Russia and the post-imperial complex

[innonimatu]

Some of the US aquisitions were purchases, not conquests.

I bet that the people actually living on those acquisitions didn't see any money! As far as they were concerned they were just being conquered again. Actually, they were just to be conquered by a different master, as most of those acquisition were not effectively controlled by the seller anyway (Louisiana being the most obvious case).

It's very prejudicial to think that way, what are the standards you are using to classify the levels of civilization? technology, cristian morals, american way of live? you know that social darwinism is not that far from nazism...

It's still true, though, even if it's not politically correct. More backwards civilizations (and lets admit, we know what backwards means here - it does mean they're going through a stage of development others are already done with) are easier to conquer and totally suppress.

And I agree that Russia was less brutal in its handling of its colonial territories. But that was mostly because Russia was more backwards that the US at the same point in time: the US claimed to be a democracy, therefore had to slaughter or "convert" the "natives", while Russia, as an autocracy, could afford to ignore the differences inside the empire. And it was the end of its last stage of autocracy that again raised the problem - as soon as Gorbachev started his glasnost, the Caucasus and the baltic republics caught fire.

Europeans repeatedly met that same problem in their colonies after liberalism took hold: colonial rebellion and independence were the inevitable outcome of not massacring all the "natives". And they, aware of the problem, did not massacre the natives more because they lacked the population with which to replace them than out of any "kindness". The US had a plentiful supply of new citizens, from european immigration, so they proceeded to get rid of the original population in its territorial acquisitions.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Russia was less brutal in its handling of its colonial territories.

I actually think of Russia as occuping a position between the colonial empires of the West and old-fashioned territorial empires like the Ottoman one.

 

[Winner]

This is an interesting article - it reveals much about what the Russian leaders want their people to believe in and the message they want to send to the West.

Clearly, Russia desires to be accepted as the "exclusive overseer" in the post-Soviet region.

Putin defends Georgia offensive By Bridget Kendall
BBC diplomatic correspondent, Sochi

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has made an impassioned defence of Russia's military intervention in Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia.

Mr Putin accused the Western press of an "immoral and dishonest account of what happened".

He said Russia had had no choice but to intervene following what he alleged was Georgian aggression.

And he went on to dismiss out of hand European criticism of Russian force as "disproportionate".

"What did you want us to do? Wave our penknives in the air and wipe the bloody snot off our noses?" he asked, adding: "When an aggressor comes into your territory [], you need to punch him in the face - an aggressor needs to punished."

He added that Russian tanks had, after all, only been 15km from Tbilisi and could easily have taken the Georgian capital and ousted President Mikhail Saakashvilli if they had wanted to.

Mr Putin also accused the US of behaving like the Roman Empire by believing it could pursue its own interests and extending its influence to the Caucasus without regard for Russia's point of view.

"God forbid that we should tread on US toes in its backyard," he said, expressing frustration that the United States seemed to think it was all right to arm Georgia on Russia's border - a move which he repeatedly argued had provoked Georgia to take up military action.

'Anti-Russian hysteria'

On wider relations with the West, he insisted that current tensions did not amount to the start of a new Cold War, and dismissed arguments that Russia might suffer diplomatic or economic isolation because of the crisis.

But he also said Russia was prepared to work with Western partners and wanted a constructive relationship with the European Union but only if what he called "realities" were taken into account.

Russia, said the prime minister, should be treated as an equal partner and all sides agree on new common rules of behaviour based on international law.

"The problem is not with us," Mr Putin said, "it lies with political groups in the West who use old phobias to whip up anti-Russian hysteria."

However, he warned that tensions between Russia and the EU may well worsen if, as expected, US missiles are deployed in Poland as part of the controversial missile shield.

He said he expected that to be the moment that Russia would reposition its missiles to point at European targets.

"Why have you placed missiles under our nose?" he said, and warned it would ratchet up an extra notch the nuclear arms race in Europe.

UK relations

Mr Putin also indicated that relations with Britain were unlikely to improve while Russian emigres remained in the UK despite Russia's requests to extradite them to stand trial - an apparent reference to the Russian business tycoon Boris Berezovsky and the former Chechen spokesman, Ahmed Zakayev.

"Why do you allow UK territory to be used a launching pad to fight Russia?" he asked.

"Imagine if we gave sanctuary to armed members of the IRA - that's why its not possible to build normal relations with Britain," he said.

Mr Putin also threw new light on the crisis in South Ossetia.

On 8 August, when he was in Beijing for the start of the Olympic Games, he had spoken to US President George W Bush soon after hearing of the attack by Georgian troops on the South Ossetian capital - but the United States had failed to intervene.

In Beijing, he had already raised the question of Russia recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent territories with the Chinese government, and told them Russia did not expect Chinese support.

