Russia and the Curse of Geography(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Russia and the Curse of Geography
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/?single_page=true
3 comments
Thank you for balancing the conversation. I don't think the article is bad for portraying the Russian point of view. A lot of times when I speak to people about Russia they have a heavy western bias (not a bad thing) and I think it's important to see both sides. A lot of times any Russian centric piece gets shot down.
As for your first point about Kievian rus being Russia: I think it's different as up to the communist revolution, peasants in Russia had almost no idea of the change of powers and many didn't even know the language they spoke was called. Most identified through Russian orthodox instead. The same kind of hold true today. I believe that if you asked most people in Russia, Ukraine (except I think modern day Ukraine would answer different than 30 years ago) they would say they are directly descended from the Kievian rus empire. I don't think that's the case with Rome and that is what makes it different. In the long term history of Russia, the current Ukraine is a small blip and Russia views itself as a thousand year old empire and wants to last another 1000 years so a decade or two of unrest is nothing it took nearly 40 years of mass starvation and hunger before the communist revolution overthrew the czar. As long as people are fed the aren't going to do anything.
But what they are doing is still pretty shitty.
As for your first point about Kievian rus being Russia: I think it's different as up to the communist revolution, peasants in Russia had almost no idea of the change of powers and many didn't even know the language they spoke was called. Most identified through Russian orthodox instead. The same kind of hold true today. I believe that if you asked most people in Russia, Ukraine (except I think modern day Ukraine would answer different than 30 years ago) they would say they are directly descended from the Kievian rus empire. I don't think that's the case with Rome and that is what makes it different. In the long term history of Russia, the current Ukraine is a small blip and Russia views itself as a thousand year old empire and wants to last another 1000 years so a decade or two of unrest is nothing it took nearly 40 years of mass starvation and hunger before the communist revolution overthrew the czar. As long as people are fed the aren't going to do anything.
But what they are doing is still pretty shitty.
> Article presents Russian POV.
> For example it states that Kievan Rus was Russian predecesor state, "in what is now Ukraine".
> It's like saying Roman Empire was a French predecessor state in what is now Italy. Not the whole story.
It is a weak comparison. The fact that the Russian state has its roots in Kievan Rus, with the center in Kiev, is not disputed by any Russian historiography (I'm russian historian), neither Ukrainian nor Western. It is the same for Ukraine and Belarus - we all believe that our common roots lie in the Kievan Rus. Therefore, we call each other sister nations.
> Not that it matters much, but it's one of the constantly repeated points of Russian propaganda - that Ukraine is a temporary state with no history.
It is not true. Here are _TON_ of BS from state mass media. But no one, in their right mind, would talk like that.
> For example it states that Kievan Rus was Russian predecesor state, "in what is now Ukraine".
> It's like saying Roman Empire was a French predecessor state in what is now Italy. Not the whole story.
It is a weak comparison. The fact that the Russian state has its roots in Kievan Rus, with the center in Kiev, is not disputed by any Russian historiography (I'm russian historian), neither Ukrainian nor Western. It is the same for Ukraine and Belarus - we all believe that our common roots lie in the Kievan Rus. Therefore, we call each other sister nations.
> Not that it matters much, but it's one of the constantly repeated points of Russian propaganda - that Ukraine is a temporary state with no history.
It is not true. Here are _TON_ of BS from state mass media. But no one, in their right mind, would talk like that.
From my personal experience, there are too many people in Russia who are, according to your last statement, not quite in their right mind...
> and Ukrainians started revolutions to win "freedom and prosperity" through eventual accession to EU.
Do you really believe that accession to EU brings "freedom and prosperity" to its counties? Looking at Greece and some other EU countries it seems quite the opposite
Do you really believe that accession to EU brings "freedom and prosperity" to its counties? Looking at Greece and some other EU countries it seems quite the opposite
Greece largely benefited from being in the European Union long before the eurozone. They relied on free money way too much. You dont build a developed economy with olive oil and tourism.
I can only really see how it worked for m country (Poland). And basing on that evidence - yes it does. The disadvantages are minor compared to the advantages.
It is no need of roses. But preferable to being in the Russian sphere of influence.
To play devil's (or should I say Putin's :P ) advocate for a second, there are non-quantifiable properties of life beyond money. Russians treat their culture as sacred and would give (and have given) up a great deal to preserve it. Its still kind of hard to wrap my mind around it. The communist fought tooth and nail to try to rid the different soviet states of it, but it persevered.
There is an unquantifiable property that Russia holds dear. It can take the blows and as long as people have jobs and are fed, most are content with the life they have and unless the money comes from a Russian source (natural resources or something else), they fear that it will destroy their culture.
There is an unquantifiable property that Russia holds dear. It can take the blows and as long as people have jobs and are fed, most are content with the life they have and unless the money comes from a Russian source (natural resources or something else), they fear that it will destroy their culture.
> Ukraine is a temporary state with no history
Not to follow along with propaganda, but how much of an independent history Ukraine have in these new borders in last 1000 years? Specifically around Crimea and so called People's Republics.
Not to follow along with propaganda, but how much of an independent history Ukraine have in these new borders in last 1000 years? Specifically around Crimea and so called People's Republics.
Right, blame it on geography. And climate. Warm water ports, right? Home to the smallest, least significant of the 4, strategically trapped Russian fleet, but it's warm all right?
But how about Urals? One great natural defence barrier from the East right there, what was the point going beyond it? (Rhetorical Q). Hint: the Duchy of Moscow (renamed to Russia by Peter the Great) did not end up the biggest state on planet Earth by playing nice with neighbours and sitting in defence.
But how about Urals? One great natural defence barrier from the East right there, what was the point going beyond it? (Rhetorical Q). Hint: the Duchy of Moscow (renamed to Russia by Peter the Great) did not end up the biggest state on planet Earth by playing nice with neighbours and sitting in defence.
coincidentally I had recently read the stratfor version of basically the same thing.
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_4892_...
Is the Atlantic blatantly ripping off stratfor these days?
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_4892_...
Is the Atlantic blatantly ripping off stratfor these days?
For example it states that Kievan Rus was Russian predecesor state, "in what is now Ukraine".
It's like saying Roman Empire was a French predecessor state in what is now Italy. Not the whole story.
Not that it matters much, but it's one of the constantly repeated points of Russian propaganda - that Ukraine is a temporary state with no history.
And considering the defense as explanation for military conquests of Russia - which country in the west was supposed to invade Russia through Ukraine? Eastern EU and NATO members, with no power to do that by themselves, no nuclear detterent, much smaller military budgets, and no territorial demands in Russia?
I propose different explanation: Russia is governed by Putin for over a decade, he promised "prosperity instead of freedom", and delivered till 2013, mostly thanks to high oil prices. Ukraine was always portraited by Russia as "almost Russia", and Ukrainians started revolutions to win "freedom and prosperity" through eventual accession to EU.
Putin couldn't allow that to success, because if that is possible in Ukraine - it's possible in Russia. Few years ago there were big demonstrations against Putin in Moscow and St. Petersburg after another flawed elections (famous 140+% of votes in some districts :) ).
As long as Ukraine is an enemy, and is in crisis - no risk of Russians doing Majdan in Moscow.