5 ms·

I wonder where all these Russian intellectuals sparking social changes are now? Their country needs them, the world needs them.

piombisallow 2y ago
It didn't go all that well the first time.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - MiguelX413 2y ago
    This but unironically
waster 2y ago
Some emigrated or fled; some (if they had leadership aspirations) were killed or imprisoned; and many may be keeping their heads low so as to avoid drawing attention from the current regime. Unfortunately.
- morkalork 2y ago
  The population has been thoroughly and effectively trained to be apolitical.
yks 2y ago
Russian nationalism/imperialism is a powerful drug that is hard for Russians to unchain their minds from. So even if the intellectuals don't like Putin, Russia becoming a client state of China or wars as such, most of them dislike independent Ukraine even more. Solzhenitsyn, Brodsky, Navalny etc etc. Besides, Russia is "winning" Western elections, and who doesn't like to be on the winning team.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Russia is "winning" Western elections, and who doesn't like to be on the winning team Finland and Sweden voted to join NATO; Europe re-arms. Trump may not be pro-Ukraine, but his energy policy will wreck Russia's oil-dependent pocketbook while his China and Iran strategies will also hurt Moscow. Russia's other potential pillar, arms sales, is having its reputation trashed as the world watches 90s-era Western kit take out its "cutting edge" hardware. Add to that the declining population and it's difficult to see the Russian nation continuing in its present form for more than a few generations. Maybe we'll see an independent Chechnya or even Siberia [1] in our lifetimes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Republic
  - api 2y ago
    If Russia is winning I'd hate to see what losing looks like. Even if they manage to finally take Ukraine it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory in the extreme given the losses they've sustained and how the war has expanded NATO and solidified their opposition. They seem to be pretty successful in sowing discord overseas with their propaganda but it's not getting them much in the long run. Their domestic problems are the biggest thing killing them and hosing the rest of the world down with bullshit won't help them there.
    - yks 2y ago
      Neither Russian elites nor masses care about “Russia doing better”, the fall of the West is the end in itself, presumably it will assert the greatness of Russia and their version of the end of history will ensue, while wealth of the masses or the bleak demographic prospects won’t change a bit.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > the fall of the West is the end in itself Russia's elites don't care about this either. They want to be rich and will support anyone in charge who lets them be.
usrnm 2y ago
Thanks, but no, thanks. We're steal dealing with the results of the last one.
- n4r9 2y ago
  Explain?
  - ciupicri 2y ago
    He's probably referring to the fact that we're still dealing with the effects of communism brought by Vladimir Lenin.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      It's not clear whether "we" means Russia or the rest of the world. But even so, would Russia be better off if the revolution hadn't happened?
      - cryptonector 2y ago
        Clearly u/usrnm meant the world, not Russia, and not the rest of the world, but all of us.
      - piombisallow 2y ago
        Yeah
      - benterix 2y ago
        As all hypothetical questions about the past, it's hard to say. From the PoV of a common citizen, people were as poor before the revolution as after it. Also, the rise of Stalin and WWII add enormous noise to the equation. In any case, the best we can do is to have a look at the countries that adopted Communism (the Eastern bloc) and compare them with their neighbors that didn't (have to). From that perspective, the answer is clear. OTOH, if instead of Stalin Russia had a wise ruler, if instead of a police state it allowed people to explore various ideas and develop them, I bet we could see some very interesting results.
slt2021 2y ago
Alexander Dugin is one intellectual I can think of, but the change he is talking about is not about changing Russian's current course, but rather paving the way forward given the current Russian regime's course. American professor Mearsheimer has interesting interviews with Dugin discussing foreign policy and US-RU relations
- n4r9 2y ago
  I doubt those are the sorts of intellectuals meant in this context! Although interesting how Mearsheiner blames Eastern European countries' NATO membership for the Ukraine war, whilst Dugin has literally called for Russian expansion via conquest since the 90's.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  The author of "Foundations of Geopolitics"? He has essentially engineered the current Russian geopolitical strategy. It is breathtakingly cynical and remarkably effective. Why can't Russia be as good at making their citizens wealthy, happy, and healthy as they are at manipulating politics in other countries and creating fake culture wars to divide and weaken their "enemies" which they seem to think is almost everyone.
  - trilbyglens 2y ago
    Because their culture is deeply broken and built on generational trauma.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - UltraSane 2y ago
      The trauma and warped values goes all the way back to the mongols.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    [flagged]
nabla9 2y ago
