It's the country that never really quite got fully off the ground.
I know I've asked you this before, but how much Russian history have you actually studied?
The serfs revolted against he Czar.
There were some peasant revolts, but the serfs were ultimately freed by Alexander II. Some of the more notable revolts in Russia were due to disputes over the succession of power, not so much peasants wanting to overturn the system.
To be sure, they did start off somewhat hobbled, largely due to being invaded, conquered, and occupied for a few centuries by the Mongol Empire. But because the Moscow Boyars were the favored nobility to act as the Mongols' tax collectors in the region, the city of Moscow became more and more a center of power. When the Mongol Empire finally started to splinter and fade away, the Moscow Boyars were still there, still powerful, and ready to form an independent state. And, as the Mongols left quite a power vacuum in Central Asia and Siberia, the Russians faced little opposition as they quietly and slowly expanded into those areas (right about the same time as Western Europeans were slowly expanding into the Americas).
If you've ever wondered why the Russians have such a grudge against the Poles, it's partly because of back during the Time of Troubles, after the death of Ivan the Terrible but before the accession of the Romanov Dynasty. The Poles tried to place their own puppet ruler on the throne, which didn't go over too well. The Poles also held large sections of what is now Ukraine, although the Tatars (vassals of the Mongols) still had control of Crimea and southern Ukraine, a lingering anomalous holdover from the days of the Mongol Empire.
The Napoleonic Wars were a major game-changer for Russia, as they made enormous gains and had enhanced prestige throughout Europe, as they were on the winning Allied side against Napoleon. The other powers of Europe essentially gave Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Ukraine (which was already incorporated into the Russian Empire by then) to Russia - although they clearly didn't want them going any further - and the Balkans were in play due to the weakening of the Ottoman Empire's hold on the region. There was ever-increasing fear of Russia getting too big, and the British believed that the Russians could be a threat to their Empire.
That was their problem, since Russia was getting way too big - and also encompassed multiple nations and smaller states - over 100 languages. Industrialization came late for them, although they did try. They certainly had a wealth of resources, but a very poor transportation system. They were also pretty much isolated from the sea, with no ice-free seaports they could use, and their access to the Mediterranean was controlled by Turkey. The Russians have wanted to retake Constantinople for Orthodoxy since 1453.
There's no telling what might have happened if Alexander II had not been assassinated. Alexander III was even more reactionary, and he gave a lot of fodder to the revolutionaries of the time. Nicholas II was a complete and utter buffoon to the point where his entire dynasty just self-destructed.
The Bolsheviks weren't really all that popular, but by the time of the November Revolution, no one really had any will to fight for the tsar or the provisional government. They were able to prevail in the Civil War mainly because of the Allied intervention which made it appear that the Whites were on the side of foreign interveners and imperialists, which was a rallying point which led a lot of people to join the Reds.
But they became cogs under Stalin.
They became literate and educated, and they rapidly industrialized, which would later prove to be necessary. They went from being backward, bankrupt, and defeated to becoming the first country to launch a satellite into space. That doesn't excuse or mitigate anything Stalin did, but it does show marked improvement from what they had before.
The USSR broke up, but they became subjects under Putin.
The population is dwindling due to war, disease, & emigration.
They didn't become subjects under Putin right way. There was a chain of events which occurred prior to Putin coming on the scene - and even then, it would still take a while before he could truly solidify power.
I think what really messed things up was that failed coup in 1991, which knocked Gorbachev out of power, but ended up destroying the Communist Party's hold on power. The public somehow turned to Yeltsin, who ended up driving the country into the ground and allowing organized crime to run rampant.
I know this will be controversial.
Some loathe Russia.
Others defend Russians as dupes.
Let the discussion commence.
I don't think it's productive or fruitful to reduce the discussion to those who "loathe Russia" or "defend Russians," as if Russia and Russians are a single, monolithic group where all think and feel the same. A lot of Russians oppose Putin and oppose the invasion of Ukraine. Others might be sympathetic to the overall Russian position, yet still oppose Putin and his aggressive and horrific methods of carrying it out. There is no defense for aggressive invasion. But that doesn't mean anyone should be prohibited from exploring the possible reasons why things happen as they do.
Some people seem to believe that looking deeper into these issues somehow softens the criticism and weakens the resolve and outrage that all must feel at this horrible thing Putin has done. And it clearly is a horrible thing, but just because someone considers the possibility that "maybe there were reasons," that doesn't automatically make them "dupes," does it?
www.the-sun.com
www.economist.com
www.nbcnews.com
foreignpolicy.com
