The 'vladmir Putin Rocks' Thread

[Roman Alymov]

He is showing how little he knows of his own history. Communism (and thereby Lenin) held the Empire together, and even bolted back on the bits it would otherwise have lost because of the internationalist flag.

Stuart, your mistake is drawing equation mark between “Lenin” and “Communism”. What Putin said here is criticism on Lenin for taking convenient but tactical decision of using nationalistic feelings to ensure more support of Communist policies, while others warned him on dangers of it in distant future. Lenin was hardline communist interested in global revolution, not Russia, and he was Russian (meaning: knowing little about nationalist feelings of small nations) while those opposing him in this decision (like Georgian-Ossetian Stalin and other leaders with Jewish, Polish, Baltic etc background) were well-aware of danger.

“United Russia” was White Army slogan, not Red.

[alejandro_]

the old permafrost of nationalism arose, and that would have just as soon have killed the Empire in 1917 as it did in 1991.

 

Nationalism didn't really kill the USSR. The 3 republics that met and organised disintegration were Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. All the others were not really consulted. In March 1990 a referendum was held and population clearly voted favorably to keeping union.

 

Also, minorities in Russian Empire supported Bolsheviks, Lenin took advantage of this. Perhaps later on the constitution should have been changed to eliminate right to secede, but that was much later.

Edited January 26, 2016 by alejandro_

[Murph]

Good point.

 

 

He is showing how little he knows of his own history. Communism (and thereby Lenin) held the Empire together, and even bolted back on the bits it would otherwise have lost because of the internationalist flag.

Stuart, your mistake is drawing equation mark between “Lenin” and “Communism”. What Putin said here is criticism on Lenin for taking convenient but tactical decision of using nationalistic feelings to ensure more support of Communist policies, while others warned him on dangers of it in distant future. Lenin was hardline communist interested in global revolution, not Russia, and he was Russian (meaning: knowing little about nationalist feelings of small nations) while those opposing him in this decision (like Georgian-Ossetian Stalin and other leaders with Jewish, Polish, Baltic etc background) were well-aware of danger.

“United Russia” was White Army slogan, not Red.

 

[Murph]

I also have to like Putin because he seems to attract really, really attractive young ladies to put his face places....

[Roman Alymov]

 

 

Nationalism didn't really kill the USSR. The 3 republics that met and organised disintegration were Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. All the others were not really consulted. In March 1990 a referendum was held and population clearly voted favorably to keeping union.

 

Also, minorities in Russian Empire supported Bolsheviks, Lenin took advantage of this. Perhaps later on the constitution should have been changed to eliminate right to secede, but that was much later.

 

Yes you are right nationalism was not what killed USSR - but nationalism was very useful tool for regional Communist party bosses to use to get hold of “their” parts of USSR for personal use as soon as it became possible, preventing people from uniting again and creating ethnocratic states instead. It is like leaving unhealed disease – it will start again as soon as person got temporary weakness.

Note how Lukashenko is now building “Belorussian nation” from nothing for his young son to rule in future, instead of allowing it into integration with Russia or EU. Or look at Ukraine where regional differences between regions are stronger then between regions and Russia - still, artificial unification of them into “Soviet Ukraine” allowed what is going on now. Kazakhstan, composed of Northern “Russian” and South “Kazakh” part -and now controlled by Kazakh ethnocracy with life-long President (ex-regional party boss) also good example – still, in this particular case, this man was against USSR partition knowing what it will bring. Kazakhstan problems where long-delayed by high oil prices providing both Russians and locals high living standards, but now seems like substance may hit the fan any moment.

[Roman Alymov]

 

 

That forgets (as Seri Plokny plausibly points out in his book about the breakup of the Empire) that they were to a large extent an afterthought. The REAL breakup of the Union was Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania committing to leave

 

I have to say, I do find it somewhat odd that even now Russians are trying to somehow claim that Lenin was not Communism.

Real problem was when USSR (including its leaders, but also grass-roots) lost will to fight to this state, preferring to go to consumer paradise they imagine expecting them. After that breakup was only question of time, Baltic was first to do it just because they were most ready for it.

 

Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Buharin, Khrushev, Brezhnev etc and even young Putin they where all Communists, but different ones. “Communism” is not more solid then “West” or “US” of conspiracy theories in Russia.

[Roman Alymov]

 

 

 

Roman, if people vote ( with a large turn out) 92.3 percent to leave the Union, you cannot reasonably say that it was not nationalism that caused it. Sure, politicians play with such ideas. But its somewhat remarkable to say a politician says somethign to the public, and instantly 90 percent suddenly agree with it without bothering to think its a good idea. Lets not forget, this was even Eastern Ukrainians who voted for it. The same people who suddenly decide they all want to be Russian.