It's not the of intellectuals that made Russian revolution happen. Tsar Nicholas II made an unforced error. Russia was in a war (World War I) and 1905 was already a rebellious year in Russia. It was idiocy to keep 100k forcibly conscripted peasants in the capital. His minister warned Nicolas that it was dangerous but he did not listen. Those troops were very unhappy peasants waiting to be sent to their deaths and communists and others had easy time to convince them to do something else than die. Vladimir Putin is unlikely to make the same error.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Vladimir Putin is unlikely to make the same error Putin made almost the exact same mistake with Prighozin.
  - konart 2y ago
    No he did not. Prighozhin was 1000km away from Moscow and was allowed some freedome only thanks to some limited support of a fraction of population, mostly what you'd call "rednecks". One call and he had stopped the theatrics. And was zeroed two months later.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Prighozhin was 1000km away from Moscow and was allowed some freedome only thanks to some limited support of a fraction of population Substitute peasants with prisoners and a straight shot to Moscow versus already in and you've got the same situation. Putin didn't have enough materiel between Moscow and Prighozin to keep the fight from getting to Moscow.
      - cryptonector 2y ago
        So why didn't Putin fall?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
sincerecook 2y ago
What social changes do they need to make? Things are better now for them than they were the last time Westerners went in trying to remold Russia in their own image.
- trilbyglens 2y ago
  The thing is, Russians are deeply uncomfortable with actual democratic openness. Read about the reactions of normal people to watching televised political debates in the 90s. It inspired pure panic, as people had never seen anything but utter certainty from their leaders. Perhaps it's changed a bit now, but I really really doubt it. Russians are genuinely more comfortable with a strongman in charge even if it means they live in shit. At least they are familiar with the shit.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Russians are genuinely more comfortable with a strongman in charge even if it means they live in shit. At least they are familiar with the shit At which point a monarchy makes sense. Dictatorships are unstable. They tie the fate of an immortal nation to the mortal whims and needs of a man. We came up with monarchy as a solution to this problem, and then swept it away when the modern republic was invented. But republics aren't for everyone. Democracy requires compromise, and staring the uncertain and unknowable honestly in the eye. It may be high time that we admit that some populations prefer the certainty of autocracy. And within the domain of autocracy, the time-tested model is heridatory constitutional monarchy.
    - slt2021 2y ago
      Russians were open for open liberal reforms and to become part of the EU and Western world. People were sick of Communist rule and praised US culture. The problem is that US/EU betrayed liebral reforms in Russia with the goal of dismantling the state. USA supported liberal reforms in Central Europe/Warsaw pact countries like Hungary Romania Poland where shock therapy provided transition from communist economy to liberal market economy, and their currency was supported by the IMF/WB/US from severe shocks. US literally lent money to Central European countries to ease their transition and not kill their economies. https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/ky53w3k2273hhecby8hbwls8r9gems https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/ky53w3k2273hhec... According to Jeff Sachs, the author of shock therapy in Poland, the same shock therapy was prescribed to Russia, but no support was provided. Russian liberal reforms were betrayed by USA. Which led to severe currency and economic crisis. Crisis led to garage sale of all state assets and privatization by foreign financial groups (oligarchs), which created a very deep sense of unfairness among Russians. This led to ascencion of Putin as he returned some of that unfairly privatized property from oligarchs
boh 2y ago
Fellow intellectual Lenin started killing them, Stalin finished the job. And no, the country didn't need them then and they don't need them now (see Russian history of the twentieth century for more details). As Stalin has been quoted as saying "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"-- subsequent purges/famines following the revolution resulting in roughly 25% of the Russian population (without even counting WWII casualties) being killed, so it's not exactly a strong sell for "intellectuals sparking social changes".
konart 2y ago
>I wonder where all these Russian intellectuals sparking social changes are now? Their country needs them, the world needs them. Like Lenin? I mean - yeah, he was an intellectual. He was also the one who in his letters and written orders expressed the will to terrorise and kill more people than some can imagine. PS: just trying to point out that people sometimes confuse smart\intellectual people and something magical like "good" people.
tim333 2y ago
Quite a few people arguing for change were murdered/killed. Boris Nemtsov and Alexei Navalny for example. I guess those aren't very intellectual but the intellectuals are probably keeping their heads down to avoid similar fates. Anna Politkovskaya was an anti Putin writer, also killed by poisoning. Kasparov is fairly close. "Although I'm half-Armenian, half-Jewish, I consider myself Russian because Russian is my native tongue, and I grew up with Russian culture." He's written a well reviewed book and not been killed just yet. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Winter-Coming-Vladimir-Enemies-Stopped/dp/1782397892 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Winter-Coming-Vladimir-Enemies-Stop...

