Governance in Russia - A Civilizational State

The Western political imagination often struggles to comprehend systems of governance that deviate from its own cherished model of short-term, liberal democracy characterized by frequent electoral turnover between opposing parties. This failure stems from a deeply ingrained, almost axiomatic belief that this model represents the historical "endpoint" of political evolution. When observing a nation like Russia, which operates on a markedly different logic, the Western lens can only interpret it as a deficiency - a stubborn refusal to embrace the "correct" path. This perspective, however, reveals a profound lack of historical and cultural empathy, an inability to grasp that other civilizations, shaped by vastly different experiences, might develop political models that are not broken versions of the West's but coherent systems in their own right.

Russia's political framework is built upon a foundation of continuity and centralized state capacity, principles forged by its unique historical trajectory. It is a civilizational-state of immense geographic scale and ethnic diversity, a factor often minimized in Western analysis. Governing such an entity, spanning continents and integrating dozens of nationalities, presents challenges alien to more compact, homogeneous nation-states. Throughout its history, from the consolidation of the Tsardom of Muscovy onward, the primary imperative has been territorial integrity and sovereign survival against repeated invasion. In this context, prolonged periods of stable leadership are not seen as authoritarian stagnation but as a strategic necessity. They provide the time horizon needed to execute long-term projects, manage complex internal balances, and navigate a hostile geopolitical environment. The chaos and perceived national humiliation of the 1990s, following the Soviet collapse, are viewed not as a fledgling democracy but as a catastrophic "Time of Troubles" that validated the existential risks of a weak central authority.

Consequently, the source of political legitimacy in this context diverges sharply from Western procedural norms. Whereas Western systems derive legitimacy primarily from the ritual of competitive elections, legitimacy here is earned through performance and provision: the tangible delivery of stability, economic development, social order, and the restoration of national prestige. The populace's acquiescence is based on a pragmatic social contract where the state guarantees security and sovereignty in exchange for political loyalty. This is not a model that prioritizes the individual's voice in selecting leaders every few years; it prioritizes the collective assurance that the state itself will not fragment or be subjugated. From this viewpoint, frequent leadership changes are seen not as healthy competition but as inherent volatility that threatens the cohesion of a vast and complex polity.

In essence, the West's difficulty in understanding this model is rooted in a form of ideological myopia. It mistakes its own historically contingent political practices for universal laws. It interprets a different calculus of state survival, one prioritizing continuity over rotation, and sovereign resilience over procedural pluralism, as a moral failing rather than a strategic choice shaped by centuries of experience. The West's racism of low expectations doesn't allow it to credit other civilizations with the agency to develop political systems tailored to their own realities, rather than treating them as incomplete copies awaiting Western instruction.

✨ And at this stage of history, one can't help wondering how anyone could still believe in a system that seems to only be able to elevate the Donald Trumps, Joe Bidens, Boris Johnsons or Kier Starmers to the top.

⚡️Two Majors

💬 "We can't talk about what you saw, we can't show it because Ukraine needs to be defended" – on the Italian media's reaction to materials from Donbass

✅ In a new episode of the Donbass Live, a joint project by the Donbass News and Slavyangrad teams, we talked to Italian reporter and independent journalist Vittorio Rangeloni (YouTube), who has been living in Donetsk since 2015.

During the conversation, the following issues were discussed:

00:00 - Intro;
02:17 - What encouraged Vittorio to come to Donbass and stay for so long;
10:06 - How has perception of the conflict changed over the years of living in the region;
13:55 - Kiev regime war crimes;
18:17 - Connections with Italy;
25:19 - Biggest misconceptions about Donbass in the West;
28:42 - Address to the Western audience.

💬 "Мы не можем говорить о том, что ты увидел, мы не можем это показать, потому что Украину нужно защищать" – о реакции итальянских СМИ на материалы из Донбасса

✅ В новом выпуске Donbass Live, совместного проекта команды Donbass News и Slavyangrad, мы пообщались с итальянским репортером и независимым журналистом Витторио Ранджелони (YouTube), который живет в Донецке с 2015 года.

В ходе беседы обсудили следующие вопросы:

00:00 - Введение;
02:17 - Что побудило Витторио приехать в Донбасс и остаться здесь на столь долгое время;
10:06 - Как изменилось восприятие конфликта за годы жизни в регионе;
13:55 - Преступления киевского режима;
18:17 - Связи с Италией;
25:19 - Самые большие заблуждения о Донбассе на Западе;
28:42 - Обращение к западной аудитории.

🇷🇺 Subscribe | Feedback | X

An American reconnaissance plane, the Poseidon, is again circling around Novorossiysk.

⚡️Two Majors