 

 

Let me remind you results of referendum to keep USSR on 17 March 1991, when ~70% voted “Yes” in Ukraine, only 1% lower than in Russian Federation. Do you know what was regions with LOWEST “Yes” vote % recorded? It was Moscow and Leningrad, with 50%. The very places where consumerist cosmopolitan society was strongest. Nothing to do with nationality. Highest “Yes” (up to 98%) was in Central Asia. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BC_%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%85%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0

You yourself say “Lets not forget, this was even Eastern Ukrainians who voted for it. The same people who suddenly decide they all want to be Russian.” – another indication it got very little to do with ethnicity.

And yes you are right indicating it was not only leadership – almost EVERYBODY in late USSR was unhappy with situation in one way or another. But it was leadership who decided how to use this public mood for own profit.

[Roman Alymov]

 

Baltic was the first to do it because Bush encouraged Gorbachev to let them go for the good of East West relations.

 

Come on, Bush doing it (not mentioning Gorbachev accepting this proposal) was result of obvious USSR internal failure. Even Yeltsin at lowest points of Russia in 1990^th was not ready to accept similar proposal from Japan re Kuril islands.

By the way you are wrong about not allowing independent Chechnya out - in fact it was allowed twice, first in 1991 (for some time they existed as fully independent state with own army, tank units, air force and international airport) and then after first Chechen war lost by federal forces. If not their criminal and terrorist activities, there was strong chance for them to stay independent as nobody really wanted them in – moreover, even now “Enough of feeding Caucasus” is popular slogan among Rus nationalists demanding Caucasus republics to be thrown away from Russia.

[Roman Alymov]

 

 

Lets look at it like this. Bush wanted to work with Gorbachov (well Dick Cheney didnt but he was only the VP). The USSR was falling to bits, and Bush knew this. But Bush wanted to put that off as long as possible, simply because he wanted more arms deals. Bush didnt want the union to fail contrary to the usual narrative. But equally he knew that repression on the Baltic states not only would accelerate that process, but make it impossible for him to work with Gorbachev, either in funding reform, or in armaments reduction because the senate and other political opponents would have his balls.. In that regard, for Gorbachev, and Bush, the Baltic states leaving was for the good of both sides. What both didnt perceive is that their going would lead to an internal drive towards more states leaving the union, which clearly neither wanted.

 

The USSR didnt need to do a deal with the Japanese. And one can say that in some respects if the Americans had revisited that territorial boundary, awkward questions might have been asked about American bases on Okinawa. Im not surprised nobody wanted to bring it up.

 

Im not justifying Chechnya's terrorism (in which I agree with you was unacceptable). Im just suggesting quite clearly why it could not be allowed to remain independent, even if they didnt resort to terrorism. That they did was quite clearly convenient for taking action (looking past the loss of life). But action quite obviously would have had to be taken anyway, because it would have increased yet more nationalist sentiment in Russia that would have been hard to contain. And Russia, lets be fair here, recently HAS been quite good at subverting internal nationalism in the same way we did with the Scots, by making it their own. Look at the amount of largesse that is given to the Cossacks in Russia. Putin himself has endorsed that, and I can see why he has done so. If they had done that with other nationalist groups in the 1880s onwards, then they would have been closer to have been building a pan nationalist state (as the Germans to a large extent did, and even the Hapsburgs managed to a degree to cobble together). But they didnt, and arguably that had as much to do with the Tsars failing authority as the rise of socialism, and one can say they both came from the source. Improved communications. Exactly the same problem Europe had, ie telegraphs, railroads, mass printing.

 

“The USSR was falling to bits” – that is it. We can argue about USians role in how exactly it fell apart ( my personal opinion is US\Western politicians declaring it their victory was bit mistake from their side) but all components of this breakup were already in place.

I am from Cossack background, where can I get my largesse? Actually Cossacks are not ethnic group but armed and organized peasants estate, that is why all efforts re revive Cossacks in modern society are mostly useless.

Was it possible for Chechens to stay independent if they not behaved like Chechens (and sponsored by Russian\Jewish oligarchs in it) – is alternative history question, who knows…..

Edited January 26, 2016 by Roman Alymov

[alejandro_]

There were several reasons for the Western support to Gorbachev. Many felt personally committed to Gorbachev through friendship, and Yeltsin was seen as unpredictable. There was the issue of nuclear weapons; nobody knew where the nukes would end if USSR dissolved. Finally, dissolution was going to lead to a number of conflicts that nobody wanted to sort out.

