Russia will it return to former glory?

It's good to know that the Russians are paying off some of their Soviet-era debts, of course. But "former glory"? What former glory? Russia has never had any.

Under the Tsars it was a feudal economy right up to the 20th Century. Russia was the last country in Europe to end serfdom and allow "commoners" to own land. That happened in the 1860s, at the same time USA was freeing its slaves. Until the Communist revolution of 1917, Russia was the most backward country in Europe, with the lowest standard of living. The advent of Communism made matters only worse. It's amazing that the incompetent centrally-run economic system of the USSR actually lasted for three quarters of a century.

Vladimir Putin is a hard-line dictator, pretending to be a democratic leader. If he can improve the lot of the average Russian, more power to him. But it's historically ludicrous to speak of Russia's "former glory."

Andrew,

Then could you tell us what's your "glory" like?

Surely I agree with all the historical facts you have mentioned. Life either under Tsarist regime of Communist autocracts is harsh, people without intelligence and lacking basic rights. But by mentioning these, I can only acknowledge that this nation had very dark side in the past, darker than any democratic free industrialized capitalistic even imperialistic countries.

But how do people talk about "glory"? What does Danny mean by "glory"? I am pretty sure he didn't mean "The former glory of Russia of being a economically superior and politically democratic country". What he means was actually in a geographical sense, that on the whole, Russia as one nation was strong, and taken for far more account in the past than recent years (especially in the 90s)

That was the reason for which Napopleonic ambition was exhausted, for which France was anxious as hell to make sure Russia, with its unconquerable manpower, should be on her side in the wake of a great clash between western nations. If not for that reason, Anti-facism would be in vain no matter how many Normandies Allied could achieve, NATO would neutralize USSR with ease, and also, nowadays Russian people would not be so disappointed that they remained steadfast to support a leader who promised them "glory".

They did support him, because this "glory" was real. Even though it was sadly ideal and easily capitulated for most times.

But why there shouldn't be place for "ideals", "illusions" and "hopes" for a nation?

Though I don't think that Glory will come back for Russia, I still believe her people need hope for that, and they need better.

I think Putin is the new Stalin lite and the Russians are following him like sheep to slaughter. Why do Russians always need someone to do their thinking for them?

Hi, J-B.

I stressed the economic problems which Russia has had in the past because Danny, in his post, mentioned Russia's ability to pay back some billions of dollars in old debts as an example of "glory." His post hinted at a return to a past glory which, I submit, Russia has never had.

As to the two "glorious" examples you point to in Russian history, I submit that there is nothing glorious in being able to provide millions of victims in times of war. Both Napoleon and Hitler were defeated mainly by the Russian climate rather than by force of Russian arms. Millions of Russians perished in these invasions of Russian territory. This is not to minimize the suffering or, indeed, the heroism of Russians who opposed both invasions. But whatever glory there has been historically belongs to individual Russians, not to Russia as a state. I am speaking of the spurious "glory" of the nation of Russia, not of the people we call Russians.

In World War II, the Allies may have been "anxious as hell" (your words) to have Russia as an ally. But the fact remains that Russia became an ally because Hitler was a back-stabber, not because the Allies asked for its help. Germany attacked Russia in spite the secret agreement signed by Molotov and Ribbentrop partitioning Poland and pledging Russian neutrality in what was just developing into a world-wide confrontation. Most likely, Russia would not have helped the West if Hitler hadn't committed the momentous blunder of violating the agreement and attacking the USSR. And any glory in arms which it had against the invading Germans was largely due to the fact that it was being supplied by the United States of America under an extension of the lend-lease program before the United States got into the war.

As a land-mass, Russia is the largest country in the world, but the "Russians" living east of the Ural Mountains are mostly not ethnic Russians at all, unless they emigrated there or were forceably evacuated to Asian Russia to work in one of the infamous gulags. More Russian "glory." Most of this territory was not even acquired by Russia until after 1547 when Ivan (called "the terrible") was crowned as Tzar "of all the Russias." Until that time Russia had hardly even been a nation, but, rather, a collection of Duchies and Principalities. At first Kiev (Ukraine, not Russia!) was the most powerful of these, the Moscow gained primacy. Still, for most of the Medieval period the Russians were under the control of Mongol conquerors; the princes and dukes, not yet called Tzars, routinely went to the descendants of Ghengis Khan and the Golden Horde to get permission to do anything at all. It was Tzar Peter I (called "the Great") [early 18th Century] who made every effort to bring Russia into the fellowship of European powers and erase the strong Mongol/East Asian influence on the Russians. Peter wanted to open what he called "a window on Europe" by acquiring territory west of the Russian broders of that time. Sweden's King Charles XII helped him considerably in this matter by attacking Russia in 1701. The so-called Great Northern War ended with large parts of land bordering the Baltic Sea becoming part of the Tzardom. This land included prresent-day Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as parts of Finland and Poland. Present-day Byelorus and Ukraine became a part of this Tzardom and these were referred to as "little Russia."

