Senate Russia: its impact on the world, its invasion of Ukraine, and its future

Given the fact the Provisional Government only had around a year to implement their reform, with the constant undermining by the Bolsheviks, I don't think it's hard to imagine, at least hypothetically, that without the events in November they may have been able to redirect Russia toward Europe. Then again there have been moments in Russian history where there was an opportunity to reform only to have it scuttled by another force from within Russia.

 

How many revolutions have ended up satisfactory in the past? Seems more rare than the opposite to me.

 

Eh, depends what you classify as a revolution. Revolutions by their nature are always susceptible to failure and disaster.

 

That's my point.

 

Yes, couple months ago.

Which is fairly recent, to me.

And, as for the Bolsheviks, I still say they totally screwed up that whole place. That's why its like this now. People fighting each other and stuff. Russians, Ukrainians, etc, were deprived of normal development, as nations, by this plague.

 

And I don't think it's a good point. Whether or not most revolutions fail is irrelevant, given that all modern states are, one way or another, the product of successful revolutions. When you consider that the revolutions that succeed are the ones which retain the basic structure of the state and society, the Russian Republic would have been a good candidate for being a successful reformer of Russian society (and that the Bolsheviks overturning the apple cart entirely was a bad move).

 

We have different metrics of success. By your measure, the Islamic revolution of 1979 was a successful revolution, as Iran still remains as the same territorial entity in the same place, governing the same state and society of people. However, if your metric is whether it addressed the grievances that spawned it in the first place, it is a failure. As are most tumultuous upheavals. In many of the instances where they are considered successful, it's a matter of redemption in hindsight, occurring years or decades after the initial upheaval, in which case one might wonder how much one can credit the revolution at all.

If Russia becomes a more open and liberal democracy tomorrow, reaching its people's highest aspirations of governance, can we really credit an event that happened 100 years ago with that achievement?

 

Know what Lenin called his Revolution? A "Great Experiment" on Russia. All my ancestors were a bunch of bloody guinea pigs for that bastard!

Well, the "Experiment" failed. Planned economy failed. By late 1980s, shops were empty, the whole Union was running out of food! That system could never succeed IMHO

Maybe if there was something like what Deng Xiaoping introduced in China: Commie government + market economy. That seems to work for the Chinese, thus far. Maybe could have worked in USSR. But, USSR didn't have a Deng Xiaoping. USSR had the idiot clown Gorby. So, things unraveled as they did.

Anyway, Putin wants to strip citizenship from terrorists: Putin Announces Plan to Strip Terrorist Fighters of Russian Citizenship

 

but I was under the impression that Gorbachev helped Russia transition from the collapsing old Communist system into - well whatever they call their modern politics in Russia .

 

Gorbachev didn't do anything, other than lick the arse of the West and watch, haplessly, as the Union disintegrated. All his policies were a disaster. Glasnost let out nationalists, Islamists, and all kinds of other radicals out of every hole in every Republic, tearing apart the fabric of Soviet society, turning people against sach other. Ethnic strife and conflicts began, Georgians vs Ossetians and Abkhazs; Azeris vs Armenians; Uzbeks vs Kyrgyzs (and pogroms on Meskheti Turks and others); trouble in Chechnya already started in late 80s too. Crimea also, nationalists, Russian vs Ukrainian AND vs Crimean Tatars, who began to return from exile then.

Dry law, the moron tried to ban alcohol, ban vodka, in fn Russia, how stupid do you have to be to do that??? Led to a huge black market, the growth of organized crime, the mob. Much like Prohibition in the US. But Gorby never read a book in his life, including a history book lol

Perestroika... I don't even know what he was trying to do there, but it was the final nail in the coffin of the Union...

 

I think that metric of success gets into the area of being incredibly subjective. Revolutions are usually caused by various grievances some being more important to certain groups than others. What some might consider being a success in solving the issue some might consider to not be a success. I'm sure the Iranian Revolution of 1979 is considered by many religious conservatives who were unhappy with the Shah's 'westernisation' of Iran to be successful. As such I consider any revolution which changes the system in a 'permanent' way and initiates at least partial reforms to the stated goals of the revolution to be successful. But since you brought it up I'll use your metric.