 

The Spanish president at that time (Felipe Gonzalez) supported Gorbachev and feared a power vacuum if USSR disappeared. See link below in Spanish (usee google translate)

 

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/09/23/internacional/1316797681.html

 

Baltic republics were seen as foreign even during the USSR. The main challenges that led to Soviet collapse came from Russian Soviet Republic: Declaration of sovereignty, War of the Laws...

 

In the 90s some politicians (Stepashin IIRC) were ready to let Dagestan go.

[Mike Steele]

 

 

 

 

Lets look at it like this. Bush wanted to work with Gorbachov (well Dick Cheney didnt but he was only the VP). The USSR was falling to bits, and Bush knew this. But Bush wanted to put that off as long as possible, simply because he wanted more arms deals. Bush didnt want the union to fail contrary to the usual narrative. But equally he knew that repression on the Baltic states not only would accelerate that process, but make it impossible for him to work with Gorbachev, either in funding reform, or in armaments reduction because the senate and other political opponents would have his balls.. In that regard, for Gorbachev, and Bush, the Baltic states leaving was for the good of both sides. What both didnt perceive is that their going would lead to an internal drive towards more states leaving the union, which clearly neither wanted.

 

The USSR didnt need to do a deal with the Japanese. And one can say that in some respects if the Americans had revisited that territorial boundary, awkward questions might have been asked about American bases on Okinawa. Im not surprised nobody wanted to bring it up.

 

Im not justifying Chechnya's terrorism (in which I agree with you was unacceptable). Im just suggesting quite clearly why it could not be allowed to remain independent, even if they didnt resort to terrorism. That they did was quite clearly convenient for taking action (looking past the loss of life). But action quite obviously would have had to be taken anyway, because it would have increased yet more nationalist sentiment in Russia that would have been hard to contain. And Russia, lets be fair here, recently HAS been quite good at subverting internal nationalism in the same way we did with the Scots, by making it their own. Look at the amount of largesse that is given to the Cossacks in Russia. Putin himself has endorsed that, and I can see why he has done so. If they had done that with other nationalist groups in the 1880s onwards, then they would have been closer to have been building a pan nationalist state (as the Germans to a large extent did, and even the Hapsburgs managed to a degree to cobble together). But they didnt, and arguably that had as much to do with the Tsars failing authority as the rise of socialism, and one can say they both came from the source. Improved communications. Exactly the same problem Europe had, ie telegraphs, railroads, mass printing.

 

“The USSR was falling to bits” – that is it. We can argue about USians role in how exactly it fell apart ( my personal opinion is US\Western politicians declaring it their victory was bit mistake from their side) but all components of this breakup were already in place.

I am from Cossack background, where can I get my largesse? Actually Cossacks are not ethnic group but armed and organized peasants estate, that is why all efforts re revive Cossacks in modern society are mostly useless.

Was it possible for Chechens to stay independent if they not behaved like Chechens (and sponsored by Russian\Jewish oligarchs in it) – is alternative history question, who knows…..

 

Indeed. George Bush himself reportedly regretted it. But clearly he only said that when the Union failed. He didnt hail victory over Communism whilst the state still existed in the same way Reagen often did.. He was quite willing to take (false) credit for it failing when it did because it gave him (he thought) a better chance of beating Bill Clinton. What everyone overlooks is that he spent the previous 2 years trying like hell to keep the USSR together. I think even Gorbachev would give him credit for that.

 

Well I was watching a BBC documentary the other day on Russian nationalism (the positives and the negatives) and it had Cossack groups doing street patrols to keep, I dont know, I suppose 'unruly' elements in hand. Which is fair enough. And if it gives a nationalist pride, and makes them feel part of Russia so be it. After all, we foisted kilt wearing bagpipers on the world, far be it from me to criticise.

 

I suppose discussing Cossacks we get into the murky work of what represents a national group, or just a social identity within Russia. The impression I get is that it is indeed a national group, but its never been recognised as such simply because of the way Russia itself developed. I mean when you get down to it, a Cossack is as recognisable in the world as a Scot in national attire. But Scots clearly have made more progress in developing their independent identity, simply because they were once independent.

 

Re Chechnya, we saw the net result by Islamic insurgents using it as a useful way into Russia to stir up trouble in the Caucasus. So yes, it probably could still exist, but the only way would be for it to bust Russia to bits. Which incidentally I suspect is one of the reasons why Western criticism of the campaign in Chechnya was a hell of a lot more mutedl than criticism inside Russia itself. People here complained about HOW the war was fought. But nobody cheered for Chechen independence. There was nothing it it for us and still isnt.

