7 ms·

I'm pretty sure the problem is a circle of oligarchs, cronies, and ex-KGB turning the government into a sadistic mob state, and their citizens poor as hell.

foobarian 4y ago
This seems pretty similar to descriptions of Russia in 1918 as well. What's up with this place? Maybe it's the cultural influence of the Mongol invasion?
- esarbe 4y ago
  Yeah, I think the Mongols broke Russia to the yoke of Empire.
  - xpe 4y ago
    Can you say more? Can you think of similar examples where history seems to go the other way?
    - esarbe 4y ago
      On prominent ancient example that pops into my head right away is Mesopotamia. The Assyrians were famous for their brutality and their depiction of violence as political propaganda. They were despised for their viciousness. It has been argued that the later Persians and Medes were able to rule with a softer touch because by that time the peoples of Mesopotamia had been "broken into the yoke" - e.g. their local decision making traditions forgotten, decentralized civic structures abandoned.
  - chupasaurus 4y ago
    Except Russia happened 200 years or so later.
    - esarbe 4y ago
      Sure. Russia just popped into existence in 1547. It doesn't have anything to do with the peoples that lived in that region before that. Russia as a whole was brought to earth by aliens.
      - chupasaurus 4y ago
        You see, Kievan Rus equals Russia is the thing I've heard only from Russian officials. After the Mongol invasion different parts had very different paths in history.
        esarbe 4y ago
        Yes, and the people in the domain of the Czardom of Russia never recovered. One could make a point that the independence of the Cossack tribes contributed its share to the "de-imperialization" of the Dniepr region. A benefit the peoples in the Duchy of Moscow and later the Czardom of Russia never had.
- xpe 4y ago
  What kind of explanation are you seeking? Are you looking for broad “reasons” why history has unfolded the way it did? What if Russia’s history is not improbable? What if “Western” {democracy + variants of capitalism + colonialism + etc} is actually more of a surprise, probabilistically? Have you read various commentaries that draw associations and even causal links between natural resources and history? For example, extractable resources tend to correspond with countries that get exploited, either by outsiders or (autocratic or oligarchic) insiders. (Opinion: Even democratic capitalist countries don’t share a region’s internal wealth very fairly. But it seems that this approach is better than capture by inefficient and corrupt command-and-control forms of government.) In any case, geopolitical history rarely offers sample sizes large enough to proffer convincing statistical analysis. At best, historians point out convincing theories and evidence of how they play out. P.S. I use curlies and parens for this crowd because it reduces ambiguity. :)
  - foobarian 4y ago
    > What kind of explanation are you seeking? In this case, I am wondering if a culture other than the present would lead to different outcomes, and specifically wondering if there are significant after-effects of the long-ago Mongol domination. Of course it's near impossible to answer this with any scientific rigor, and I don't have much hope for it :) It seems that the communist takeover in 1918 was not an obvious "done deal," and at several points things came very close to not happening that way (and going the way of the German social-democratic setup for example).
    - xpe 4y ago
      Ah. I’m not a dedicated Russian scholar, but the big themes to me seem to be: - Relative cultural isolation of Russia, with the exception of the major cities nearer to Europe. I’d speculate this is partially due to few international trade routes. - A brutally tough existence, largely due to the climate, economic systems, and over-investment in war. - No transformational economic gains from territorial gains. The US Colonies, later states, had huge land and resources to colonize and plunder. This created new centers of power and upended Britain’s colonial grip. - Systemic repression. - Few alternative centers of power besides the state. Religion plays less of a role in Russian throughout history compared to the West, is this fair? - High levels of distrust for decades if not centuries, leading to leaders capitalizing on fear. - Low probability that an aspirational leader could shake the country free of its 20th century roots. No chance that an exiled leader could flee, build a reputation, and return later to transform the country. I know relativity little about the Mongol influence. What suggests that it might be lasting and enduring? P.S. This answer would probably be better, more comprehensive, and possibly confidently wrong if aided by a chatty AI.
- imbnwa 4y ago
  >Maybe it's the cultural influence of the Mongol invasion? What exactly are you suggesting?
- noirscape 4y ago
  Little to do with culture, everything to do with infrastructure, geography and for the 20th century and onwards messy politics. Russias geography is... rather paradoxical. It's a country with pretty much some of the biggest landmass on earth, but very few of that landmass has been exploitable for resources. For most of history this has largely been due to its climate being rather hostile to humans - Russias more navigable areas are up north, which isn't great if you want to use it for things like farmland and other basic needs. The southern part of the country is on the other hand rather mountainous, which is also hard to grow resources on. All of that has resulted in a country where most people congregate in big cities and an infrastructure that outside of those cities is just... barely existent. The result is that anyone wanting to lead Russia will invariably end up gravitating towards concentrated leadership; the individual cities where most Russian citizens live don't have the resources around them to entirely sustain themselves independently, so all of them need to stay together. Combine that with a poor infrastructure and anyone looking for a power grab in the capital has an easy opportunity to do so if a vacuum ever arises[0]. [0]: The tsar was basically a monarch, which historically has been in general how countries operate. Lenin was specifically send to Russia by the Germans to attempt and disrupt the Russian front during WW1 (and Stalin can be summarized as "Lenin but worse"). The between leaders after Stalin were trying to uphold the same beliefs as him. Putin's powergrab is the result of him taking advantage of the fact that Yeltsin screwed up the de-sovietization process and just dumped Russia into anarcho-capitalism overnight (there was basically no transition process between the Soviet model and neoliberalism, which resulted in anarcho-capitalism).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

foobarian 4y ago

This seems pretty similar to descriptions of Russia in 1918 as well. What's up with this place? Maybe it's the cultural influence of the Mongol invasion?

