[Patrickov]

Note: This is an opinion piece from a fellow Hongkonger. He is definitely anti-CCP (or more precisely, CCP did move against him some years ago), but he's so pragmatic that most pro-China / pro-Russia trolls here will find him closer to them.

This is his take on Russia. Posted on Feb 2, 2022.

Source:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/chu-fei-wen-shi-62000549

Russians may be very brave. They may as well be the Race of Fighters (戰鬥民族, a term commonly attributed to Russians by Chinese speakers, from China and Taiwan alike). However, their military record have not been decent. They couldn't beat Finland, whose population was less than Hong Kong. They lost in the Crimean War, they had to fight hard against the Ottomans, and they even lost to Japan. The most famous records of their wars had always been their endurance when either Napoleon Bonaparte or Adolf Hitler's armies reached Moscow (1812 and 1941, respectively). The problem is, if you hadn't lost a lot, how could you have let your enemies reach your capitol? So even these were Pyrrhic victories.

Why is this the case? Actually, it's not Russia's fault. This is because of the geographical condition of Russia, whose problem roots from its origins -- a small landlocked country.

Apart from those like to study history, few would mention the Great Northern War, but it's actually the war which caused Russia's rise. 300 years ago, the Great Hegemon in the North was not Russia, but Sweden. Yes, that country where IKEA comes from, was once a mighty military power in Europe. It was only defeated in that war, by a coalition led by Russia. The said coalition included Prussia, Saxony, and... well, