2 ms·

In the last 125 years Russia has been through monarchy, liberal communism (Kerensky), dictatorial communism (Lenin, Stalin), bureaucratic communism (Khrushchev

by Animats 10mo ago

In the last 125 years Russia has been through monarchy, liberal communism (Kerensky), dictatorial communism (Lenin, Stalin), bureaucratic communism (Khrushchev to Gorbachev), liberal capitalism, oligarchy, and now dictatorship. None of them worked very well. Whenever there's trouble, Russia's history demands a strong leader. When one arises, the strong leader soon becomes the trouble.

lostlogin 10mo ago
> Whenever there's trouble, Russia's history demands a strong leader. By ‘strong’, do you mean violent dictator? Maybe some of the provinces that are held by force should be allowed self determination. Maybe less violence would then be ‘needed’.
- usrusr 10mo ago
  The problem with that last paragraph is that through almost all those regime changes (I guess the time between the Soviet collapse and Putin's rise may have been an exception), Russia has continued a strategy of systematic displacement for accelerated "russification". Those provinces effectively do not exist, they don't have enough population that identifies with the region more than with the empire. If you force a Tatar to somewhere close to the Chinese border he will be perceived as "Russian" by the indigenous community, and their rejection will eventually make him identify as "Russian" himself, to bond with his peer displacees from other corners of the empire, and with locals who accept the empire. The exact same mechanism works in all directions, e.g. when some of those locals are displaced to somewhere near the Finnish border. The most important weapon of the Russian empire isn't the tank or the AK-47 or hard winters or sheer distance or vast amounts of mineral resources, it's industrial scale deportation for eradication of regional identity.
  - lostlogin 10mo ago
    Thanks for this, I wasn’t aware it continued. Have you any links? Grim.

by Animats 10mo ago

lostlogin 10mo ago

> Whenever there's trouble, Russia's history demands a strong leader. By ‘strong’, do you mean violent dictator? Maybe some of the provinces that are held by force should be allowed self determination. Maybe less violence would then be ‘needed’.

usrusr 10mo ago
The problem with that last paragraph is that through almost all those regime changes (I guess the time between the Soviet collapse and Putin's rise may have been an exception), Russia has continued a strategy of systematic displacement for accelerated "russification". Those provinces effectively do not exist, they don't have enough population that identifies with the region more than with the empire. If you force a Tatar to somewhere close to the Chinese border he will be perceived as "Russian" by the indigenous community, and their rejection will eventually make him identify as "Russian" himself, to bond with his peer displacees from other corners of the empire, and with locals who accept the empire. The exact same mechanism works in all directions, e.g. when some of those locals are displaced to somewhere near the Finnish border. The most important weapon of the Russian empire isn't the tank or the AK-47 or hard winters or sheer distance or vast amounts of mineral resources, it's industrial scale deportation for eradication of regional identity.
- lostlogin 10mo ago
  Thanks for this, I wasn’t aware it continued. Have you any links? Grim.