How Odd Is Putin's Russia?

[Tomef]

Well, comparisons can be a bit tricky. If we're just comparing body counts and atrocities and making a judgment of "who's worse," I don't know if that can really give much insight or shed any true light on history.

I don’t know, I think how a nation’s leaders treat their own people is a different kind of metric to how they treat those of another country. The habit of the Russian ruling class to use the lower classes indiscriminately has never changed. That’s quite distinctive. In other parts of Europe there has been plenty of that kind of thing, but not quite to the same utterly ruthless degree, and it doesn’t persist in the contemporary world to anything like the same degree. And all we have are comparisons of degree.

 

[Stevicus]

Well yes, there was no Russia either. The Kremlin’s fudging of ‘Rus’ with ‘historic Russian lands’ has no more meaning than any of the shifting borders within Europe, before the idea of a nation state became a real thing in anything like the modern sense.

Well, they weren't really organized at that point. They were a loose collection of semi-independent principalities, but their religion, language, and culture were quite close to each other.

One thing about Russian history which was considered a major turning point (and always kind of bothered me personally) was the story of Ivan IV (The Terrible) killing his own son in a fit of anger. There's a famous painting depicting that event, and the look in Ivan the Terrible's eyes is kind of haunting. An angry, brutal man killing his son in a fit of rage, but didn't really mean to kill him. He had this look of "what have I done" on his face, genuine guilt and remorse. In a way, it kind of symbolizes Russia as a whole. In reality, it was a pretty dumb thing to do, because the only remaining heir to the dynasty was a sickly child who didn't survive.

So, that's what led to the Time of Troubles when the Poles tried to make a play and take over Moscow. That may explain some things about why the Russians had a bit of a grudge against the Poles. But Russia didn't really start to take off until the Romanov Dynasty was established. Prior to that, it was really kind of a disorganized mess in that part of the world. The Romanovs established Russia's position in Europe as it grew to become in modern times.

Sure, the stories of Kievan Rus and the stories of old Muscovy might be somewhat puffed up and mythologized, just as any country might do. Of course, a lot of it has also come from church history. That's another part of the puzzle which doesn't get mentioned as much, as there appear to be some religious underpinnings to this conflict as well.

 

[Tomef]

their religion, language, and culture were quite close to each other.

That’s an overworked idea, though. The Uniate church, now just the Greek Catholic Church, was a uniquely Ukrainian conception, marrying elements of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. Imperial Russia did its best to eliminate it as soon as it was in a position to. The similarity of languages is a red herring too. Dutch and English share almost exactly the same degree of similarity. Cultures - perhaps, in a superficial sense. In terms of political consciousness, the two countries are different beasts altogether. As Kuchma made plain to Putin, what is taken as normal in Russia won’t fly in Ukraine.

 

[Tomef]

Sure, the stories of Kievan Rus and the stories of old Muscovy might be somewhat puffed up and mythologized, just as any country might do.

Not somewhat, it is pure myth. Muscovy didn’t exist at all for centuries while Kyiv was thriving, and was a backwater nowhere for centuries longer, until the Mongol influence made something of it. It’s like an Anglo Saxon govt in the UK marching to Denmark and declaring it their rightful home on the basis of Beowulf.

As Hitler, Stalin and Putin know very well, the best lies are the big lies. Most of what passes for history in Putinist Russia is just fiction.

 

[Tomef]

There's a famous painting depicting that event, and the look in Ivan the Terrible's eyes is kind of haunting. An angry, brutal man killing his son in a fit of rage, but didn't really mean to kill him. He had this look of "what have I done" on his face, genuine guilt and remorse.

I don’t think his remorse or lack of can be judged from a painting.

 

[Tomef]

In a way, it kind of symbolizes Russia as a whole.

I don’t think so. The Kremlin’s response to past ‘errors’ is to pretend they didn’t happen. Glasnost died in the crib.

 

[Tomef]

That's another part of the puzzle which doesn't get mentioned as much, as there appear to be some religious underpinnings to this conflict as well.

Yeah, the Orthodox Church was one part of Russian society that was never ‘reformed’. They’re still stuck in their own mythological past, and greedy for Ukrainian ‘souls’ to have on their books, à la Gogol.

 

[Stevicus]

That’s a bit less true, the Ukrainian language has no less of a history than any other in that region. Ukrainian culture has many influences, sure, but cultures centre around geographical cores, and Ukrainian culture is no different. Kievan Rus was a major hub of culture, trade, religious diversity etc for long before there was any Russia. One of the major differences between Russian and Ukrainian culture is the influence of Cossack culture, with it’s focus on independence, freedom and democratic forms of rule, as opposed to the Russian adherence to totalitarianism, which is way older than communism. Ukrainians/Ruthenians were as distinct from the Hapsburgs, Poles and Lithuanians, as made evident by the regular attempts to suppress their language and other expressions of identity.

