The General Russia Thread

I will say that Russian liberals exist generally. For example, in the 1820's or so there was The Decemberist Revolt which to my understanding was trying to turn Russia into a liberal regime ala the United States.

It's not like democracy is a complete unknown to them and that nobody wants it, there just hasn't been the right opportunity yet.

Though the Russian liberals in the early twentieth century were very right leaning from what I read. Like the kadets supported Kornilov's military coup against Kerensky and when reading that I initially thought they were conservatives, before being surprised to learn they were supposed to be liberals and thinking what kind of liberals support a conservative military coup in their own country against a democratic govt (however disfunctional) that came into being right after overthrowing the autocratic monarch?

Edited by xyzt on Mar 28th 2024 at 10:34:49 PM

You should keep in mind that this was in the middle of a war. And also it is not unusual for liberals to back coups when they fear the takeover of the government by the forces they dislike more.

Edited by Smeagol17 on Mar 29th 2024 at 12:04:10 PM

Agreed. Kerensky and the rest could have avoided a LOT of problems by exiting a war unnecessarily killing millions of Russians. A government not willing to do this in spite of being able to is not exactly liberal either.

Edited by LordforlornII on Mar 29th 2024 at 1:39:57 AM

Granted, "didn't get out of the war when they should have" is just World War I in a nutshell (and German war aims in the east were incredibly harsh towards Russia, which didn't really incentivise people to quit).

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Mar 29th 2024 at 9:47:36 AM

when people talk about german and japan, it seen like they suddenly sprut their democratic and liberal thought from nothing one moring, specially after WW 2 and they werent...you know, invade and to some extent form a new goverment almost at gun point(and of course letting some funny thing like US and URSS grabbing some nazis scientist because the best nazi is the smart one it look like).

The real question here right now is "How the war is shaping russia sociaty" after all is the first big war between state in quite a long time and russia have lose QUITE a lot of people. This should damage putin regime...right?.

Well.....kinda, kinda not?

Like, Zalunski was surprised how Russia could enlist people even after all this casualties and it clear in part is because Russia send his minorities to fight and try to obscure the view of the war as far as it can, in fact the war have serve him to press the grip in Russia harder as doing laws to punish free expresion and even some right now in russia right want anti inmigratory laws and establish death penalty.

So while the war is weaken Russia, it not yet weaking Putin that much and it boosting the Z party(that mean the most fanatic, pro war people who actually give a shit) while most of Russia seen to be in this sort of apathicness and "I dont want putin to target me"

So, Sure change can only come from Russia, but we wont expect much of that.

We've had these sorts of conversations before in this thread. At various times, I've discussed reform in Russia with native-born Russians who used to post here. For example:

Beholderess and I discussing economic reform ""How exactly one is going to explain from a random guy in industrial city - and can one guarantee it, too - that the factory he works at won't change hands, be closed down or converted into a shopping mall as it is more "profitable"? Or that mass firings won't follow?"

Me and Emuran on Russian corruption: "Who cares? Why is this even an issue? I would think that the main focus for Russians right now are problems within Russia. You ever fix your shit, you will easily be our equal, and more power to you. But as long as you dont, you will always fall short. What America thinks of you, what the EU thinks of you, what the Western media thinks of you, what anybody thinks of you, really doesnt matter. What do you think of you? There's the key to your future."

Me responding to an article posted by Septimusheap: "The problem with that article's conclusion is the idea that an authoritarian regime could be stable in the long term without militaristic expansion. What history has shown us is that, for all their faults, liberal democracies are more economically more efficient in the long run than authoritarian ones are, and deliver higher quality of life for their residents (current crisis notwithstanding)."

With all respect to liberal democracies, that history is pretty short. (Also, most authoritarian states (aka most states in the world) are "stable" without expansion.)

Edited by Smeagol17 on Mar 30th 2024 at 8:13:57 PM

“most authoritarian states (aka most states in the world)”

What definition of authoritarian are we using here to include “most states in the world”?

Eh, depends what you think of "hybrid regimes", but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#By_regime_type

(Adjusts glasses)Ukraine and Mexico are listed as “hybrid regimes”.