To some extent, of course, these conquests by Peter -- who had learned most of what he knew about the civilized world from travels through Western Europe (incogniito, early in his reign) -- did give Russia some "glory" but it was at a fearful cost not only to the conquered lands but to the Russians themselves. Peter and his successors disdained any Russian-ness among the high-born and French became the official language at the royal court, with German and English accepted as secondary languages. Russian was for the peasants. Again, here we may well admire the resiliency of the Russian people but that says nothing good about Russia as a political entity.

You write: "But how do people talk about "glory"? What does Danny mean by "glory"? I am pretty sure he didn't mean "The former glory of Russia of being a economically superior and politically democratic country". What he means was actually in a geographical sense, that on the whole, Russia as one nation was strong, and taken for far more account in the past than recent years (especially in the 90s)"

It seems to me that since Danny speaks of Putin's ability to repay some large national debts, by "glory" he means precisely that Russia is returning to being "a economically superior" copuntry. And that is nonsense.

Andrew,

First of all I have to admit that when I talked about glory, it was mainly my own interpretation of glory. I really haven't thought well on Danny's post, which was an ignorant thing to do,

Secondly, you do much better in history that me, that when you come to details I really cannot anything. I feel poweless at this. And I don't know whether your way of interpreting details is right, or your collection of details fully present the case.

Again, I have to admit, all my judgements so far were largely based on my "general feeling". The feeling went back to before the 90s or 80s when USSR (or simply Russia) was undoubtably a major geopolitical role to be reckoned with. And also the feeling that today's Russia's leverage was absolutely imcompatible with that age.

No one could deny Stalinism and the subsequent course of developement for Russia was a failure. Neither do I.

And I also feel guilty that I exclude individuals when I talk about this large, rather obscure word of "glory".

But, I still feel (yep, I feel rather unsafe to use the word "think") that there was real glory for former Russia.

To drive out the invincible Napoleon Bonaparte is glory, to topple a currupt tsar is glory, to fight for Berlin is glory, to stand against trans-Atlantic is also glory.

OK, I know now probably you are feeling a bit indignant.
But I have to stress, that this glory is not your glory, is not my glory, is THEIR glory, Russian people's glory. (Ok I know, this "people" thing can only be obscurer)


Questioner: Russian people! Your feat to drive out French and German was not done by you! It's mostly because of the cold climate!

R.P. : Well what do you think is "we"? We are only, ourselves? No, we are everything of our country, of our home. WE are that tree, those trees, that biulding, those biuldings, we are those herds, those horses, those young man ill-equiped, those old man waiting for death. And WE ARE THAT CLIMATE, if that's the CLIMATE who beaten them down, that was still RUSSIAN CLIMATE.

My Comments: Things that belongs to a coutry, is that country's things.

Q: Russian people! See what you got in your hands? Thompson, Sherman Tank, Chocolate, American cans, English boots. Do you have production capacity anyway? Is that glory that you claim to have? So your glory is just nurtured by other countries, isn't it?

R.P. : So why do they send us these things? They can stop it if they want. But can they? I doubt. They keep doing this for a simple reason, that WE ARE STRONG. Isn't that also part of RUSSIAN PRIDE, RUSSIAN GLORY. Yes we know we are not good at producing, but we are trying. We may make mistakes, but isn't making mistake the commonest thing on earth?

Q: So now you are skipping out of this argument.

R.P.: We don't have to argue if our contender doesn't recognize our right of glory, the glory we truely feel.

Q: Drop it, ignorant men and women. Don't you see that your language is disdained by your own Tsar? Don't you know that your upper-class think it a pride to speak French and English?

R.P. : They speak French because they think our country is weak. Russia is economically dwarfed. But, my friend, can you imagine a Russia, already awesome in some ways, had the economical power of France or U.K.?

M.C.: So we came back to my "feeling" again, that Russia was once, awesome. It's paying quantity for quality. In some general way, a huge, poweful, but bulky, awkward battleship, equals a agile, elusive, but weak, vulnerable submarine. That's the equilibrium of the former time.