 

Awful wordy just to blame it all on Bush....

[Roman Alymov]

 

Indeed. George Bush himself reportedly regretted it. But clearly he only said that when the Union failed. He didnt hail victory over Communism whilst the state still existed in the same way Reagen often did.. He was quite willing to take (false) credit for it failing when it did because it gave him (he thought) a better chance of beating Bill Clinton. What everyone overlooks is that he spent the previous 2 years trying like hell to keep the USSR together. I think even Gorbachev would give him credit for that.

 

Well, both George Bush and Bill Clinton are part of history now – but millions of people of the only country that is considered existential threat to US remember US politicians celebrating worst time in their life as victory. Nice political thinking….

 

Re Cossacks they were newer ethnicity (or then we should consider each regional Cossack Army as another ethnic group as they were very different). Yes some of them where ON THE WAY to become ethnicity in ~100 years as since late XIX it was almost impossible to outsider to become Cossack in central Russia – it was much easier to become nobleman. But Revolution ended all it. Present-day Cossacks are just like neighborhood watch or deputy sheriffs light. My wife’s older brother (from my father-in-law first marriage) is some kind of Cossack group leader in Norilsk, despite of his mother from Western Ukraine and father from Central Ukraine (he claim he is from Dnieper Cossack roots but there is no way to prove it as Dnieper Cossacks officially relocated to Kuban region more than 200 years ago) .

 

Turkey provided some support (including military training, communications etc) for Chechen independence before Wahhabi money from KSA came – still their role was small compared to activity of people like Berezovsky&Co.

[Roman Alymov]

 

Before the August Coup though. And I think I recall reading in Plokny and Odoms book on the collapse of the Soviet military that even the Balts were willing (if not exactly thrilled) to sign a treaty to remain in the Union. It was the August coup that was the final straw. Everyone knew at that moment that the Union was finished and it was time to cut and run.

 

So yes, I dont doubt that result. But was this also not a vote when nobody actually thought the Union WAS going to fall? And again, this points to the Russians themselves being at fault, not the Americans and not even the Ukrainians. Putin can blame Lenin and the Ukrainians all he likes, but it was his KGB that ultimately fucked the Union up. Which considering how misty eyed he gets about it is somewhat amusing.

 

We are back to the start - not “Russians themselves being at fault” because Russians where only part of it. Correct formula is “Soviets, especially upper educated part of society, themselves being at fault”. August coup was Moscow-centric event, little to do with regions (and GKChP failure to attract support from regions against Moscow crowds is often considered their failure now).

 

Re early calls for independence - there where explosions in Moscow subway in 1977 created by group of Armenian nationalists, so some degree of national tensions always existed, but they were negligible as long as USSR was strong healthy society.

[Roman Alymov]

 

That said though, one can point to one obvious pointer that nationalism was a rising problem in the USSR long before it fell. They did not as a rule host servicemen who came from say, Estonia, to serve in Estonia, and so on across the rest of the regions of the Union. And the reason is quite simple, they could never be sure if it came ot it they would put down revolts. Or perhaps (as the Romans and the British once found) become the cornerstone of a rebellion.

 

The same rrule was applied to Russians – people from Moscow send to conscript service to Far East while people from Siberia sent to Crimea etc - just to avoid small human problems of conscript serving within short distance to home resulting in parents visits, girlfriend troubles etc. Still, my father-in-law ( as ethnic Ukrainian as it is possible,from Poltava region, Central Ukraine) was doing his conscription term in Western Ukraine, heartland of Ukrainian nationalism -even got some troubles there with locals who considered him stranger, not fellow Ukrainian (but after all he married there after term ended and lived for some time before leaving to work in Norilsk)

P.S. And he was involved in 1968 events as conscript prime mover driver.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Roman Alymov

[Roman Alymov]

 

Well perhaps, but one can look at it from the other perspective. Putin clearly laments the loss of the Union, and maybe in some respect a survival of at least a rump of it might have been advantageous. But Putin really needs to remember not everyone is so misty eyed about the USSR.

It is not about Putin but about millions of Russians (or, better to say, ex-Soviets). Putin is just expressing popular opinion (have I told you he is populist when it comes to public relations?)

[Mike Steele]

 

 

Well perhaps, but one can look at it from the other perspective. Putin clearly laments the loss of the Union, and maybe in some respect a survival of at least a rump of it might have been advantageous. But Putin really needs to remember not everyone is so misty eyed about the USSR.

