Russia! Russia!! Russia!!!

[Smitty-48]

If you wanted to compare Russia now to one of the three other countries prior to, I would submit, it is closest to Muscovy, pre Romanov, pre Imperial; no Petr the Great, no V.I. Lenin neither. Again, polar opposite to the Soviet Union, and also the House of Romanov, in that it lacks a significantly viable central authority, Vladimir V. Putin notwithstanding.

The political goals and motivations also invoke Muscovy, weak, divided, lacking a central authority, and surrounded on all sides by Great Powers, although for Muscovy, it was Bourbon France, Poland, and Sweden, whereas now, it is the United States, the Euopean Union, and China.

Now of course, was Petr the Great who put an end to all that, but I'm not sure that even Vladimir Putin fancies himself to be another Petr, maybe, but if so, he's deluding himself. On the other hand, Petr the Great didn't have the hydrogen bomb, so the Kremlin does have levers now which the Romanovs could not even conceive of outside the pages of the Bible itself.

[BjornP]

There's actually little to no continuity at all, between Muscovy, the Russian Empire of the House of Romanov, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Russian Federation, four completely different countries, each one wiping the previous country out as it went.

True from purely factual perspective. Yet historical fact is one thing and reality another when it comes the difference between history and what people feel about what history is. It's rarely historians who affect public policy or popular movements, after all. That's the same for Russians as for everyone else. The present day people of the Russian Federation certainly do not seem to regard its Soviet past as one country "wiping out" the previous one, or its post-Yeltsin history as that of an entirely different country. The name and the ideology changed, but they still revere the USSR and honor those who fought for it. Probably why they stuck with this particular melody for an anthem.



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ut-stalin/

[Smitty-48]

There's actually little to no continuity at all, between Muscovy, the Russian Empire of the House of Romanov, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Russian Federation, four completely different countries, each one wiping the previous country out as it went.

True from purely factual perspective. Yet historical fact is one thing and reality another when it comes the difference between history and what people feel about what history is. It's rarely historians who affect public policy or popular movements, after all. That's the same for Russians as for everyone else. The present day people of the Russian Federation certainly do not seem to regard its Soviet past as one country "wiping out" the previous one, or its post-Yeltsin history as that of an entirely different country. The name and the ideology changed, but they still revere the USSR and honor those who fought for it. Probably why they stuck with this particular melody for an anthem.

Again, it's similar to the American Revolution, the Americans were British, yet even when they ceased to be British, they still acknowledged their British origins and the aspects of Britain which they transplanted, while at the same time would vehemently oppose any assertion that the United States of America was in continuity to the British Empire, to say that the Russian Federation is contiguous to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, would be tantamount to saying that the United States is contiguous to the British Empire, when in fact the British Empire, regardless of America's relation to, no longer exists, and the United States of America, regardless of occupying the same territory, is entirely seperate from.

Are there still Soviet sympathetic loyalists in the Russian Federation? Perhaps, but at this distance from the American Revolution, there were still many British sympathetic Tories in the American Republic as well, contrary to popular myth, America did not purge its royalist impulses overnight, anymore than the Russians could purge their Soviet impulses overnight, but that doesn't make the 2017 Russian Federation a proxy for the Soviet Union anymore than it made 1797 America a proxy for the British Empire.

[Smitty-48]

Moreover, again, the political goals, motivations, and doctrines of the Russian Federation, are practically the polar opposite to the Soviet Union's, so while Russians may have a nostalgia for the ostensible Great Power status of the Soviets, politically, they are in fact diametrically opposed to the radically internationalist revolutionary nature of the Soviet and associated World Socialist paradigm, so not simply a different country on paper, but in fact a diametrically opposed country in the doctrinal sense.

In broad strokes and simple terms, where the Soviets were the bulwarks of World Socialism, the Russians, reactionary to, have now come around to be bulwarks against it.

To wit, what is Russia fighting for? Soviet One World Government Kumbaya? No, quite the opposite in fact.

The issue at this point, is rather that the Americans have supplanted the Soviets as the chief proponents of One World Government Kumbaya, while the Russians have become vehemently reactionary against it. Where the Soviets were hyperInternationalists, the Russians have recoiled to become hypernationalists. Where the Americans were once vehemently opposed to One World Government Kumbaya, they have now embraced it, as it favours them as the status quo Hegemon. Although, the Americans of course do not call it the "World Socialist Revolution", but rather euphemistically the "Established Liberal Order", which, the Russians would likely assert at this juncture, to be an Orwellian distinction without a difference.