I've heard both Ukrainian and Russian spoken, and they do appear to have much similarity, even if they are recognizably different languages. Linguistically, they both come from the same root language, very closely related to each other. They're also both Orthodox, whereas the Western Slavic groups fell within the Roman Catholic domain. The Ukrainians were Orthodox, living under a Catholic ruler, so the Russians might have seen themselves as liberating their Slavic Orthodox brethren from Catholic rule. They ostensibly felt the same about other Orthodox nations which fell under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire, with the ultimate goal of reclaiming Constantinople for Orthodoxy.

It seems kind of hokey nowadays looking at it through modern eyes, but they really did take their religion seriously back in those days. That's one reason why the Bolsheviks took such a dim view of religion, since they saw religion as holding them back and keeping them backwards. I don't know if I would characterize it as "totalitarianism." I became acquainted with their concept of "sobornost," which loosely translates as "togetherness." In practice, it may explain a kind of group "collective" mentality which was evident in the culture. One might see it as another way of saying "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." The downside of that is that "groupthink" can be a very dangerous thing and can manifest itself in horrific ways.

 

[Tomef]

That's another part of the puzzle which doesn't get mentioned as much, as there appear to be some religious underpinnings to this conflict as well.

Yeah, the Orthodox Church was one part of Russian society that was never ‘reformed’. They’re still stuck in their own mythological past, and greedy for Ukrainian ‘souls’ to have on their books, à la Gogol.

Well, they weren't really organized at that point. They were a loose collection of semi-independent principalities, but their religion, language, and culture were quite close to each other.

One thing about Russian history which was considered a major turning point (and always kind of bothered me personally) was the story of Ivan IV (The Terrible) killing his own son in a fit of anger. There's a famous painting depicting that event, and the look in Ivan the Terrible's eyes is kind of haunting. An angry, brutal man killing his son in a fit of rage, but didn't really mean to kill him. He had this look of "what have I done" on his face, genuine guilt and remorse. In a way, it kind of symbolizes Russia as a whole. In reality, it was a pretty dumb thing to do, because the only remaining heir to the dynasty was a sickly child who didn't survive.

So, that's what led to the Time of Troubles when the Poles tried to make a play and take over Moscow. That may explain some things about why the Russians had a bit of a grudge against the Poles. But Russia didn't really start to take off until the Romanov Dynasty was established. Prior to that, it was really kind of a disorganized mess in that part of the world. The Romanovs established Russia's position in Europe as it grew to become in modern times.

Sure, the stories of Kievan Rus and the stories of old Muscovy might be somewhat puffed up and mythologized, just as any country might do. Of course, a lot of it has also come from church history. That's another part of the puzzle which doesn't get mentioned as much, as there appear to be some religious underpinnings to this conflict as well.

As a point of comparison, the period in which the conglomerate of ethnicities that made up Kievan Rus existed without any connection at all to small groups of various tribes in what is now the Moscow region corresponds to the whole period the US has existed, not just as the actual US of A but back to the first settlements.

 

[Tomef]

I've heard both Ukrainian and Russian spoken, and they do appear to have much similarity, even if they are recognizably different languages. Linguistically, they both come from the same root language, very closely related to each other. They're also both Orthodox, whereas the Western Slavic groups fell within the Roman Catholic domain. The Ukrainians were Orthodox, living under a Catholic ruler, so the Russians might have seen themselves as liberating their Slavic Orthodox brethren from Catholic rule. They ostensibly felt the same about other Orthodox nations which fell under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire, with the ultimate goal of reclaiming Constantinople for Orthodoxy.

That’s only partially the case, at best. The Uniate church was much bigger in Ukraine before it fell under Russian domination, and the whole area was much more religiously diverse. What is it you think the similarities in language means? Almost all European languages come from one proto-language, which branched off into various forms, that has nothing to do with questions of national identity. Spain is not Italy, is not France, England is not Holland or Germany, Russia is not the Czech Republic. It’s a meaningless metric.

 

[Stevicus]

True, but the ruling powers in Moscow don’t see that as a good thing. They want to go backwards, not forwards. And for good reason - Russia is great for the rich and powerful, they can treat the whole country as their playground. All they need to do is keep the population ignorant and happy enough that they don’t mind being used up by the top brass. The whole notion of Russian ‘greatness’ seems to be a pretty effective opium.