esarbe 4y ago
Yeah, I think the Mongols broke Russia to the yoke of Empire.
- xpe 4y ago
  Can you say more? Can you think of similar examples where history seems to go the other way?
  - esarbe 4y ago
    On prominent ancient example that pops into my head right away is Mesopotamia. The Assyrians were famous for their brutality and their depiction of violence as political propaganda. They were despised for their viciousness. It has been argued that the later Persians and Medes were able to rule with a softer touch because by that time the peoples of Mesopotamia had been "broken into the yoke" - e.g. their local decision making traditions forgotten, decentralized civic structures abandoned.
- chupasaurus 4y ago
  Except Russia happened 200 years or so later.
  - esarbe 4y ago
    Sure. Russia just popped into existence in 1547. It doesn't have anything to do with the peoples that lived in that region before that. Russia as a whole was brought to earth by aliens.
    - chupasaurus 4y ago
      You see, Kievan Rus equals Russia is the thing I've heard only from Russian officials. After the Mongol invasion different parts had very different paths in history.
      - esarbe 4y ago
        Yes, and the people in the domain of the Czardom of Russia never recovered. One could make a point that the independence of the Cossack tribes contributed its share to the "de-imperialization" of the Dniepr region. A benefit the peoples in the Duchy of Moscow and later the Czardom of Russia never had.
xpe 4y ago
What kind of explanation are you seeking? Are you looking for broad “reasons” why history has unfolded the way it did? What if Russia’s history is not improbable? What if “Western” {democracy + variants of capitalism + colonialism + etc} is actually more of a surprise, probabilistically? Have you read various commentaries that draw associations and even causal links between natural resources and history? For example, extractable resources tend to correspond with countries that get exploited, either by outsiders or (autocratic or oligarchic) insiders. (Opinion: Even democratic capitalist countries don’t share a region’s internal wealth very fairly. But it seems that this approach is better than capture by inefficient and corrupt command-and-control forms of government.) In any case, geopolitical history rarely offers sample sizes large enough to proffer convincing statistical analysis. At best, historians point out convincing theories and evidence of how they play out. P.S. I use curlies and parens for this crowd because it reduces ambiguity. :)
- foobarian 4y ago
  > What kind of explanation are you seeking? In this case, I am wondering if a culture other than the present would lead to different outcomes, and specifically wondering if there are significant after-effects of the long-ago Mongol domination. Of course it's near impossible to answer this with any scientific rigor, and I don't have much hope for it :) It seems that the communist takeover in 1918 was not an obvious "done deal," and at several points things came very close to not happening that way (and going the way of the German social-democratic setup for example).
  - xpe 4y ago
    Ah. I’m not a dedicated Russian scholar, but the big themes to me seem to be: - Relative cultural isolation of Russia, with the exception of the major cities nearer to Europe. I’d speculate this is partially due to few international trade routes. - A brutally tough existence, largely due to the climate, economic systems, and over-investment in war. - No transformational economic gains from territorial gains. The US Colonies, later states, had huge land and resources to colonize and plunder. This created new centers of power and upended Britain’s colonial grip. - Systemic repression. - Few alternative centers of power besides the state. Religion plays less of a role in Russian throughout history compared to the West, is this fair? - High levels of distrust for decades if not centuries, leading to leaders capitalizing on fear. - Low probability that an aspirational leader could shake the country free of its 20th century roots. No chance that an exiled leader could flee, build a reputation, and return later to transform the country. I know relativity little about the Mongol influence. What suggests that it might be lasting and enduring? P.S. This answer would probably be better, more comprehensive, and possibly confidently wrong if aided by a chatty AI.
imbnwa 4y ago
>Maybe it's the cultural influence of the Mongol invasion? What exactly are you suggesting?
noirscape 4y ago
Little to do with culture, everything to do with infrastructure, geography and for the 20th century and onwards messy politics. Russias geography is... rather paradoxical. It's a country with pretty much some of the biggest landmass on earth, but very few of that landmass has been exploitable for resources. For most of history this has largely been due to its climate being rather hostile to humans - Russias more navigable areas are up north, which isn't great if you want to use it for things like farmland and other basic needs. The southern part of the country is on the other hand rather mountainous, which is also hard to grow resources on. All of that has resulted in a country where most people congregate in big cities and an infrastructure that outside of those cities is just... barely existent. The result is that anyone wanting to lead Russia will invariably end up gravitating towards concentrated leadership; the individual cities where most Russian citizens live don't have the resources around them to entirely sustain themselves independently, so all of them need to stay together. Combine that with a poor infrastructure and anyone looking for a power grab in the capital has an easy opportunity to do so if a vacuum ever arises[0]. [0]: The tsar was basically a monarch, which historically has been in general how countries operate. Lenin was specifically send to Russia by the Germans to attempt and disrupt the Russian front during WW1 (and Stalin can be summarized as "Lenin but worse"). The between leaders after Stalin were trying to uphold the same beliefs as him. Putin's powergrab is the result of him taking advantage of the fact that Yeltsin screwed up the de-sovietization process and just dumped Russia into anarcho-capitalism overnight (there was basically no transition process between the Soviet model and neoliberalism, which resulted in anarcho-capitalism).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]