4 ms·
No, there were real conflicts, violence, and refugees fleeing both across and outside countries before the fall of Soviet Union (not predicted by anyone) and af
by ogurechny 2y ago
No, there were real conflicts, violence, and refugees fleeing both across and outside countries before the fall of Soviet Union (not predicted by anyone) and afterwards. Before you reach for checklists and flowcharts to figure out whether you should call them “atrocities” or “civil outrage”, let me refresh your memory.
First, we need to look at oil and gas pipeline maps from USSR to Europe. It's easy to do, we're on the internet after all. By pure coincidence, when prices of hydrocarbons had been at their lowest for years, budgets had become empty, and most parts of USSR had decided they need some political autonomy, leaders of three Socialist republics which were involved in extraction and delivery of resources had declared that USSR was no more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords
By doing that, they shook off the old men from the Party and other parts of Union government who had previously been above them, but became rulers without a country, and they also shook off sharing revenues with other Socialist republics, and supporting all USSR population. Enough of friendship of all Soviet nations!
Newspapers across the world called it “the victory of Democracy”, etc. Sure, the petrostate and two intermediate pieces of land under the pipes were full of debts, and planned to keep pumping valuable resources to the civilized world, so everything was fine.
Of course, honest and reliable bureaucrats and oligarchs ruling new countries mutually dependent on shared pipe system immediately started to argue whose balls were bigger, and tried to break any official agreement any time they felt like it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93Russia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93Russia_relatio...
Partially it was because government budgets were empty in the '90s, and they had to became creative with money from the main source of income, partially it was because they fought for properties and energy supply for them, were selling industry piece by piece or seizing it. However, all was well as long as civilized world got their cheap oil and gas.
Even in Soviet times, southern Soviet republics were not that rich. Big industry was limited to isolated locations, and depended on exchange of goods and resources with other republics, and often factories were founded proprotionally according to state plans, not because something was logical. Agriculture was a neglected sector across all USSR in its late decades, and farm workers had very little opportunities, were generally poor, and sometimes grew crops no one needed (because distribution of food was also centralized, and US and Canada would sell as much grain as needed). Despite endless propaganda about workers and peasants, they were generally forgotten and ignored part of population. So-called “national specifics”, that is, corruption and nepotism, and remains of tribalism of pre-Soviet era, while not discussed openly until later years, also played a role. Therefore, life in agricultural regions was pretty drab. After the — forced — independence they were plunged into poverty.
Perestroika and economic turmoil uncovered national tensions (not just limited to “Russians go home”). Sure, a lot of people considered such far away places provincial shitholes, especially if they were sent to work there (in many cases, higher education resulted in government assignment that depended on your grades, loyalty, and family connections), and looked down upon locals. However, for a lot of other people the home was right there, sometimes for whole their lives. Of course, those who judged people by the color of their skin or facial features didn't bother with that. (Turns out that reading and even giving speeches about a single family of all nations does not make you friends with everyone, just like talking about colonial past does not make you any less of a white man in a cork hat.) While change of citizenship was offered to any ex-Soviet citizen (but still was not that easy), prices of property in southern republics were next to zero, and most savings disappeared, so many emigrants effectively became refugees relying on relatives and friends. That is, if they had prepared, and had not ran from a local mob.
By the way, it is widely accepted that Brighton Beach has the highest concentration of those vulgar Soviet hoi polloi on Earth, and the only place Soviet service can still exist. Obviously, future historians will agree that annexation of Brighton Beach was completely motivated and adequate move.
To conclude, Anglo-American self-chastising about colonial past can't be globally applied to each and every country as one-size-fit-all tool, just like the horrible bureaucratic concept of “race” (reminding a lot of people about Soviet “nationality” brand mark) does more harm than good outside of its native lands. Decolonial and postcolonial works from actual local researchers do exist, and they also mention that.
- brnt 2y ago[flagged]
- thriftwy 2y agoHow would "dealing" look like? Russian Federation still maintains freedom of travel with most of ex-Soviet republics. Good luck entering Britain without visa being a former colonial subject.
- ogurechny 2y agoThat's what I'm talking about. Some people can afford the fancy of believing in belonging to a “state” that has been a single entity through centuries, and introduce mental gymnastics to embrace the “good parts”, and expel the “bad parts” to “the past” to pretend that “modern day person” is automatically different. “We the people”, yada yada. How is Russian Empire the same thing as Soviet Union? You could be killed for making that statement after the Revolution. (There are works that do actually trace the socially inherited features, but they are a bit deeper than newspaper level looking at a name or at a map, and fantasizing about “empires”.) I am not yet senile, so I do remember that not so long ago everyone living on a stretch of land from Balkans to Bering Straight was a “Russian” with the same thick accent, no matter what they thought about that. That's the level of scientific discourse we're talking about. So current media-induced hyper-attentiveness to proper identification of characters on stage seems a bit hypocritical to me. As I said, there are people from “all those -stan countries lumped together because I'm too lazy to point my finger at any of them”, and also people from Russia who dissect actual dynamics of relationships in local societies instead of winging it with “ugh Soviet empire something something like African slave trade problem solved”. Let's not forget there were multiple options to emigrate in early '90s. If you had at least some Russian family ties, you could try to flee to Russia. If you had at least some Jewish family ties, you could try to flee to Israel. If you had at least some German family ties, you could try to flee to Germany. Let's say we have twin sisters who were born in Tajikistan, and lived there. One decided to move to Russia (maybe because she had family and kids, and relatives on husband's side), other decided to move to Germany. Assuming they start at the same point in space and time, please tell me when one turns into colonialist, and the other into indirect victim of Soviet forced deportations?