Urgh, no, since I think it's pretty obvious the chain of causality has been broken between February 1917 Revolution and now. If, however, the October Revolution had not occurred, the Russian Republic struggled through the next, say, 50 years of reform, and then started to show signs of being a full mode European democracy, then perhaps it would be accurate to say the February Revolution caused the achievement.

The fundamental question is whether Russia have moved in a more liberal direction had it not been for the Bolsheviks. I think it's highly possible.

Gorbachev inherited a failing Union. Short of keeping the whole thing repressive the nationalism was inevitable since the Soviet Union was not a nation-state.

 

I can tell you this: WWII probably wouldn't have happened. Stalin ORDERED German Communists not to oppose Hitler, helping him come to power. Stalin signed tbe Molotov Ribbentrop Pact with the Nazis. Supplied them weapons, fuel, materials, allowed their pilots and tank crews to train in Soviet Union. Helped build Hitler's war machine, in other words. Divided up Poland with him.

Stalin wanted to use Hitler to gain control of Europe. It backfired like hell on him, of course. But, not the point. Without the Commies, no WWII. Fact.

 

That's a fair criticism, but then again, historical narrative is very subjective. The only objective part are the events themselves, but the events themselves mean nothing in isolation. What makes them historical is their significance, and their significance must always be interpreted by the one looking at it.

The flaw with this point of view is that it makes for a binary and tendentious reading devoid of nuance. Something is absolutely true to the fullest extent, until it is suddenly untrue. The revolution is considered a success at all times, any time, no matter how many protests and coup attempts, because the coups keep failing, until one day one of them doesn't fail, at which time the revolution was always a failure because, after all, it wasn't permanent, even though it lasted two centuries.

 

The revolution didn't fail. The political system it advocated is what eventually failed.

 

I'm talking about a general hypothetical revolution now for the sake of argument, but okay.

My point is that, to my impression, political change by way of suddenly uprooting structures of government rarely give the desired results. Revolutions are by their nature volatile and fragile affairs, and as such hard to manage to a satisfactory conclusion.

 

Mildly off the Russia topic but germane to the idea of Revolutions.

Up until the last attempted Coup in Turkey, the military would regularly perform a coup when it felt that the government was becoming less secular and more religious in order to keep the nation in line. Up until recently it worked out decently well.

 

The communists had very little to do with Hitler coming to power. At no point where they in a position to hold much influence, and the only way in which they helped make the situation easier for Hitler was by the nature of KPD and NSDAP together holding so many seats in parliament that basically everything could be sabotaged. But at that point democracy was on its knees anyway, and even many of the parties that formed governments weren't really pro-republic. There was never any active act by the communists to help Hitler, in fact, they opposed him the entire time. It's just that they also opposed pretty much everyone else, thus indirectly helping anyone who was anti-democratic. Still, they weren't what brought Hitler to power.

The Soviets didn't supply Germany with weapons either. Germany supplied machines, coal and a limited amount of weapons-techs to the Soviet Union in return for resources. They didn't allow pilots or tank crews to be trained either. There was such a program, but that preceeded the Nazis. It ran from 1929 to 1933, when it was cancelled by the Nazis after coming to power.

The only time Stalin ordered the communists to stay quite, was during the time the pact was in effect, which was from late August 1939 to June 1941. Stalin was an opportunists, and he only made a deal with Hitler because he couldn't get a deal done with the allies. He had despised Hitler early on, and wanted to help Czechoslovakia in the Sudeten-crisis, but with Poland refusing them access, and France and Britain not being interested in letting another war happen, there was nothing that could be done. With talks breaking down in early 1939, making a pact with Germany was seen as the best way to gain time. If Germany had its focus elsewhere, the Soviet Union could re-arm in the meantime. If Germany had taken Poland and then got stuck in the west, Stalin may have back-stabbed Germany at some point, but only then. Again, he was an opportunist. If there was an easy target he could take advantage of, he would do so, but he wouldn't take any risks by attacking someone who was still in a good position.