This is an interesting comment that suggests Russia was already planning to recognise the two regions from very early on in the crisis.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7611482.stm

 

[Squonk]

That's very interesting.
You agreed that Georgians and Ukrainians were not ethnically cleansed like Indians. But you still think that peaceful joining of Ukraine and Georgia to Russian Empire was worse than invasion of Native American territories because Indians had lower culture level?

Russian policy was indeed more lenient to the natives, but mostly because Russia obtained economic gains from them, levying tribute on them, and because they were sedentary or self-sedentary.

I'm not claiming it was better or worse, but that the annihilation of North American Indians had to do their nomadic status, their small number, their vulnerability to european diseases and their low cultural level.

It's not Ukraine who joined Russia in Perejaslaw, but Cossacks, who had no authority over Ukraine, or even Zaporoze. And Cossacks soon revolted. They've tried to get back to Poland (Wyhowski), revolt and gain independance (Zolotarenko I think and another guy), ally with Turkey (Doroszenko), ally with Poland and Sweden (Mazepa). Then Russia didn't care about what Cossacks wanted. Catherine II destroyed Sicz.

Georgia was forced to "voluntarily" join Russia.

 

[Squonk]

It's very prejudicial to think that way, what are the standards you are using to classify the levels of civilization? technology, cristian morals, american way of live? you know that social darwinism is not that far from nazism...

It's completely idiotic and moronic to think there are no differences in level of civilisation. Nazizm believed there are INHERENT and HUGE differences in level of civilisation. I think that inherent differences are almost non-existant.
But culture and cultural potential are a different matter.

Thanks to our civilisation, we can send a mission that would adapt to jungle condition, that would adapt to great praire conditions, that could live on the moon or whatever. Indians from the brazillian jungle in their original, not touched by western civ, form only can live there, and do not understant living elsewhere. They are well-adapted to their enviroment, but their knowledge, skills etc as a civ is centuries after the worldwide civ.

 

[Commy]

Georgia was forced to "voluntarily" join Russia.

By ottomans

 

[leksaaa]

True,
but one can't forget great difference in level of civ betwen lets say Sioux and Georgians / Poles / Ukrainians. Actually, Poles, Ukrainians, Estonians etc were on higher level of civilisation than Russians. The acquisition of Kiev with polish-influenced orthodox Academy of Mohila resulted in cultural revolution in Russia and opened it on western influences.

Why don't you mention siberian nations? When russians colonized Siberia most of this nations were nomads and live in tribe like society. But russians do not kill most of them and do not send others in reservations. In tsar russia native people of siberia must pay some kind of taxes directly to tsar (very often it was in natural form, furs for example), and were given tsar protection for that. In time of soviet union every nation were given equal rights, i mean schools and hospitals were build everywhere around a country and all this nations finally achieve the same level of civilization. Yes there were some problems, too (spread of alcoholism between some of these nations, for example). But all they are here today, all this mordva, shuvashia, altay, tuva nations, etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_subjects_of_Russia
People of these nations are citizens of RF today, like russians.
But they were nomadic tribes when russians came in these regions and they were neither exterminated nor sent in reservations like in the america.

It's very prejudicial to think that way, what are the standards you are using to classify the levels of civilization? technology, cristian morals, american way of live? you know that social darwinism is not that far from nazism...

True.
Look, in russia these nomadic tribes finally achieved the same level of civilization, when I were in university some of my classmates were guys from mountain altay, great people, some of them were very smart, but just a several hundreds years ago their ancestors lived nomadic lives, and what?
But in north america white people decided: ah, these nasty savages! they can never achieve our level and should be put in camps or exterminated. But i believe it was false statement and maybe just an excuse to take everything from natives: lands, resources and even lives

 

[Squonk]

Why don't you mention siberian nations?

As I've mentioned, I believe Russians were more lenient. But Russians are majority, sometimes extreme majority, in all those Siberian republics, so it's not as if their land wasn't colonised.

True.
Look, in russia these nomadic tribes finally achieved the same level of civilization, when I were in university some of my classmates were guys from mountain altay, great people, some of them were very smart, but just a several hundreds years ago their ancestors lived nomadic lives, and what?
But in north america white people decided: ah, these nasty savages! they can never achieve our level and should be put in camps or exterminated. But i believe it was false statement and maybe just an excuse to take everything from natives: lands, resources and even lives

Look at my reply to that part of his post. I do not believe in inherent differences between people of different races / ethnicities etc, but in differences in the level of civilisation. If You did not believe in that schools, hospitals etc were good things yourself, You wouldn't have written about them.

 

[Yeekim]

Cold war is based on ideology. As we established Russia has none.