Andrew, you simply have no need to argue with me for my above words. Because I am not arguing, and I am not because I feel poweless to do that.

All I was doing was to present something I yet had no sense and ability to "argue", even no skill to outline it.

If again we want to know what exactly is that "feeling" is all about, I will tell you like this:
"If I am Russian, I will think that our country once had great glory, even with its atrocities and tragedic follies, for they are only a part of that Russian Glory. It's undeniable for us."

(Hey I have to admit I have some sorrowful admiration for this nation. Wandering alone in Siberia or the Red Square is just one endurable image of my dream. There was also a Russian movie that I liked very much, called The Barber Of Siberia, which was a love story, but which was also essentially a peep of the nature of this hard nation)

At last, it's a privilege to talk with you. Your words inspire me a lot. Though we come from different standpoints, accustomed to different approaches of thinking, though in nearly all the threads I have followed today, "arguments" turned nasty... This discussion can still be kept good-natured and still to some point amiable.

Ever sorry if I don't express my ideas properly or understand your ideas improperly.

I hope our discussion can keep on.


JB, with sincerity

oops I forget to say that " for which France was anxious as hell to make sure Russia, with its unconquerable manpower, should be on her side in the wake of a great clash between western nations." was actually refering to WW1. I haven't made it clear...

J_B, it is a pleasure to discuss, not argue, subtle points with a gentleman. I'm happy to discuss history, or anything else, with you. We can agree to disagree and still respect each other's opinion and point of view.

Being a Russian I cannot help but insert a word...

I think in Danny's post the word "strength" or "power" would be more appropriate than "glory". The meaning of the latter is too lofty when speaking about the country's ability to pay debts. And is there any single country in the world whose name is associated with glory only? Maybe some ancient empires where we never had a chance to feel the true reality of them...

With regard to Russia's glory I would like to quote Mikhail Lermontov, a famous Russian poet of XIX century (The English translation has been taken from http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/lermontov/my_country.html):


I feel this is a good example of the difference that exists between the official nationalism and the feeling to homeland.

Thank you, J-B, for your understanding. You do not know much of Russian history but your positive attitude is what is really valuable in inter-cultural communication and mutual knowledge. The Russian foreign ministry should probably shift the focus of its activities to China . No, it won't happen, the foreign policy is a very pragmatic thing...

Merry Andrew and Green Witch, while I appreciate J-B's opinion I do not mean that yours are of no value. It is always good to know some external view of yourself even if it is not so pleasant. But where did you pick up so many stereotypes about Russia? Like all stereotypes they do have certain grounds but are exaggerated and vulgarised. The more I communicate with westerners the more I think that the medieval split of Christianity into Catholicism and Orthodoxy still has surprisingly long-term consequences: Russia, whose culture is historically Christian Orthodox, is still viewed by many as a nest of heresy re: political and economic model, mentality, manners etc., though all these suspicions have nothing to do with the religion any more.

Merry Andrew, if it is really interesting to you I could expand on where you have been very biased or committed factual errors. J-B has also made some wrong assumptions. Only I am afraid it can take me long time.

As far as the early repayment of foreign debts by the Russian government is concerned, beside the fact that they presently have extra money to do so it also indicates that they do not know where else they can invest if they prefer to pay the creditors a premium of $1bln. for lost interest instead of spending $22.5bln. on a more promising project, which is not a good sign. They do not seem to believe themselves that today's economic stability will endure. If I were a banker I would think twice to give trust to a company who previously paid off a significant loan much in advance because I would doubt whether they are capable to use money effectively.

SerSo

Another good post after your presentation of 8.19
How did I forget it is Russia's own people have should have the loudest voice here.
Just point out the mistakes I have made if you have time.

Good luck to you and your people

Btw, Pushkin and Lermontov are among my favourite

Hello, SerSo.

I would be pleased to have you point out any factual errors in my post. I have no doubt that there are some errors as I was writing quickly, from memory, and didn't consult a history textbook. Again, I must stress that I have no animus toward the Russian people, only the past performance of Russsia as a political entity, whether we are speaking of the Tzarist empire or the Communist model. And I, too, have the greatest admiration for Lermontov. (Pushkin a little less so, but that's just personal taste.)

I am most intrigued by the last paragraph of your post and find that I agree with it completely. Russia as an entity -- whether political or economic -- is not used to dealing with large sums of money in the open marketplace nor to a maintenance of the democratic free-market institutions which make such commerce possible.