Cuban Missile Crisis you say? Who is the Soviets and where are the offending missiles? Seems to me, the missiles are in Eastern Europe, anti-ballistic rather than ballistic, which, in an operational sense, is actually even more destabilizing, and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, doesn't seem to be emanating from the Kremlin, where o' where are art thou, Supreme Soviet? I'm certainly not seeing you in Moscow anymore, Mr. Ivan to me, seems more of a Right Wing Nutjob now, perhaps not libertarian, but functionally minarchist, certainly as it pertains to international relations, which is perhaps why the American Right has become more sympathetic to him, while it is the American Left now looking to incite a Cold War at his gates.

[BjornP]

Again, it's similar to the American Revolution, the Americans were British, yet even when they ceased to be British, they still acknowledged their British origins and the aspects of Britain which they transplanted, while at the same time would vehemently oppose any assertion that the United States of America was in continuity to the British Empire, to say that the Russian Federation is contiguous to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, would be tantamount to saying that the United States is contiguous to the British Empire, when in fact the British Empire, regardless of America's relation to, no longer exists, and the United States of America, regardless of occupying the same territory, is entirely seperate from.

Are there still Soviet sympathetic loyalists in the Russian Federation? Perhaps, but at this distance from the American Revolution, there were still many British sympathetic Tories in the American Republic at the time as well.

The breakup of the 13 colonies from Britain was not the same geopolitical entity changing its political system from one into another. It was no revolution by the British, but simply a succesful rebellion by colonists. The state is the same, but it is definitely not popularly considered a blank slate, or a clean "break" with the history of the USSR.

If you want to compare to Russia, the better example is France. From feudal France, to absolutist France to Revolutionary Republican France, to Imperial France, back to royal France and back to a Republic. Their historical-cultural identity today isn't really tied up with their royal past, but they - especially their left - do love both revolutionary French and embrace that as their "true" identity, as well as Napoleonic France - especially the French right.

You make a big mistake, as the statistics I posted point out, if you're thinking ideologically Communist sympathizers loyal to the old regime are the only ones nostaligic about the USSR era. Unless you want to say that two-thirds of Russians are actually Communists. From what you write otherwise, I'd think you put that much Cold War mentality behind you, at least.

The mother country/colony dynamic, is simply not the same as the mother country /mother country has a revolution-dynamic. Sure Americans remained, and to a large degree still remain Anglo in cultural outlook, but Anglo North America is not England. Its history is linked to, founded by and influenced culturally by, the English, but they are now culturally seperate from the English. Russians are culturally, yet mostly not geographically seperate from Muscowy and Romanov Russia, but not from the USSR, since most of today's Russians lived only in that part of Russian history. It is the same people in the same geography. One Russian people does not live in one geographical location, while another Russian people has evolved in another direction, in another geographical location.

So, to say that the US is contiguos to the BE is indeed wrong since one state never replaced the other in the same geography - no revolution, iow. The French states from medieval to now, and the Russian state from medieval to now, otoh...did. And from a popular, everyday Russian POV, Russians who grew up with no other iteration of Russia, there is definitely a historical conciousness of the Russian federation being a continuation of the past rather than a break with the past. That was the point of showing that modern Russians hold the USSR in such high regard. Because they still consider it their history.

[Smitty-48]

Meh, I'll stand by my posts, not interested in getting down into the obtuse and niggling weeds with you, in pursuit of making the inherently simple pointlessly complex, to wit; tl;dr, any old dumb ass can miss the point to muddy the waters with needless complexity, at which point; moving on...

[BjornP]

Moreover, again, the political goals, motivations, and doctrines of the Russian Federation, are practically the polar opposite to the Soviet Union's, so while Russians may have a nostalgia for the ostensible Great Power status of the Soviets, politically, they are in fact diametrically opposed to the radically internationalist revolutionary nature of the Soviet and associated World Socialist paradigm, so not simply a different country on paper, but in fact a diametrically opposed country in the doctrinal sense.

In broad strokes and simple terms, where the Soviets were the bulwarks of World Socialism, the Russians, reactionary to, have now come around to be bulwarks against it.

