Intelligence question: Egor Yakovlev about 1915 and the differences between the First World War and the Great Patriotic War (№ 423415)

Nicholas had many positive qualities as a person, memoirists note his delicacy, his nobility, softness, he was a pleasant interlocutor, very polite, courteous. But all this, unfortunately, has nothing to do with the management of the state. And in the future, this complete misunderstanding of what his actions look like led to fatal consequences. Nicholas didn't have his own media. There were monarchical newspapers, but Nicholas himself and his inner circle did not control any state apparatus. There were monarchical and liberal newspapers, socialist, and after 1905, when new freedoms appeared, and the press boom began, the entire socio-political press was somehow opposed to the emperor. In Russia, there was no press loyal to the emperor. For it to appear, the emperor had to do something. The emperor did nothing. As a result, he lost the information war instantly. Not understanding these new developments. Similarly, he lost the war with the Duma. Roughly speaking, he did not have his own party in power. Monarchist parties at some point came to the conclusion that unconditionally the monarchy should remain, but Nicholas is a bad monarch. That's what I call being a 19th century politician.