It's also wrong to suggest that WW2 wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the communists. There is little reason to assume that Hitler wouldn't have come to power, and his plans to go to war didn't depend on a deal with the Soviet Union. His plans had existed for a long time, though the focus on where to strike first wasn't always clear.

Not that the communists didn't screw up the country badly, they very much did. And the temporary agreement with the Nazis didn't make things any better. While they weren't as aggressive as the Nazis, they were still rather similar in their war-mongering. Splitting up Poland, invading Finland, taking land from Romania, taking over the Baltic states, they were very fortunate that the Allied propaganda never really targeted them. First because antagonizing them would have been a bad idea while already being involved in a war with Germany, and later on because they shared a common enemy.

 

Well, Vivec, I'm not sure Russia being moved to something comparable with Croatia-Slavonia or Austria-Hungary is that radical a proposition...

 

True, although it is possible to apply a more objective criteria to these things. Otherwise no revolution would be even close to universally deemed as being successful - not even the one most regarded as successful, the American Revolution.

Yeah, I didn't actually mean permanent, which is why I used air quotes, I just couldn't think of a more accurate description. What I meant was that the revolution displaces the old system fully (no insurgents left fighting which disrupt its governance to any real extent) and the revolutionaries thus become the conservatives. For instance the Soviet upheaval in the early 90's was not a counterrevolution and was displacing the successful 1917 revolution.

 

‘Don’t You Dare Insult Russia Again!” Moscow's UN Rep Screams in New York

Damn! He also, you have to know Russian language to understand this, but, he uses the word "ty" instead of "vy" for "you". "Vy" is a way to refer to "you" either for multiple people, a plural "you", or, a respectable form of "you", the way to say "you" to someone of equal or higher status, someone older, or, frankly, in polite circles, to any stranger, really. "Ty" is used for someone of own age whom you know personally, or if you are addressing, say, a child. It's extremely disrespectful to address a fellow adult of equally important status as "ty", yet that is EXACTLY what Safronkov did there. He trashed the hell out of the poor Brit. That was meant, of course, for the audience back home in Russia, who understands the nuance. The UN translator did not catch it, clearly lmao

Man... Who needs reality TV, just watch UN meetings This Safronkov makes the old man Churkin, may God rest his soul, sound like a nice guy haha

Weird/funny pic I came across

 

Here is how an amateur soccer team in Russia dealt with a drunk and disorderly passenger on their plane

Watch and learn, Chicago Aviation Police

 

I saw that , it was great . Our UN ambassador looked a fool , parrotting Boris Johnson's routine and trying to seem relevant , they just aren't credible , hardly surprising after the Iraq debacle .

 

More: After Metro Blast, Racial Profiling Is on the Rise in Russia

Photo from the cinema in St. Petersburg, a OMON (poster uses the old name, they are all National Guard now, actually) paramilitary cop takes away a "Southerner" (code for someone from Caucasus) from the theater


In fairness... if the police do NOT go so hard on the ethnic minorities, many Slavic nationalists start trashing them (the police), that they are corrupt, that they take money from the minorities to protect their crime, and such bs... Well... It's not entirely bs, of course, yes, the Central Asian and Caucasian gangs pay cops bribes to cover up stuff. But, so do Slavic gangs. Corruption and crime knows no ethnic boundaries over there, ya know lol

But, the Slavs use "police ain't doing enough about ethnic crime" as an excuse for youths to riot and just go and attack random people from Caucasus and Central Asia...

Spoiler

So... for cops, it's like, either you yourself crack down on the minorities, and show the Slavic populace that you are doing it, keep them happy and satisfied... or you have more violence and mayhem on the streets in Moscow or St. Petersburg...

