The General Russia Thread

Do they even have something to harvest?

Wake me up at your own risk.

More than anyone else.

Edited by Smeagol17 on Mar 27th 2024 at 8:55:47 PM

So what would it actually take to fix Russia into a functional country that didn't keep trying to invade its slavic neighbors and treated its people moderately well?

I don't know precisely what's wrong with that nation that cause it to collapse into evil totalitarian dictatorships over and over again, but we don't need to understand why to recognize the pattern. We might need to understand in order to fix it, though.

Would it be anything more than removing the corrupt oligarchs, reducing corruption in general and having a functional democracy that doesn't also have the bad luck of coinciding with a period of economic misery for Russians? After all, the last 2 times they went from a dictatorship to a democracy was the provisional govt during WW 1 when the war was still going and the second time was during the 90s both of which were a terrible period for Russians. Though I don't think that will completely resolve the issue of hypernationalism and jingoism either. And for that matter, how would other nations impose said changes on Russia anyway.

I think a society needs a certain level of trust, both in itself and in its government, before a democracy can work. Expecting Russia to transition into a democracy in the '90s was clearly foolish on our part, just as expecting it to develop a working free-ish market economy after being communist for so long was foolish.

With so many of the intelligensia fleeing Russia over the war and becoming refugees... would they even want to come back if they had the opportunity?

I suspect that, in addition to cleaning house within its government systems, you'd also have to break the country up. The power disparity between Moscow-St.Petersburg and everything else is just too great. It makes it too easy to just suck out resources from those other areas to feed the capital area, basically rewarding an imperialist mindset.

How did Russia manage to unite both sides of the Ural mountains in the first place, considering the vast inequality between the two?

Edited by RAlexa21th on Mar 27th 2024 at 11:31:29 AM

Where there's life, there's hope.

The trouble with that is most of the country's infrastructure was built centered around those two cities. Building a new railway isn't cheap, but the existing railways and highways only reinforce that warped power dynamic . It's the same issue in most decolonized countries, really

Edited by Xopher001 on Mar 27th 2024 at 11:32:02 AM

Most of Russia territories are treated as colonies, especially those more on the eastern side. Kept poor and made to deliver all the resources to fuel the overlords in the western side, especially those in the capital.

I will become a great writer one day! Hopefully...

By having no other European power care enough to stake a rival claim.

Yeah, a lot of people tend to forget that Russia's pretty much the last colonial empire standing - because most of their colonisation was done to their next-door neighbours.

Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.

I believe it's already been said that Russia is not an imperialist construction in one very crucial aspect: The Kremlin spreads around the wealth from natural resources etc. to the provinces in order to keep local elites in line. I believe that a while ago there was a budget posted showing this. Split the country apart and suddenly a lot of people will have less money. Nevermind the effects that breaking up infrastructure, multiprovince links etc. will have. There is a reason why the economies of the former Soviet republics crashed and burned when the Soviet Union broke up, and also why there is not currently much separatist sentiment in any part of Russia.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

The question is how much of that money actually gets invested in improving the locals' lives and doesn't just disappear into the elites' pockets.

Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.

Though you gotta remember it broke up in large part because their economy was already not doing well.

Yeah, I somehow doubt the local elites are any less corrupt than...damn near all of the Russian state institutions.

Edited by M84 on Mar 28th 2024 at 6:53:25 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

True, but there is clear evidence that things got much worse. Jumping from a frying pan into a fire isn't pleasant most of the time. And I don't think that corruption and embezzlement will magically become less after a breakup - the corrupt elites tend to stick around, after all.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

It's more like the frying pan was already rusting away due to being made cheaply so that elites could pocket more cash.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Multiple Central Asian countries backed the coup attempt in 1991 probably because they had a suspition that their economy and society would take a large downturn if they suddenly become independent. Most of the money the SU had came from Russia and Azerbaijan.

Uh, the sun still doesn't set on the British Empire

I don't think that you stip being imperialist just because your colonies aren't profitable.

Edited by minseok42 on Mar 28th 2024 at 9:12:14 AM

"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory Doctorow

"Countries" is not the best term in this case for several reasons, but their elites did mostly back the coup (not mainly against the dissolution, at the time, but partly against the New Union Treaty with greater authonomy (and less or no common union taxes)). If we are talking about the public, most support of the coup was in places like Estonia and Transnistia.

Edited by Smeagol17 on Mar 28th 2024 at 7:51:42 PM

Specifically the Russian-majority parts of Estonia, as the Baltic SSRs had all but declared independence (and boycotted the New Union Treaty referendum) by this point.

Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)

Yes, of course.

Edited by Smeagol17 on Mar 28th 2024 at 7:44:41 PM

I don't think that you stip being imperialist just because your colonies aren't profitable.

It ain't a question of intentions. It's a question of whether the subjects, so to speak, have more to win or lose, economically, by being members of the empires vs not being members of the empires.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Economically, subjects usually have something to gain from being part of an empire. It's why imperialism works at all. The problem is politically.

Edited by Kayeka on Mar 28th 2024 at 9:10:42 AM