piombisallow 2y ago

It didn't go all that well the first time.

cryptonector 2y ago
[flagged]
- MiguelX413 2y ago
  This but unironically

waster 2y ago

Some emigrated or fled; some (if they had leadership aspirations) were killed or imprisoned; and many may be keeping their heads low so as to avoid drawing attention from the current regime. Unfortunately.

morkalork 2y ago
The population has been thoroughly and effectively trained to be apolitical.

yks 2y ago

Russian nationalism/imperialism is a powerful drug that is hard for Russians to unchain their minds from. So even if the intellectuals don't like Putin, Russia becoming a client state of China or wars as such, most of them dislike independent Ukraine even more. Solzhenitsyn, Brodsky, Navalny etc etc. Besides, Russia is "winning" Western elections, and who doesn't like to be on the winning team.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Russia is "winning" Western elections, and who doesn't like to be on the winning team Finland and Sweden voted to join NATO; Europe re-arms. Trump may not be pro-Ukraine, but his energy policy will wreck Russia's oil-dependent pocketbook while his China and Iran strategies will also hurt Moscow. Russia's other potential pillar, arms sales, is having its reputation trashed as the world watches 90s-era Western kit take out its "cutting edge" hardware. Add to that the declining population and it's difficult to see the Russian nation continuing in its present form for more than a few generations. Maybe we'll see an independent Chechnya or even Siberia [1] in our lifetimes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Republic
- api 2y ago
  If Russia is winning I'd hate to see what losing looks like. Even if they manage to finally take Ukraine it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory in the extreme given the losses they've sustained and how the war has expanded NATO and solidified their opposition. They seem to be pretty successful in sowing discord overseas with their propaganda but it's not getting them much in the long run. Their domestic problems are the biggest thing killing them and hosing the rest of the world down with bullshit won't help them there.
  - yks 2y ago
    Neither Russian elites nor masses care about “Russia doing better”, the fall of the West is the end in itself, presumably it will assert the greatness of Russia and their version of the end of history will ensue, while wealth of the masses or the bleak demographic prospects won’t change a bit.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > the fall of the West is the end in itself Russia's elites don't care about this either. They want to be rich and will support anyone in charge who lets them be.

usrnm 2y ago

Thanks, but no, thanks. We're steal dealing with the results of the last one.

n4r9 2y ago
Explain?
- ciupicri 2y ago
  He's probably referring to the fact that we're still dealing with the effects of communism brought by Vladimir Lenin.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    It's not clear whether "we" means Russia or the rest of the world. But even so, would Russia be better off if the revolution hadn't happened?
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      Clearly u/usrnm meant the world, not Russia, and not the rest of the world, but all of us.
    - piombisallow 2y ago
      Yeah
    - benterix 2y ago
      As all hypothetical questions about the past, it's hard to say. From the PoV of a common citizen, people were as poor before the revolution as after it. Also, the rise of Stalin and WWII add enormous noise to the equation. In any case, the best we can do is to have a look at the countries that adopted Communism (the Eastern bloc) and compare them with their neighbors that didn't (have to). From that perspective, the answer is clear. OTOH, if instead of Stalin Russia had a wise ruler, if instead of a police state it allowed people to explore various ideas and develop them, I bet we could see some very interesting results.

slt2021 2y ago

Alexander Dugin is one intellectual I can think of, but the change he is talking about is not about changing Russian's current course, but rather paving the way forward given the current Russian regime's course. American professor Mearsheimer has interesting interviews with Dugin discussing foreign policy and US-RU relations

n4r9 2y ago
I doubt those are the sorts of intellectuals meant in this context! Although interesting how Mearsheiner blames Eastern European countries' NATO membership for the Ukraine war, whilst Dugin has literally called for Russian expansion via conquest since the 90's.
UltraSane 2y ago
The author of "Foundations of Geopolitics"? He has essentially engineered the current Russian geopolitical strategy. It is breathtakingly cynical and remarkably effective. Why can't Russia be as good at making their citizens wealthy, happy, and healthy as they are at manipulating politics in other countries and creating fake culture wars to divide and weaken their "enemies" which they seem to think is almost everyone.
- trilbyglens 2y ago
  Because their culture is deeply broken and built on generational trauma.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    The trauma and warped values goes all the way back to the mongols.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  [flagged]