It's very tragic that, what is it, 14 or 15 people died in that terrorist attack on the Metro. Yes, done by a guy originally from Central Asia.

But, dozens of people, mainly Central Asians, but Caucasians too, are killed every year in Slavic majority cities, in ethnic violence, by Slavic nationalists, and hundreds more are injured


I myself, growing up, my girlfriend's family were from Caucasus (Armenian), and one of my good friends was also from there, an Ingush. My girlfriend, Karina, her brother got stabbed to death by some racist bastards... And Magomed, the Ingush guy, his dad's shop was attacked by skinheads once, they set fire to the place, burned it to the ground, because his dad dared sell halal meat for his fellow Muslims... And he himself was set upon by some scum at school. Fortunately, me and another guy rescued him, could have gone very bad for him...

That was in early 2000s. But things really haven't changed much there. There were major anti-minority riots in Moscow in 2010 (after a ethnic Russian soccer hooligan was shot to death in a brawl with some Muslims from Caucasus; I heard they killed, lynched at least half a dozen Muslims in return...) and 2013, in the Biryulovo neighborhood, where a young Slav got stabbed to death by an Azerbaijani immigrant in some altercation in the street. In turn, the Slavs destroyed numerous businesses owned or which employed Caucasians and Central Asians, killed one migrant worker from Uzbekistan, nearly killed another guy from Tajikistan who worked as a street sweeper there (luckily for him, some locals, also Slavs too, who knew him and were friends with him, pulled him into their apartment building and protected him from the rioters, saved his life...), and beat also a group of young men, university students, from Dagestan, leaving one of them with serious injuries...

Those are just the big incidents. There have also been many smaller ones.

In recent times, much less of it. I think, ironically, the war in Donbass, in East Ukraine, contributed to some improvement in inter-ethnic and confessional relations.

Because, along with Slavs, thousands of Russian Muslims went there to fight, as volunteers, alongside the rebels (more, I dare say, than have joined ISIS in Syria, btw!)

Some Muslim fighters became legendary, as much as any Slavs:

Spoiler

Rafi Jabar

He is originally from Afghanistan, his family were Afghan Communists, father was an officer who fought together with Soviet troops, against the US-funded terrorists... Later, his father was killed, and he and his mother and brother fled to Russia, after the Red Army pulled out from there. Today, he is a patriot of the "Russian World", which, to him, includes people of different ethnicity and faith He does hate America. Only ones he hates more than America are the Wahhabi scum who killed his dad. Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Saudi Arabia. True enemies of Islam, as he said in one of his videos... Hell of a guy, Rafi...

Tanay Cholkhanov

An imam from St. Petersburg who joined the militias to help provide spiritual guidance to the Muslim fighters. He became a hero in some well known battles. Now, he is a big personality in the separatist media.

Or that actor I talked about earlier in the thread.

Etc.

Human examples like that show to Slavs that their Muslim compatriots are as much loyal and patriotic Russians, most of them, as they are. Which, in turn, drives more decent people to think that, maybe, treating them like crap at home is, you know, not so right...

But, there is still, clearly, a loooooooooooong way to go. That country has much, much cleaning up to do...

 

Recommended: A great interview with The Nation's Stephen Cohen, who puts in a valiant effort challenging the anti-Russian hysteria.

https://www.democracynow.org/

 

F.E.D.O.R. (common Russian male name and also acronym for "Final Experimental Demonstration Object Research") is a humanoid robot the Russians have been developing for awhile

Spoiler

F.E.D.O.R. can use tools

and perform all kinds of complex tasks, including driving a vehicle, apparently


Here are some videos





Among his potential missions, it is being said that F.E.D.O.R. could pilot the new "Federation" spaceships Russia is developing to replace the ageing Soyuz

Spoiler

The developers are touting him as the first ever robot cosmonaut!

That's not all, though.

The crazy bastards are now teaching him to shoot guns!

Yep, they have not watched the movie