To wit, what is Russia fighting for? Soviet One World Government Kumbaya? No, quite the opposite in fact.

The issue at this point, is rather that the Americans have supplanted the Soviets as the chief proponents of One World Government Kumbaya, while the Russians have become vehemently reactionary against it. Where the Soviets were hyperInternationalists, the Russians have recoiled to become hypernationalists. Where the Americans were once vehemently opposed to One World Government Kumbaya, they have now embraced it, as it favours them as the status quo Hegemon. Although, the Americans of course do not call it the "World Socialist Revolution", but rather euphemistically the "Established Liberal Order", which, the Russians would likely assert at this juncture, to be an Orwellian distinction without a difference.

I don't think your average Soviet subject did much more than just follow the program, and even so, probably didn't question or understand too much of it, unless they wanted to make a political career. Soviets didn't succesfully wipe out nationalism, old Russian anti-Semitism, religion, and whatever else their ideology considered detrimental to the mind of the proletariat. So yeah, the nostalgia Russians today have for the USSR is more of a nebulous *ahem* "We Wuz Kings!" sort of nostalgia. The economic troubles post-USSR also probably accounts for a whole lot of harkening back to those "good old days" of stability, and not ending up starving in the street.

I absolutely agree that ideologically, they couldn't be more different. But just like most of the peasants and workers at the time the Bolsheviks took over, likely scratched their heads about what that whole "Bolshevism" thing was and who now was supposed to come over to whip their backs if they didn't gather enough grain for some fancy dressed guy, I expect it will take another generation before most Russians consider the USSR and the RF a historical break, than a continuation. Takes time to find a new place, essentially a new national identity.

[BjornP]

Meh, I'll stand by my posts, not interested in getting down into the obtuse and niggling weeds with you, in pursuit of making the inherently simple pointlessly complex, to wit; tl;dr, any old dumb ass can miss the point to muddy the waters with needless complexity, at which point; moving on...

I didn't miss any point, nothing I wrote was needlessly complex, and there was no water being muddied.

But I might just quote you the next time you post one of your "needlessly" long walls of text on some military topic, and all those " pointlessly complex" abbreviations and terms you use to "muddy the waters".

[Smitty-48]

Meh, I'll stand by my posts, not interested in getting down into the obtuse and niggling weeds with you, in pursuit of making the inherently simple pointlessly complex, to wit; tl;dr, any old dumb ass can miss the point to muddy the waters with needless complexity, at which point; moving on...

I didn't miss any point, nothing I wrote was needlessly complex, and there was no water being muddied.

But I might just quote you the next time you post one of your "needlessly" long walls of text on some military topic, and all those " pointlessly complex" abbreviations and terms you use to "muddy the waters".

Feel free to disregard anything I post, just as I disregard 99% of what you post, I simply find you to be tedious and boring, and so have very little interest in getting into the weeds with you, so if you disregard my posts, that's fine by me, the less Bjorn the better I say, I'm just not that into your stuff, but there's no need to get snippy about it, go on with your jibber jabber, knock yourself out, I'm not stopping anybody from reading it. If you can find some sucker to go round and round with you to no particular conclusion nor point, more power to you, it's no skin off my teeth. /shrugs

[BjornP]

Meh, I'll stand by my posts, not interested in getting down into the obtuse and niggling weeds with you, in pursuit of making the inherently simple pointlessly complex, to wit; tl;dr, any old dumb ass can miss the point to muddy the waters with needless complexity, at which point; moving on...

I didn't miss any point, nothing I wrote was needlessly complex, and there was no water being muddied.

But I might just quote you the next time you post one of your "needlessly" long walls of text on some military topic, and all those " pointlessly complex" abbreviations and terms you use to "muddy the waters".

Feel free to disregard anything I post, just as I disregard 99% of what you post, I simply find you to be tedious and boring, and so have very little interest in getting into the weeds with you, so if you disregard my posts, that's fine by me, the less Bjorn the better I say, I'm just not that into your stuff, but there's no need to get snippy about it, go on with your jibber jabber, knock yourself out, I'm not stopping anybody from reading it. /shrugs

Your need to "jibber jabber" on about just how much you totally are ignoring me, and excatly how I make you feel, is certainly boring me now.