Certainly nothing as powerful as communist. Perhaps nothing as pronounced or distinct (yet) as to be called an "ideology". But the current trend shows growing antagonism because of different interests and different values. Not that this must be irreversible, but I don't feel too optimistic.

Sound like you just dont want Russia to exercise power because its Russia.

Well, this entire thread is about having higher-than-normal sensitivity about Russians exercising power, so you are apparently right to a degree. However, I am certainly against conquests and invasions in general as well.

It is US that is doing exactly the same thing by overthrowing regimes that are friendly/neutral to Russia and puts US military right on Russian borders.
Russia employs the same tools to prevent it.

I hope by "overthrowing friendly regimes" you are referring to revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia rather than invasions into Iraq and Afghanistan?
While the US was certainly not neutral in these affairs, I don't think it can be said they "overthrew" someone. Ukrainians and Georgians made their choices themselves. Just like October Revolution was still done with the hands of Russians, and not German High Command.

They rarely do that. Politics and general living in the world mean taking into consideration the opinions of others and your neighbors. You cannot act against your neighbors interest and hope that they do not notice or act in response. If you want to leave peacefully you have to find ways to keep all sides happy.

Nice rounded answer, which can be absolutely agreed with - in theory In RL, the point is, how does Russia define his "neighbor's interest". A last year's incident about relocation of a certain memorial (which included sending a special Duma Commission into Estonia to "investigate" , official threats to sever diplomatic relations (some crazy MP even opined that declaration of war should be appropriate), "siege" of Estonian embassy to Moscow, quitting transit, etc etc) seemed very over the top for me. Basically, imagine wiping your own floor in your own apartment and getting asked by a neighbor from next block: "So, you want a piece of me, huh?!". Dozens of businessmen were forced to quit their business in Russia or with Russians,since their partners were afraid of repercussions. Both sides suffered substantial losses.
This is nothing like a conflict of reasonable interests and everything like trying to create negative PR and international tensions.

Both are in the arsenal I am sure. Just like most other states.

Maybe on Central Asian direction... Hard to spot from Eastern European POV though.

Thats the key, non? In my opinion we can. We will never think in the same way, but if US/NATO stops expanding Russia can relax and stop thinking about how to defend itself against a pre-emptive attack. The only problem that lies between Russia and EU is US intentions. We have to work it out. We can if all sides were willing.

I believe that you are demonizing US here with little reason. It is terribly hard for me to believe that US could really contemplate military attack against Russia. First, the reason which caused Cold War to be Cold is still there. ~17 000 nuclear warheads to be more precise. All missile shields currently planned or in existence won't be much help against these. And even without that, would US really want to repeat the mistakes of Napoleon and Hitler? While they are, as you say, having hard time trying to quell even Iraq, which is tiny compared to Russia? With Russian military power even without nuclear capacity being No 2 in the world (at least according to Ralph over here?). To what gain?

Sorry Before a few years ago Russians never really thought about Poland, Baltic states, Czechs whatnot. It is recent news that brought them (you) to the headlines and I am sure some people probably say two of three lines about you in their general anti-American rant. You are never viewed as enemies on your own (idea is laughable), but in correlation with US-Russia struggle. But, yes, the general view of the two Baltic states is more negative than positive. The past few years more than ever.

...and just as you are afraid of US, we are afraid that this negative PR might simply be a prelude for some sort of staged incident in these states, which could then be used for pretext of an invasion and/or a forced coup - so that people would say "nah, these fascists there were asking for it themselves, let's not get involved or this becomes WW3".

 

[Yeekim]

Read the interview. I am not impressed. This guy speaks in slogans and the language of the "rule of force" as well as not being very clear. 10+ minutes of my life lost.

Kak?! Это же гигант мысли! Отец российской демократии! Особа, приближенная к императору! :

I am glad you feel that way. Let us hope most agree with you...

 

[leksaaa]

Squonk

As I've mentioned, I believe Russians were more lenient. But Russians are majority, sometimes extreme majority, in all those Siberian republics, so it's not as if their land wasn't colonised.

Yes, you right about majority. In some cases, like in Karelia, for example, there are a lot of mixed families too, so finally all they became "russians" because they speak russian and lost their ethnic customs too.

Look at my reply to that part of his post. I do not believe in inherent differences between people of different races / ethnicities etc, but in differences in the level of civilisation. If You did not believe in that schools, hospitals etc were good things yourself, You wouldn't have written about them.

All right, all I want to say is that difference in level of civlization could be overcome like in russia history.

 

[EnglishEdward]

First, the reason which caused Cold War to be Cold is still there. ~17 000 nuclear warheads to be more precise.

So, the USA has thousands of nukes too.

All missile shields currently planned or in existence won't be much help against these.

Correct.

