The General Russia Thread

When it came to building the Trans-Siberian Railway, why did it have to start in Moscow? Considering it was built during the last three decades of Tsarist Russia, shouldn't it have started in Saint Petersburg?

Moscow was still a very important (and probably the biggest) city at the time. It's also located further in the Eastward direction than St. Petersburg is, and the railway connecting the two cities already existed (in fact, it was the first ever railway built in the Russian Empire).

edited 30th Apr '18 1:34:18 AM by Millership

How big a risk is there of Russia actually trying to take the former Soviet states (Estonia, Belarus, etc.) back by force?

Aren't they doing that now?

Just covertly?

Like it's fucking Splinter Cell?

There's probably not a risk. Which is to say a 30% chance, give or take a little. They can't provoke NATO too much, but they're happily prodding at border states with various hybrid warfare techniques. It's as much about weakening us as it is reclaiming territory.

Even if they do step up their game, it won't be an outright invasion and taking of territory. It'll be little green men and pro-Russia revolutionary movements.

Annexations of entire countries isn’t realy a thing anymore, Saddam tried it and it didn’t end well for him, the international norm has shifted to much and the proliferation of both information and weapons makes insurgency a giant pain in the ass.

You might see a hostile invasion that puts in place a Russia-friend government, but the Baltic’s are the least likely to experience that, it’s more likely in Georgia or Ukraine, though I’d say that the Russian military isn’t built for the kind of long term occupation needed for that.

The last successful forceful annexation was Tibet and that’s still giving the Chinese issues to this day, it’s just a thing anymore to annex another country.

Uh, what about Crimea?

Crimea isn't an entire country so it doesn't contradict their argument.

Don’t forget that Crimea is still officially disputed and Russia’s political control over it can be tenuous at times.

Yeah Crimea isn’t a whole country, I could totally see Russian annexing say a section of Georgia with a Russian minority, if it wasn’t for NATO I could see them annexing the bits of Estonia with a Russian minority.

But there’s a big difference between adjusting borders and strat up wiping a country out, a country being smaller than it used to be is still there, it still exists in the international arena, but full annexation leaves a hole, that country is gone, there’s an empty seat at the UN, there are diplomats without a home to go back to, ect...

Since this question seems more appropriate to ask here than in the US Politics thread...

What did Putin do to convert Russia into a dictatorship under his rule, what lets him run for President as often as he likes, and what about Russia's constitution made it vulnerable to that?

Russia was already at risk of it, that’s part of why Putin was able to do what he did, Russian was still dealing with authoritarianism from the USSR.

Russia’s constitution specifies consecutive terms, not total terms, so for a while he just switched to being Prime Minister when his term was up. I believe that term limits may have been recently repealed.

Of course, the real story is that Putin has deep ties to the military intelligence complex, which is incredibly powerful in Russia, and struck an off-the-books bargain with the oligarchs and crime families during his first term that ended in them promising him their support in exchange for a blind eye.

Bluntly, because no one really wanted him gone.

He was at the bargaining table and happy to work with the system.

Like China.

William Browder was briefly detained on a supposed Russian-based warrant on Interpol.

Interpol told the Spanish National Police to release him since the warrant isn't valid at all.

So Trump's stupidity is pushing Merkel into Putin's arms. Not literally of course (boy that's an image I did not want in my head), but because the Orange One is so volatile, she feels the need to hedge her bets, and thus deal with Putin on functional terms.

I expect some short term gains on longstanding issues, like the Nord Stream and so on. Medium term, maybe some detente over the Ukraine thing, given how much of a money sieve Kiev is. Long term, no real change, just less temperature.

I doubt it’ll happen. Pressure from NATO is still a thing, no matter what Trump does, and the Germans aren’t dumb enough to try and deal with Putin straight up.

I wouldn't take NATO pressure as a given these days.

Besides, Merkel isn't just any European leader. If she manages to get Germany and Russia into a working, transactional relationship as existed prior to Crimea, you won't get much crap about it from Western Europe (again, mostly due to bet hedging and Kiev not panning out all that well economically). Eastern Europe would be (if they aren't already) livid though. Estonia in particular has been trying to kill Nord Stream.

NATO pressure is worth more than you think. This is especially true for Germany, which has historically been closely involved with NATO.

At best they'll get Nordstream. There isn't going to be a proper diplomatic thaw any time soon, not with Putin in power at least.

Oh no one said anything about a proper thaw. I just think they'll not be ignoring each other anymore. The only voices asking them to at this point are themselves shaky on the whole democratic values thing.

I think it’ll still be pretty much frozen, at least until Putin is gone. His name is all but mud in western politics, I can’t see any of the European leaders approaching him on anything resembling functional terms.

That would be a radical geopolitical realignment, and what’s going on in the US just isn’t severe enough to force Europe to that point.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 18th 2018 at 9:41:43 AM

No political leader in Europe would deal with Putin, because he isn't trustworthy AT ALL, but especially not Merkel. She dislikes him on a personal level in addition to the multiple reasons to keep Russia currently at arm's length.

Not to mention that Trump's verbal attack on Germany are annoying and his attack on EU trade a problem, but they are nothing compared to Putin stroking unrest in our very country. It's not just the US and the UK where Russian bots stir up trouble, those are just the countries where he is the most successful. In Germany specifically there was during the last election a group which made advertising which weren't specifically for the Af D, but had the same talking points, thus side-stepping campaign finance rules. And the backing for this group came from, you might have guessed it, Russia.

Russia had the chance to have a good relationship with Germany. They blew it. It won't be anything more than a cordial "leave us alone and we will leave you alone" relationship anytime soon.

Her meeting one on one with him seems to disagree with that. She may not like the man, but she's pragmatic, and wants Nord Stream (among other things). And leaving each other alone is still a step up from this pseudo-cold war that the Baltics and Poland want.

Oh, naturally she will meet with him. But this has nothing to do with trust or even remotely an attempt to ally with Russia. I don't think that the EU will ally with either Russia or China anytime soon, and it will move further away from the US in the future. But it will also be careful to have dealings with everyone, because that is the way of the EU..forging close trade relationships in order to secure the peace.

There’s no chance at trust while Putin is still in power. Frankly the best thing Russia could do is get rid of him, as he’s the real driving force behind the “new Cold War” everyone is worried about.

Interestingly, even though Europe seems to be moving away from the US in broad strokes the political chaos actually seems to be solidifying the behind-the-scenes relationships. I believe that the issues with the upper levels in the US is pushing the establishment to pursue more direct ties that can’t be easily broken by mercurial leadership.