By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a surprising turn of events, the Russian government is cracking down on some of its most ardent supporters of the war in Ukraine, including pro-Kremlin pundits, military bloggers, and commentators. These individuals, once rewarded for their loyalty and enthusiasm, are now facing labels such as “foreign agent,” “terrorist,” and “extremist.” Analysts suggest these actions indicate a power struggle between rival factions within the regime, including a clash between the “loyalists” tied to the defense ministry and the “militarists” or Z-bloggers who have mobilized grassroots support for the war. This purge appears to be fueled by control over resources, as well as Moscow’s fear of any form of civic mobilization, even pro-war movements, with more arrests expected as the repressive apparatus continues its internal search for enemies.
Read the original article here
Putin’s repressive machinery turns inward to target pro-war figures, and it’s a grim spectacle. It feels like we’ve seen this movie before, a tragic re-run with different actors, reminiscent of Stalin’s purges. Except this time, the machinery is aimed at those who were supposed to be the loyal soldiers, the cheerleaders of the very war effort they championed. It’s a stark reminder of the inherent instability and ruthlessness that can permeate such systems.
The root of this self-cannibalization lies in the very nature of Russia, a nation historically geared towards conflict. Decades were spent building infrastructure, institutions, and a governing system all optimized for one singular purpose: winning wars. This constant preparation, this ingrained mentality of needing to be ready for battle, has left little room for alternative approaches like soft power, diplomacy, or a competitive economy. With such a legacy, the post-Soviet Russia continues to be driven towards conflict, and the pro-war figures find themselves vulnerable when the tide turns.
This dynamic aligns with the analysis suggesting that Russia’s perpetual warmongering stems from deeply ingrained systemic issues. Their history is rife with examples of authoritarianism and a focus on military strength. This makes you wonder about other places that follow the same pattern, always building up their military instead of addressing the underlying reasons for conflict. If you keep accumulating guns instead of goodwill, war can be the only outcome.
So, here we are, witnessing the inevitable. The internal squabbles begin, the whispers of betrayal, and the “Window Falling Disease” makes its annual appearance. Those who were once firmly in the pro-war camp are now facing the consequences, their positions precarious as the narrative shifts. Remember Igor Girkin? It’s a sign of the times.
The situation becomes even more complicated. The idea of the enemy being weak or infirm is a common tactic, and the pro-war figures will be the first to be affected, with the most damage being done by the people who believe in the war the most. This is the nature of these regimes, and anyone who stands in the way of the leader will be removed.
It’s all a game of Russian Roulette, and the pro-war figures are the ones most exposed. Their belief in the war’s ultimate success becomes a liability when the desired outcome doesn’t materialize. They’ll become scapegoats, and their loyalty is not enough. This is a very real danger in such systems.
The focus on an authoritarian regime also brings to mind the historical parallels, and the fact that an iron wall around Russia may become necessary. This mirrors the past, and it is a clear example of history repeating itself. It’s worth noting the history of NATO, and the building of institutions in order to combat Russia. The entire world was on a razor’s edge for a while, and it is worth remembering this fact.
The shift in the gauge of the tracks in Russia, and the need to change the train’s wheels at the border, emphasizes the paranoia and defensive measures that come with this sort of mentality. It is worth it to remember that the war, and the peace, will not be a massive imperial grandslam. The war may not be worth the cost.
The danger of this shift, where the pro-war figures become the targets, is that these figures could create and disseminate dangerous myths. In an army, this is the quickest way for the war machine to topple itself. With the focus always on winning, there is a lack of tolerance for anything less. The result is that it can only manifest in so many ways. This special Russian destiny always comes at the expense of others.