NationStates Jolt Archive

Ive always thought of Russia as an interesting country, Ive studied its history a bit, read a bit of Russian literature (translated >_>), and generally like its music.
One thing Ive found rather intersting in Russian history is that its worst dicatators were also the ones that made the country the strongest. Look at Peter the Great, ask most Russians of the period (outside of the army, maybe :P), and they would most likely hate his guts. He raised taxes to insane levels, disturbed the nobility and embarked on modernization and construction campaigns on a Stalinistic scale.
Of course, most people on remember the good parts of his reign for some reason, but meh :P
And, of course, there is Stalin. In the 20's, before he purged the officer corps a few times, the Red Army was one of the most modern and well led fighting forces on the planet. It had the largest and most modern air force out there (the I-16 was held in high regard almost everywhere, and perfomed BETTER than German planes in the Spanish Civil War). Of course, a decade later, the Red Army was in such poor shape that FINLAND beat it, but meh :P

And, as a sort of counterpoint, Russia never seems to do well under liberal rule. Tsar Alexander the Second freed the Serfs (a few years before America freed its own slaves, BTW ;)), but also sent Russia on a downward spiral that it didnt recover from until some time later, and got himself blown up for his trouble.
Another example of this would be Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. At first, it did great, the economy soared and the rouble regained a bit of its lost value, but then the Russian Mob took over, the Western investors vanished, and their economy crashed.
Now, of course, Russia is under a less liberal-minded leader, who applies a bit of oppression, but the country works.

I suppose Im saying this:
When its under dictators (or at least, semi-dictators), Russia works. Sometimes people are unhappy, but at least the country works.
When its under a more liberal leadership (even if it is a dictator ;)), the people are free, but they are also generally being invaded/starving/whatever.

Anybody else have an opinion on this?

Just one thing.... Of course, a decade later, the Red Army was in such poor shape that FINLAND beat it, but meh :P


No. The Winter War ended when the Moscow Peace Treaty was signed March 12th. The Finns didn't win- they had to hand over the Karelian Isthmus (over which the thing was supposedly started)

The Soviets...didn't exactly shower themselves in glory that is true, but its misleading to say the Finns beat the Soviets.

Just one thing....

No. The Winter War ended when the Moscow Peace Treaty was signed March 12th. The Finns didn't win- they had to hand over the Karelian Isthmus (over which the thing was supposedly started)

The Soviets...didn't exactly shower themselves in glory that is true, but its misleading to say the Finns beat the Soviets.
Okay, the Soviets only took ~400,000 casualties to the Finns ~85,000, so it was an uber-phyrric victory :P

I suppose Im saying this:
When its under dictators (or at least, semi-dictators), Russia works. Sometimes people are unhappy, but at least the country works.
When its under a more liberal leadership (even if it is a dictator ;)), the people are free, but they are also generally being invaded/starving/whatever.

Anybody else have an opinion on this?

I share your interest in Russian history and literature (ah Dostoyevsky, where would I be without thee?) and, in my opinion, your hypothesis is broadly correct (although several of the historical points are debatable).

Unfortunately, many in the Western world believe that they can photocopy their models of democracy and place them onto any nation, regardless of that nation's particular attributes.

So why cannot democracy be transplanted to Russia? The very simple reason is that few of the majority actually value democracy nor are they taught to do so. Unity is the value that inspires the Russian people, not democracy. It always has done: even Lenin was keen to emphasise that unity must always take precedence over democracy. It should be noted that Stalin (and Stalinism) has a certain degree of popularity in Russia: even the moderates will grudgingly admit that Stalin, though his means were wrong, the ends he produced were good. The other supreme autocrats (Pyotr the Great and, of course, Vladimir Putin) also have a much greater degree of popularity than any of the reforming leaders. Take Mikhail Gorbachev. He is generally received warmly abroad but remains disliked by the Russian people. His various attempts to re-enter Russian politics have failed abysmally.

Another problem is the so called Russian Question: is Russia a European power, a Slavic nation or both? Which one of these aims should it strive towards? Some progress was made on this front during the latter half of the 19th Century but that was reversed by the 1917 Revolution, which turned Russia from a state into a constituent part of the Soviet Union. Now, after emerging from the Cold War, Russians are again able to ask themselves the question: who are we as a nation? West or East? Petersburg or Moscow? It is this cultural uncertainty makes it very difficult to place Western-model democracy on Russia: culturally the Russians are not sure whether they should seek to install a Western model and as such they fail to identify with any such attempts.

So, what do I think? I think it is not the business of the West to impose our democratic model on Russia.

You could apply this to the middle east as well. Iraq under a dictator (Saddam Hussein,) even with the people who died, was better off than the complete chaos it is under now.

I'm not so certain that there is a problem with implementing 'western' style democracy and economics in Russia. The biggest problem with the rise of gangsterism in Russia in the declining Yeltsin years, is the lack of one of the most important elements in Western Democracy; The Rule of Law.