Well, even if only half of them are more authoritharian than democratic, this still would mean there are more authoritharian countries than democratic ones by this definition. (Note that Russia was considered a "hybrid regime" till 2010).

Ah, yes, if the second half goes to democracies, you are right. (On the other hand, this would bring the average stability and economic success of democracies down, if I see who will be added correctly).

(I regarded the “hybrid regimes” more like euphemism for “flawed autocracies”). See: Modern scholarly analysis of hybrid regimes focuses attention on the decorative nature of democratic institutions (elections do not lead to a change of power, different media broadcast the government point of view and the opposition in parliament votes the same way as the ruling party, among others), from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes. Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.

Edited by Smeagol17 on Mar 30th 2024 at 8:47:36 PM

If half of the hybrid (17) is more democratic then authoritarian, then there would be less authoritarian states by combining that half with the other 74. 59 authoritarian states plus 17 equals 76 while 74 combined democracies plus 17 equals 91. (Hypothetically.)

If you exclude the category of hybrid regimes, Full and Flawed democracies number 74 states combined while authoritarian regimes number 59.

An authoritarian state in one in which a majority of the population has no institutional way to express their interests or resolve conflicts with other interest groups within the population.

Though I assume we are not including flawed democracies and hybrid regimes in the category of liberal democracies when making the statement of "liberal democracies are more economically efficient than authoritarian ones" right, because many third world democracies are hugely corrupt and have many cases of serious economic mismanagement causing financial crises like Sri Lanka. Their chances of success with regards economic efficiency and higher standard of living is pretty much around the same level as authoritarian regimes

While there will be individual exceptions, we're talking averages here. Also depends on the type of flaw. Sri Lanka has been described as a flawed democracy, although it lately seems to be improving.

I am talking about averages as well. If we are limiting liberal democracies to just first world liberal democracies then they are indeed economically efficient and provide a higher standard of living to their people, but with all due respect to third world democracies, with the issues of significant corruption, crime (some of which are even committed and sponsored by politicians) and economic mismanagement, I wouldn't call flawed democracies like mine in general to be any more economically efficient or providing a high standards of living to it's people compared to authoritarian regimes on average.

There are different types of flawed democracies, but I think most of them can be classified as moving more toward the authoritarian end of the spectrum. "Democracy to Autocracy" probably shouldn't be seen as a binary, but as a collection of features and processes which collectively hold officials accountable to the public. Any of these could be absent or weakening, in any combination, though some forms are probably more common than others. As a nation moves closer to that end, less and less national wealth is available to the public, and the economy pays more and more "rent" to the elites.

Earlier you all mentioned Russia joining NATO.

As ludicrous as this is, who exactly is NATO supposed to be defensive against if not Russia? China?

Pretty much, yeah, though I imagine if Russia were taken off the board like that, a lot of members would reconsider their membership.

It's worth noting that Putin has complained about not being invited to NATO before - only for NATO to point out that you apply for the alliance, you don't get special invitations.

Heck, NATO was kinda in decline before Putin ramped up the imperialism, reminding everyone why NATO was a thing in the first place.

Also joining NATO means answering to NATO rules.

No offense but when has Russia ever answered well to demands from the west? Russia doesn’t seem to WANT to cooperate with the west. The last thing they are gonna wanna do is sit at the same table as the evil United States.

The Concert of Europe in the 19th century, the Entente of World War I in the 20th...

Russia is not inherently hostile to the West. It's still a part of Europe and has, many times in it's history, tried to revamp itself with other European technology and ideas, as one Peter the Great would demonstrate with trying to make St. Petersburg.

In fact, I'd like to ask: what would be the problem with "NATO rules", beyond being from NATO, a cooperative organization?

Edited by fredhot16 on Mar 31st 2024 at 11:08:31 AM

I meant modern Russia post WW 1, but the Entente is a good example for sure. Missed that.

I guess a rule for starters is not bullying your neighbors with armed force?

Oh NATO countries did bully other countries with armed force, they just don't bulky each other. For example, Turkey's attacks on the Kurds