I do not believe that Putin's regime is fascist, I just used the term Ruscism due to its growing usage.
"Russkiy mir"-ism is probably more appropiate.
AHC: Make Russian an accepted part of the west.
- Thread starter AllthetTropesMan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia democracy
"Russkiy mir"-ism is probably more appropiate.
Precisely. We must keep in mind the last Russian czar was the grandchild of the British Queen, by definition the pinnacle of British society. They were part of the same system.
When Revolution came (derived from an European ideology), Russia indeed diverged, became too big and different, the "other".
The perception of already westernizaed Europe, to be exact. I think the main takeaway from this whole discussion is that being part of "the west" in reality is less about the genealogy of a nation's culture and more related to whether or not it plays by the same political assumptions as the official "club," for lack of a better term. This raises the question though: even if a nation doesn't stop being western just because it descends into tyranny or civil war, does it cease to be conventionally western once it is fought over by major powers? A poster early on compared Russia's perception in the 19th century to that of Spain and Portugal at the same time, with both Spain and Russia later falling to Red-White civil wars that the major players as well as private volunteers would use as a battleground to take advantage of. This is not the same kind of manuevering that took place in pre- unification Germany; there the involvement of the German states came from the political clout of the HRE, the Habsburgs and the rising German states in the north. Here however, the civil wars were fought as asymmetric conflicts similar to the ones the west has historically instigated in the developing world, with the fighting between revolutionaries and a reactionary land force serving as training grounds for future ideological wars. If we go with the notion that a state can case to be western, either through changing of politics or changing of culture, what are the criteria by which it could rejoin the west?
Thank you! I'm gald my points make sense to another person on this thread.
In this case, we're deliberately choosing to give a political conotation to the term. It's definitely not the only meaning possible.
Europe is a very cohese geography, same religion, similar languages, a shared culture in way Africa or Asia aren't. If Europe hadn't conquered entire continents (northern half of Asia, Americas, Oceania) we didn't need to have such a word ('West') to refer to this expanded European world. We would simply say "Europe".
Ok, and thanks for making me discover a New word!
Yeah, it's often overlooked that actually Marxism is a western ideology, just like 'modern' Liberalism.
No need to thank me! I find your ideas very interesting and your way of writing very clear!
I think that it might have been possible for Russia to be, with a post-1991 POD, at least as Westernized as Turkey. For that to happen, I think you would need to somehow contrive a Ukrainian consensus in favour of independence from Russia, with at least a strong leaning towards the West, and for a non-neglected Ukrainian military capable of deterring Russia. In that scenario, I think most plausible Russian leader would not want to risk a major war; the lack of an opportunity would change things.
Russia is really just a corrupt democracy. I wouldn't even call it a dictatorship. It's built on coalitions and appeasing oligarchs.
Also, the main opponents of Putin are batshit insane communists who want to the destroy the west. The "Liberals" are also fascists. Navalny for example wanted to nuke Georgia. Liberalism in Russia means something entirely different.
Up until recently Putin has tried to cooperate with the west as much as possible.
Probably the relevant question is why anybody should care about their opinion?
Same reason US and UK tolerate the theocracy that is Saudi Arabia in exchange for a steady flow of oil. In both cases, the nation or multinational entity has the clout and economic resources to make others take notice.
“Tolerance” in this context somewhat assumes that there is one-sided dependency. In the case in question it is not and the only practical meaning of the whole charade is that this is a way to say “you do not belong to our club”. What if a “recipient” does not really care about being a part of that club finding it unattractive and opting for a different one?
This being said, the whole discussion went well beyond definition of this forum and starts stinking of the current policy so perhaps it is time either to get back to pre-1900 or to stop.
You may be right. If CalBear or another moderator steps in would not be surprised. As for "opting for a different club," that was the whole purpose behind COMECON and to a lesser the modern day CIS; the idea is that Russia could build its own economic block rather than play by NATO's book. It's the same reason pan-Arabism once held a serious place in Middle Eastern politics to the point where Nasser was asked to test the idea with a unified Egypt-Syria.
I understood that the point was to "fix" Russia, not Ukraine. And there is no reason why they would decide to put so much effort into deterrence anyway. This leaves out that "deterrence" only works as long as the other side doesn't decide that they are going to attack you anyway because they are not impressed by your "deterrence" or because they believe that the benefits of attacking you outweigh the benefits of not doing so.
Just wondering, as a thought exercise - while it was important to defeat the Mongols and end their occupation of what would ultimately become Russia, part of me wonders what would happen if, say, the Novgorod Republic was still alive and kicking (which would probably necessitate a somewhat more fragmented *Russia in at least 3 parts, of which the Grand Duchy of Moscow would occupy the central bit along with something else in southern Russia (outside of the Caucasus). Would that have been easier towards accepting *Russia (as a cultural region rather than a single polity) as part of the West? Certainly parts like Novgorod would have an easier time than others due to its connections with the Hanseatic League.
As a longtime hater of Whiggery and someone who hews a lot closer to your line on geopolitics than others ITT... no need to be a shmuck about it
Correction: The "connections with the Hanseatic League" were limited to Novgorod being used as a sort of Hanseatic coaling station. A port of call where only low-level material is obtained and that was never a priority compared to other centers.
insanely rude
are you going for the alternate history discussion bingo? 😝