patriotic-populist movement demanding redress from the government - a point that I have repeatedly made on this blog.

AI generated image for “Russia civil war Moscow”

It would be followed by a crackdown led by the secret police, renewed Liberal agitation and subversion and attempts to take control of the situation and so on. In the end, just like it was at the end of Tsarist Russia and in the wake of the Soviet collapse, the outcome will depend on the military’s decision about who they will support or not.

2. People began to call for the second option after the first “regrouping”, and after the current one, the voices became much louder. This is mobilization. Both economy and human resources in the RF Armed Forces, to create an offensive superiority in manpower and equipment. But then Russia should declare war with a simpler goal to understand - the elimination of the state of Ukraine, as a threat to the existence of our state.

How, in this case, to move from a liberal economy to a mobilization one, having a liberal government, without a complete restructuring of the vertical of power, both civilian and military (the military proved this in practice), and even in war conditions? The task is difficult. Deploying cropped units, re-equipping them and saturating them with personnel is also not an easy task.

And the main problem is the lack of ideology in society! The liberal ideology, which has replaced the communist one, does not contribute to any mobilization! In Ukraine, their Nazi ideology is quite effective. And in 30 years we have not had any of our own. An attempt to nurture primordially Orthodox "traditionalism" was not crowned with success. They were afraid to revive imperialism because this word has been a dirty word for decades. So I think this option is unlikely, although possible.

“Russia for the Russians” is a phrase that would land you in jail for much of Soviet and post-Soviet Russian history. In contrast, “Ukraine for Ukrainians (pay no mind to all the Jews in power)” is the reigning ideology in Ukraine. Nationalism as a tool or technology is so powerful and so unstoppable that even outmatched, impoverished and demoralized countries can unleash it to achieve success on the battlefield.

But it’s not just Russian nationalism that is too distasteful for the ruling class in Russia. The “Orthodox Traditional Imperialism” ideology - whatever that is - is also a step too far for them.

Russia’s bureaucrat, oligarch and spook class prefer the Western technocratic, multi-culti, neolib model to all others, unsurprisingly.

3. The third option is to keep a good face on a bad game. Try to liberate the entire Donbas within the administrative boundaries, switch to strategic defense in the remaining areas and hold out until the cold weather. Hoping that Europe will finally plunge into a structural crisis, and it will finally not be up to Ukraine. At the same time, prepare for an increase in the number of armed forces by 138 thousand people. In the coming year, in accordance with the announced presidential decree, and try to keep their resource-liberal economy afloat under the conditions of sanctions.

This scenario has obvious drawbacks - the loss of the strategic initiative and its transfer to the hands of the West, and he will take advantage of it. Already used in the Kharkiv region. In Europe, they understand for themselves the disastrous nature of the current situation in the economy and will help Ukraine to the last in the hope that power in Russia will collapse, and they dream of negotiating with the new power within Russia as winners.

The problem is also that most of the countries that have not joined the sanctions and are friendly or neutral towards us, against the backdrop of obvious defeats, may go over to the Anglo-Saxons. "To betray in time is to foresee." Yes, and on the periphery, conflicts broke out, where they were waiting for the results of the “Kharkov regrouping”.

We have shown our weakness, but the world recognizes only strength.

The third scenario seems to me the most probable.

In my personal opinion, the President needs to issue a statement in which he should acknowledge the mistakes in planning and conducting the NWO. Designate the goals and objectives, as well as the forces and means that will be involved in correcting errors, and make it in a simple, accessible language. Without "denazifications and demilitarizations". In short, tell the truth. And hope that our people will believe in it.

Yes indeed. The truth is a powerful weapon. It is a shame that so many people shy away from it. The shy away from simple truths about the nature of the world, about power, about biology, about military realities and so on. And the truth - as best I understand it - is all that I have to share here with you on this blog.

“Denazification and demilitarization” are ridiculous legalese terms that no one understands in Russia and no one but 5D dunce bloggers in the West pretend to believe in actual seriousness. The current Russian mission statement is nonsensical and the equivalent of when Bush declared a “war on terror”. A totally nonsense term and concept that actually had some emotional appeal in America, admittedly, but which is something that the Russian equivalent slogan cannot claim, unfortunately.

Here are some unfortunate truths about this war that I have already pointed out several times, but that bear repeating at this critical juncture.

1. Russia is not fighting this war seriously/at full strength

2. Russia is outnumbered by Ukraine in Donbass

3. The neocons (Jews) want to destroy Russia

4. Russia does not have a pro-Russian elite

As for the call for a national ideology … well, I just recorded a podcast on the topic, so you’ll have to wait a bit hear my take on that. In short: a bad idea.

5. Ideologies are stupid and divide a nation against itself

6. Nationalism isn’t an ideology. Parasitic ideologies attach themselves to nationalism, which they use as a vehicle to promote themselves at the expense of the people. Ex. Communism using Russian nationalism to spread the Red Terror across Europe. Ex. Messianic Liberalism using American nationalism to spread the Globohomo ideology across the world.

Russia is at a critical point.

I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record here, but let me just say this: first of all, the sound you’re hearing is actually me gnawing at my fingernails as the situation continues to worsen, not a broken record. Second of all, my hope still rests on Putin realizing that the situation rests on a knife’s edge and gets serious with much-needed purges, reforms and a revamping of the war effort, and soon.