You can't have a functioning democracy or economy when investors are scared away by gangsters or the people are afraid to speak their minds. Rule of Law doesn't merely apply to controlling gangsterism either, it also means that the administration should be answerable to the same set of laws as the people. While Putin has been very sucessful at removing gangsterism and rebuilding Russia, he has most definitely been curtailing politcal freedoms which have made western nations strong. I doubt that the russian people are against the idea of political freedom, they just respect law and order, and don't have a liberal history to fall back on.

The people in Russia weren't necessarily doing well under oppressive governments either; people starved under those administrations as well.

But I'll give you this; Russians love their tyrants.

But I'll give you this; Russians love their tyrants.

I'll go a step further and say that the Americas and Europe and Asia and Africa all seem to love their tyrants too.

So why cannot democracy be transplanted to Russia? The very simple reason is that few of the majority actually value democracy nor are they taught to do so.

Few Americans, FWIW, really value democracy either, nor is the U.S. really all that democratic (to give one Western example). The U.S. is more or less an authoritarian state in which the government does whatever it feels like doing and the people ratify its actions by endorsing one half of it or the other. Shoot, the average American can't even choose the speed at which to drive without risking a substantial fine. (And no, I'm not a "speeder", whatever that is.) We have police sitting alongside highways with radar guns, while murderers and child molesters go free. Yet because of our Constitution, which almost no one alive has ever voted for and which our government follows only part of the time, and because of our elections, which are held between candidates that most of us didn't choose in the first place, our government has the appearance of legitimacy, and most Americans seem willing to do as it says as long as their paychecks clear, as if the Declaration of Independence had never been written....

As far as Russia goes, though, how can anyone not be fascinated by its culture, particularly its literature? There is none better.

Okay, the Soviets only took ~400,000 casualties to the Finns ~85,000, so it was an uber-phyrric victory :P

That's a pretty large overestimate. Most estimates give about a quarter of those figures.

Yeah, I think that the notion behind the Television show Firefly/the movie Serenity had it right. A distant, centralized government should not interfere with other societies and governments just because they can and their rich.

It is not the idea that democracy works and therefore should be pushed all over the world that drives Western leader to constantly criticise Russia, but it's that to Western leaders it LOOKS as though dmocracy works for them, so in an astounding feat of logic it they feel it must work for everyone else.

My point is that the evolution of anything is messy, including nation states. If another gets developed under a dictator or tyrant, libertarian or small c conservative, if they throw their handicapped babies over the edge of cliffs like Spartans or every life is valued like in Canada, who has a right to interfere? What other nation has a right to shove its models down Russia's throat? And if Russia lives its dictators. . .well, the west shouldn't interfere.

I'm not exactly on point here, I suppose, but my girlfriend is in Russia right now, so I thought I'd weigh in. . .

The problems really lie with its history.

Up until the mid-19th century, Russia was culturally more or less identical to the rest of Europe - strong church, strong monarchy, strong military, busy with imperial enterprise, and understanding that commerce needed to be backed by a naval force projection capability. Its universities even traded ideas with the intellectuals of France, which is saying something, for the time. In terms of the "strong ruler idea", even in the embryonic democracy that was Britain, there were over 200 criminal offences that attracted the death penalty, which was often publicly rendered. These included offences such stealing a loaf of bread, which would get you hanged. Even well into the 19th century, this was not uncommon. In Russia, the difference was that an edged weapon would probably be used, but perhaps with less in the way of bureaucracy.

Then it failed to participate in the industrial revolution. And there the histories diverge. While Western Europe industrialised, with the resulting rise of the urban middle classes, banking and legal professions to cater for them, education establishments to cater for their offspring, literacy, advanced political thinking, reforms of the judicial system, etc and amidst it all, a redistribution of political and economic power... Russia remained a nation in which 90% of the population were peasants.

And so by the time of WW1, Western Europe was well-equipped to become stable, safe nations held together by shared social values alone, while the only way to manage Russia was by decree. The two revolutions of 1917 changed the government, but not the culture. For that, Russia had needed to participate in the industrial revolution, and it missed its chance.

Thus the brutal industrialisation of Russia during the 1920s-1950s was an attempt to meet the goals that the other European powers had achieved gradually over the course of nearly a century. However, in meeting the industrial/economic goals in a compressed time frame, Russia missed the benefits that came with the path taken. The social and cultural achievements of the rest of Europe came about as a result of the different processes which took place as a result of the gradual evolution of industrialisation, rather than the pursuit of a programme. Thus Russia caught up in one area, but in catching up, it missed out on another equally important area.

Yet again, it all came crumbling down.

So today when we look at Russia, we see what happens when people place arrival at a destination ahead of the journey.

It is also a lesson in screwing with the developing world. You can try to force one nation to achieve in one generation, something that took you four generations, but do not be surprised when it explodes in your face. Taking the long slow path to liberal democracy is the key to getting there. Take a shortcut, and you will deservedly bleed.

EDIT: And yes, I am ex-Russian.