I'm not so sure of that, although I'm not there now and can't really gauge how things are from street level. Most of the people I spoke with wanted Russia to be modernized and considered an enlightened great power - along with the other great powers of Europe. But they also didn't want to play second fiddle to the United States either. They did have a sense of national pride.

I've heard from other Europeans who sometimes complain about American arrogance, as we're kind of known for that sort of thing. Most Europeans seem to take it in stride, just rolling their eyes and saying "there they go again, those crazy Americans." Russians seemed to take a less forgiving attitude towards that side of the American character. From their point of view, I got the impression that their position was that they knew they had done bad in the past, but they truly wanted to do better in the future, but they viewed America as being an insufferable adversary that they didn't feel they could trust too much.

And having lived in America all my life and become quite intimately acquainted with how Americans perceive their own politicians and political system, I came to realize that whatever we see in U.S. politicians is probably also seen by others in other countries as well. If we know our politicians are sleazeballs, then it stands to reason that they know it too. And no doubt, they would see their own Russian politicians as sleazeballs as well. But, as Michael Corleone put it in "The Godfather Part 2": "We're both part of the same hypocrisy."

 

[Stevicus]

Sure, but at least in comparison with any European govt I’m familiar with, Russia’s has a much higher proportion of people without scruples. It isn’t referred to as a kleptocracy just as a slight, that’s a pretty accurate description.

Perhaps. I'm not there right now, so I have no way of telling just how far widespread it is. As I said, some are good, some are bad, as with anything. Trying to compare who is worse or which country has more bad people per capita, that can be a bit dicey.

 

[Tomef]

Perhaps. I'm not there right now, so I have no way of telling just how far widespread it is. As I said, some are good, some are bad, as with anything. Trying to compare who is worse or which country has more bad people per capita, that can be a bit dicey.

I’m talking about the state, not the general population. There is more than enough evidence of corruption at the state level. Putin even acknowledges it, publicly, but dismisses it as ‘not a priority ’. Given that corruption is essentially how his government functions, there is little he could do about it without getting rid of his cronies and their dependents. I don’t think Putin is ‘in it for the money’ as such, be he has certainly done very well out of it.

 

[Tomef]

From their point of view, I got the impression that their position was that they knew they had done bad in the past, but they truly wanted to do better in the future, but they viewed America as being an insufferable adversary that they didn't feel they could trust too much.

Was that during the early 2000s by any chance? I would say that was a pretty widespread attitude around that time, 2000-2010, with people who were v young at the end of the USSR growing towards middle age.

 

[Tomef]

I spoke with wanted Russia to be modernized and considered an enlightened great power

This is a tricky thing to pin down, as what is meant can differ a lot. After travelling to Silicon Valley, for example, Medvedev had a lot to say about setting up a Russian version. What he meant, though, was not a space for entrepreneurs but a state dominated techno-farm with jobs for the boys and money for the bosses, with everything very much under the watching over your shoulder aegis of the Kremlin.

 

[Magic Man]

You don't understand me. I am an Indian. We are non-aligned. I am neither pro-NATO, nor pro-Russia. I have an independent view. I would be anti-Russia in the same measure if the situation demanded.
That is the advantage in being non-aligned. We can call a spade a spade.

No, I understand you fine. I don't care if you're Indian or anything else. You are not an independent view, and you are not calling a spade a spade. I'm not basing my comments on your personal traits or nationality. I'm basing it on your comments. You are extremely pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine and anti-NATO. Your biases influence your views a lot.

 

[Magic Man]

That may be true in some cases.

At least you don't try to hide your inability to look at these things in a rational way. The fact that you openly admit that you subscribe to the "she was asking to get raped" nonsense pretty much disqualifies any of your views.

 

[Magic Man]

One thing about Russian history which was considered a major turning point (and always kind of bothered me personally) was the story of Ivan IV (The Terrible) killing his own son in a fit of anger. There's a famous painting depicting that event, and the look in Ivan the Terrible's eyes is kind of haunting. An angry, brutal man killing his son in a fit of rage, but didn't really mean to kill him. He had this look of "what have I done" on his face, genuine guilt and remorse. In a way, it kind of symbolizes Russia as a whole. In reality, it was a pretty dumb thing to do, because the only remaining heir to the dynasty was a sickly child who didn't survive.

Did you really just try to use the expression on someone's face in an old painting as some sort of evidence for factual history? Seriously?

 

[Stevicus]

I don’t think so. The Kremlin’s response to past ‘errors’ is to pretend they didn’t happen. Glasnost died in the crib.

They were still relatively free and open through the 1990s.

 

[Stevicus]

I don’t think his remorse or lack of can be judged from a painting.

That wasn't really the point. That was just an artist's conception, but I was just looking at the symbolism.