The purpose of the missile shield is not to defend against the 17,000 nukes.
It is to defend against the small % of those that survive a preemptive strike.

Example:

(1) USA convinces Russia to reduce to 1,000 nukes.

(2) USA launch pre-emptive surprise strike which destroys 95% of Russian nukes; so they only have 50 nukes left.

(3) US Missile shield shoots down 90% of those nukes, only 5 left.

(4) So the US takes 5 hits, but the US is big and has many cities.
It can lose a couple of cities and a few million dead, while with over 1,000 hits on Russia, Russia is toast, so the USA can still win the WW3.

Now this is the Russian perception, and it is a very rational fear.

Remember the neocon doctrine of pre-emptive war is espoused by Bush

That is why the Russians don't like forward based US missile systems.

 

[BasketCase]

What purpose would such a strike serve?

We've already destroyed the USSR--without launching a single missile.

Our war wasn't against the Russian people, but against its government. That government is gone.

 

[Winner]

So, the USA has thousands of nukes too.

Correct.

The purpose of the missile shield is not to defend against the 17,000 nukes.
It is to defend against the small % of those that survive a preemptive strike.

Incorrect. The purpose of the missile shield is to shoot down rather rudimentary missiles fired by rogue states, either as retaliation or as a threat. In fact, the purpose of the shield is to show these countries, that their missiles won't be any good against the West and that they should give up.

The missile defense system is not meant to be used against relatively advanced, multi-warhead ICBMs, such as the ones Russians have.

Example:

(1) USA convinces Russia to reduce to 1,000 nukes.

(2) USA launch pre-emptive surprise strike which destroys 95% of Russian nukes; so they only have 50 nukes left.

(3) US Missile shield shoots down 90% of those nukes, only 5 left.

(4) So the US takes 5 hits, but the US is big and has many cities.
It can lose a couple of cities and a few million dead, while with over 1,000 hits on Russia, Russia is toast, so the USA can still win the WW3.

Now this is the Russian perception, and it is a very rational fear.

No, it's an utter paranoid nonsense.

Remember the neocon doctrine of pre-emptive war is espoused by Bush

That is why the Russians don't like forward based US missile systems.

Russians don't like the system not because it's threat to them. Missiles in Poland can't shoot down Russian missiles even if they could do so technologically speaking. Russian missiles would fly to American targets not over Europe, but over the Arctic. An interceptor silo in Poland would be totally useless against that.

First learn something about how the system works, before you start making idiotic conclusions. Russians don't like the system because it shows their weakness: they can't build such a system themselves, because they don't have that kind of money and technology; and it proves that the countries they percieve as potential target for their expansion (Poland and the Czech rep.) are now firmly integrated into the Western defense, which means that any aggression (economic, political or military) against them would be met with strong opposition.

Our war wasn't against the Russian people, but against its government. That government is gone.

And a new one, also undemocratic and also anti-Western, has emerged.

 

[joshhh]

First learn something about how the system works, before you start making idiotic conclusions. Russians don't like the system because it shows their weakness: they can't build such a system themselves, because they don't have that kind of money and technology; and it proves that the countries they percieve as potential target for their expansion (Poland and the Czech rep.) are now firmly integrated into the Western defense, which means that any aggression (economic, political or military) against them would be met with strong opposition.

You should listen to the Winner! He just about got it right.

 

[BasketCase]

Since he just called someone else an idiot (no, he wasn't referring to me--this isn't personal) I'll pass.

 

[Winner]

Since he just called someone else an idiot (no, he wasn't referring to me--this isn't personal) I'll pass.

I called that idea idiotic, not its author

 

[BasketCase]

Same difference to me.

Insulting the intelligence of another CFC member (doesn't matter who) or his ideas (doesn't matter what ideas) = auto-fail.

If an idea is wrong, you can explain why without using the I-word. If you can't explain why without using the I-word, then the idea is not wrong.

 

[Ecofarm]

Idiot/idiotic has nothing to do with intelligence.

Dummy

Spoiler :

J/K

 

[Winner]

Same difference to me.

Insulting the intelligence of another CFC member (doesn't matter who) or his ideas (doesn't matter what ideas) = auto-fail.

If an idea is wrong, you can explain why without using the I-word. If you can't explain why without using the I-word, then the idea is not wrong.

I explained why it is wrong and then called it idiotic, because it is idiotic. And frankly, I don't care if it hurts anybody's feelings, it's not my fault that people are making stupid conclusions based on incomplete or wrong information and their own prejudicies and then feel offended when somebody throws it into their face.

On this forum alone, I explained it about thousand times why the missile shield can't be used against Russia. Still, in each and every discussion somebody appears and makes the same stupid claim again.

Meh, why do I bother...