Reply to The future of Russia. Any foreign policy experts want to weigh in?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "The future of Russia. Any foreign policy experts want to weigh in? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I am Russian but have lived in the US for over a decade 
I still have family there so I visit regularly and have been going even after the invasion (it’s become much more expensive and cumbersome fyi)
My guess is that Russia will be Iran on steroids. A geriatric regime, extremely conservative and on the brink of dictatorship (but not to the extent of North Korea). The economy will be militarized (the so called mobilization economy), people won’t starve and will be able to move freely (finances permitting). However there will be no innovation and not much vibrancy if you know what I mean. However there is a rich legacy of kitchen cultural life from the soviet times, as well as post soviet cultural renaissance, so it not going to be all doom and gloom.
Yes there will be brain drain but also there will be a sufficient number of technically talented people who are believers and can keep the austere military economy afloat. And there is a certain taste for overcoming difficulties in the “genes” of the population. 
As for the war, it will be a slow churn, one step forward and two steps back. I feel bad for the annexed regions and their population. They will suffer no matter the outcome. 
Some parts of Russia might be under shelling too (some already are but I mean cities and not just Belgorod). 
Basically, there will be life but no one without ties to Russia will want to live a life like that. [/quote]

Interesting! Does your family have access to information or are they also blinded by the Russian propaganda machine? Do you enlighten them?
Also, do you think that the "overcoming difficulties" gene is still strong, especially after Western exposure and luxuries? Even with the youth? I'd think it'd be waning. [/quote]

Family: it depends. None of them is totally blinded by the propaganda but they all think that Ukraine went too far in trying to be with the West and rejecting Russia, the Russian language, etc.
They don’t phrase it like that but that’s the essence. 
None of them can face the fact that the war, the power struggle was a huge mistake. They think there is “something” to it. Even those who think Putin and his cronies are criminals etc
I tried to share my POV but while they are all respectful they clearly think I have been brainwashed 
The “overcoming difficulties” gene is still there in a lot of people. One of the things that surprised me in connection with this war is how few people have actually been exposed to Western values and luxury beyond Burger King and such. And Chinese phones are preferred over Apple by and large[/quote]

They don't understand and accept that Ukraine moving to the West and rejecting Russia is a direct result of Russia's continual meddling and corrupting of Ukraine, their invasion in 2014?  
They don't understand that it is Russia's own belligerent behavior that is also pushing Finland and Sweden into NATO?[/quote]
Why did Russia invade in 2014?[/quote]

If you mean Crimea, it's because Russia saw it as historically a part of Russia (which it was until 1954).[/quote]

"Part of Russia"  - conquered by Russia in the late 1700s but still largely just rural Tatars sitting on a peninsula that was militarily strategic and fought over many times.  Stalin had the native Tatars deported in the 1940s, after which it was resettled by some ethnic Russians.  It was then transferred to Ukraine in 1954.  Russians have never really had deep roots there other than on paper, as a military port, and as a beach vacation.[/quote]

I would say 3 centuries is pretty deep [/quote]

Not really, hardly any actually Russians even lived there.  Most ethnic Russians living there today are maybe only 1 or 2 generations deep at best.[/quote]

That’s hardly a case for Ukraine you know.[/quote]

Crimea was legally and peacefully transferred by the USSR to Ukraine 70 years ago.  Russia took it violently and illegally, going against the UN charter.[/quote]

DP.  To be completely fair, before Stalin's 1932-33 holodomor and subsequent 1943-44 ethnic migration / genocidal purge (whatever you want to call it), I think there were far fewer Russians in that area.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term “White Russian” described ethnic Russians living in the area between Russia and Poland (Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia and Moldova).  The Black Sea region were primarily Volga Germans and several non-Slavic nationalities of the Crimea and the northern Caucasus: Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Bulgarians, Crimean Greeks, Romanians, and Armenians.  Specifically, the [b]North Caucasus and Crimea were mainly Chechens, Ingushi, Karachai, Balkars, Kalmyks, Meskhetian Turks, and Crimean Tatars. [/b] In 1943-44, approximately 2 (up for debate) million people were removed by the NKVD.