nabla9 2y ago

It's not the of intellectuals that made Russian revolution happen. Tsar Nicholas II made an unforced error. Russia was in a war (World War I) and 1905 was already a rebellious year in Russia. It was idiocy to keep 100k forcibly conscripted peasants in the capital. His minister warned Nicolas that it was dangerous but he did not listen. Those troops were very unhappy peasants waiting to be sent to their deaths and communists and others had easy time to convince them to do something else than die. Vladimir Putin is unlikely to make the same error.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Vladimir Putin is unlikely to make the same error Putin made almost the exact same mistake with Prighozin.
- konart 2y ago
  No he did not. Prighozhin was 1000km away from Moscow and was allowed some freedome only thanks to some limited support of a fraction of population, mostly what you'd call "rednecks". One call and he had stopped the theatrics. And was zeroed two months later.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Prighozhin was 1000km away from Moscow and was allowed some freedome only thanks to some limited support of a fraction of population Substitute peasants with prisoners and a straight shot to Moscow versus already in and you've got the same situation. Putin didn't have enough materiel between Moscow and Prighozin to keep the fight from getting to Moscow.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      So why didn't Putin fall?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago

sincerecook 2y ago

What social changes do they need to make? Things are better now for them than they were the last time Westerners went in trying to remold Russia in their own image.

trilbyglens 2y ago
The thing is, Russians are deeply uncomfortable with actual democratic openness. Read about the reactions of normal people to watching televised political debates in the 90s. It inspired pure panic, as people had never seen anything but utter certainty from their leaders. Perhaps it's changed a bit now, but I really really doubt it. Russians are genuinely more comfortable with a strongman in charge even if it means they live in shit. At least they are familiar with the shit.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Russians are genuinely more comfortable with a strongman in charge even if it means they live in shit. At least they are familiar with the shit At which point a monarchy makes sense. Dictatorships are unstable. They tie the fate of an immortal nation to the mortal whims and needs of a man. We came up with monarchy as a solution to this problem, and then swept it away when the modern republic was invented. But republics aren't for everyone. Democracy requires compromise, and staring the uncertain and unknowable honestly in the eye. It may be high time that we admit that some populations prefer the certainty of autocracy. And within the domain of autocracy, the time-tested model is heridatory constitutional monarchy.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    Russians were open for open liberal reforms and to become part of the EU and Western world. People were sick of Communist rule and praised US culture. The problem is that US/EU betrayed liebral reforms in Russia with the goal of dismantling the state. USA supported liberal reforms in Central Europe/Warsaw pact countries like Hungary Romania Poland where shock therapy provided transition from communist economy to liberal market economy, and their currency was supported by the IMF/WB/US from severe shocks. US literally lent money to Central European countries to ease their transition and not kill their economies. https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/ky53w3k2273hhecby8hbwls8r9gems https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/ky53w3k2273hhec... According to Jeff Sachs, the author of shock therapy in Poland, the same shock therapy was prescribed to Russia, but no support was provided. Russian liberal reforms were betrayed by USA. Which led to severe currency and economic crisis. Crisis led to garage sale of all state assets and privatization by foreign financial groups (oligarchs), which created a very deep sense of unfairness among Russians. This led to ascencion of Putin as he returned some of that unfairly privatized property from oligarchs

boh 2y ago

Fellow intellectual Lenin started killing them, Stalin finished the job. And no, the country didn't need them then and they don't need them now (see Russian history of the twentieth century for more details). As Stalin has been quoted as saying "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"-- subsequent purges/famines following the revolution resulting in roughly 25% of the Russian population (without even counting WWII casualties) being killed, so it's not exactly a strong sell for "intellectuals sparking social changes".

konart 2y ago

>I wonder where all these Russian intellectuals sparking social changes are now? Their country needs them, the world needs them. Like Lenin? I mean - yeah, he was an intellectual. He was also the one who in his letters and written orders expressed the will to terrorise and kill more people than some can imagine. PS: just trying to point out that people sometimes confuse smart\intellectual people and something magical like "good" people.

tim333 2y ago

Quite a few people arguing for change were murdered/killed. Boris Nemtsov and Alexei Navalny for example. I guess those aren't very intellectual but the intellectuals are probably keeping their heads down to avoid similar fates. Anna Politkovskaya was an anti Putin writer, also killed by poisoning. Kasparov is fairly close. "Although I'm half-Armenian, half-Jewish, I consider myself Russian because Russian is my native tongue, and I grew up with Russian culture." He's written a well reviewed book and not been killed just yet. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Winter-Coming-Vladimir-Enemies-Stopped/dp/1782397892 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Winter-Coming-Vladimir-Enemies-Stop...