It is not about Putin but about millions of Russians (or, better to say, ex-Soviets). Putin is just expressing popular opinion (have I told you he is populist when it comes to public relations?)

 

Ah the Russians just traded one set of Czars for another....

[bojan]

I said it before, they always had Tzar. it is just that sometimes it was called different name.

[alejandro_]

Plokny points to something interesting, in that he suggests part of the reason WHY Ukraine and others veered towards independence was also the lack of representation in the Politburo.

 

I don't know if Gorbachev's era was long enough for nationalism to develop. Ironically, Gorbachev has Ukrainian blood.

 

Kravchuk and Gorbachev truly hated each other. When USSR dissolved he stated that he was ready to sell Gorbachev's dacha in Foros to anyone ho would guarantee that he would not be back. IIRC Kravchuk was accused of only opposing coup plotters when it became obvious it was going to fail.

[Roman Alymov]

 

Ah the Russians just traded one set of Czars for another....

 

Royalties do not need to care about popular opinion (or, at least, much less then elected officials). Still, Romanov’s dynasty was once elected into this job, by makeshift representative body from all regions of Russia.

[JasonJ]

 

 

 

Ah the Russians just traded one set of Czars for another....

Royalties do not need to care about popular opinion (or, at least, much less then elected officials). Still, Romanov’s dynasty was once elected into this job, by makeshift representative body from all regions of Russia.

It's been Putin for 16 years now. The overall impression is that Medvedev just filled in for image of fake democracy.

[Marek Tucan]

Royalties do not need to care about popular opinion (or, at least, much less then elected officials). Still, Romanov’s dynasty was once elected into this job, by makeshift representative body from all regions of Russia.

Not sure this is completely accurate. Maybe fits for the absolutist monarchs (and Romanovs were so), though even there the smarter ones learned that the way to go is to crush any riot - but then make concessions so that it does not happen again in a hurry. But generally care about public opinion is what led to constitutional monarchies and other systems where monarch's job is little more than smile and wave.

 

 

I have read that one of the biggest Nikolai II's blunders was personally take the command of the army - so when the WWI blunders came, the population started to blame him instead of inept generals / courtiers / whatever.

[Simon Tan]

The Princess from Anhalt-Zerbst will tell you that public perception and support is very important indeed.

[Colin]

 

 

Baltic was the first to do it because Bush encouraged Gorbachev to let them go for the good of East West relations.

 

Come on, Bush doing it (not mentioning Gorbachev accepting this proposal) was result of obvious USSR internal failure. Even Yeltsin at lowest points of Russia in 1990^th was not ready to accept similar proposal from Japan re Kuril islands.

By the way you are wrong about not allowing independent Chechnya out - in fact it was allowed twice, first in 1991 (for some time they existed as fully independent state with own army, tank units, air force and international airport) and then after first Chechen war lost by federal forces. If not their criminal and terrorist activities, there was strong chance for them to stay independent as nobody really wanted them in – moreover, even now “Enough of feeding Caucasus” is popular slogan among Rus nationalists demanding Caucasus republics to be thrown away from Russia.

 

I am just reading a book by a doctor who was there, his opinion is a tad different, the first war was bad, but the 2nd war was hellish

[Roman Alymov]

Kadyrov threatens to murder someone. Again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35459613

Nice to see West is so closely following Kadyrov’s Instagram and his use of photo filters.

Popular joke now in Russian internet: “Увидев Касьянова в прицеле снайперской винтовки, у миллионов россиян автоматически согнулся указательный палец правой руки.” ("On seeing Kasianov in crosshair, millions of Russians automatically moved right hand forefinger”)

This man is known as “Mikhail 2%” for the "tax" he was collecting from businesses while serving as Prime Minister (in his own pocket of course). Now he is actively demanding return of Crimea etc. But if hair drop from his head – he will be portrayed as another democracy martyr and shining star of freedom.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Roman Alymov

[Ssnake]

Well, who who made him prime minister in the first place (after he collected his 2% as the finance minister in his previous job)?

It's not like he's the one bad apple who was isolated because his corruption was discovered in an otherwise immaculate environment.

 

The nice thing about corruption at top government levels is that you can sack anyone at any time because of it, but ignore it as long as the guy is a low friction cogwheel in the machine. If the judicial system is under your control, even better. So you get to mix true allegations with fabricated ones to get any court ruling that is expedient. In the end you can even kill people with the approval of the population, if they stubbornly refuse to "learn their lessons".