"[b]Effectively, the whole Black Sea coastal region was cleared of ethnic minorities."
[/b]
https://holodomorct.org/holodomor-information-links/maps-and-demography/
https://holodomor.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Kulchytsky_monograph-Text-GreyScale-no-margins.pdf
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1943-2/deportation-of-minorities/
https://www.languagesoftheworld.info/russia-ukraine-and-the-caucasus/stalins-ethnic-deportations-gerrymandered-ethnic-map.html

So when the Russians argue that the Crimea and North Caucasus are "predominantly Russian", I guess you could say that's true.. today.. thanks to the 1944'ish genocidal bloody purges by Stalin and company?

[img]https://languagesoftheworld.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/deportation_1941_map.gif[/img]
[/quote]

What?  Look.  I mean I know most Americans can't find North Caucasus on the map.  I forgive you.  But, the "entire Crimea and North Caucasus area"?  That's rather sweeping even in current terms.  Out of the kindness of my heart, here is the list of ethnicities subjected to total deportation in the 1942-1943:

Kalmyk
Ingush
Chechens
Karachay
Balkar
Crimean Tatars
Meskhetin Turks
Pontian Greeks
[b]Koreans[/b]
Germans
Finns

Dozens, no, hundreds of North Caucasus ethnicities would be surprised to hear that you think the area was "primarily" settled by the Chechen, Ingush, Karachay and Balkar.  Really? Like, really? So, I see that your particular vision of the North Caucasus does not include huge Dagestan, with its dozens of ethnic groups (Avar, Dargin, Lak, Tat, Dargin, Kumyk, Lezgin..), who outnumber the Chechens by a large measure.  There is no Ossetia, either.  There is no Kabardin, no Circassians.  What a nice little package you've made out of this wonderful, highly diverse area!
[/quote]

lol!!!  I was laughing so hard I could barely type this!!!  Thanks for making my sunday!!!!  You got this from the UNHCR website.  But it is true that UNHCR reports these numbers:

The eight deported nations	Volga Germans: Sept 1941	366,000	Karachai: Nov 1943	68,000	Kalmyks: Dec 1943	92,000	Chechens: Feb 1944	362,000	Ingush: Feb 1944	134,000	Balkars: Apr 1944	37,000	Crimean Tatars: May 1944	183,000	Meskhetians: Nov 1944	200,000	
Subtotal:	1,442,000

Some other major groups forcibly transferred 1936-1952	Poles: 1936

Ukraine > Kazakstan	60,000	Koreans: 1937
Vladivostok > Kazakstan / Uzbekistan	172,000	Poles/Jews: 1940-41
Ukraine & Belarus > N. Siberia	380,000	Other Soviet Germans: 1941-52
Saratov, Ukraine > Central Asia	843,000	Finns (Leningrad region): 1942
Leningrad > Siberia	45,000	Other N. Caucasus groups: 1943-44
North Caucasus > Central Asia	8,000	Other Crimean groups: 1944
Crimea > Central Asia	45,000	Moldovans: 1949
Moldova > Central/East Siberia	36,000	Black Sea Greeks: 1949
Black Sea region > Kazakstan	36,000	Other Black Sea groups: 1949
Black Sea region > Kazakstan	22,000	Subtotal:	1,647,000	Grand Total:	3.1 million

https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/publications/refugeemag/3b5555124/unhcr-publication-cis-conference-displacement-cis-punished-peoples-mass.html

It was Stalin's bloody purges that changed the demographics of North Caucasus and Crimea regions.  Just as there was ambiguity of "white" Russians (accurate historical data is difficult to come by), there was similar ambiguity of what constitutes current Russians.  Example - just as everyone thinks Simonyan is Russian, she's not.

"Simonyan was born in the southern Russian city of Krasnodar, into an Armenian family. Both her parents are descendants of Armenian refugees from the Ottoman Empire. Her father's family, originally from Trabzon, settled in Crimea during the Armenian genocide of 1915."

There are ethnicities and there are nationalities, and it's easy to get the distinctions mixed up in the fervor of whipping up a war (oops, I meant Special Operation) story, and U.S. journalists / diplomats / policymakers / Trumpers / Republicans often don't know the difference as well.

But thanks for helping me prove my original point (despite the distractors) is still valid.  The claim that this very ethnically diverse area was EVER "predominantly (red) Russian" would be a false claim.  You might try to argue that Russia "conquered" the region by Stalin from a nationality standpoint, but it was never ethnically Russian.  Since this part of history is never taught to Russians (yet people affected may remember and pass down to generations), Russian propagandists often trip themselves up by making statements they believe are true, but the locals / natives know are not.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics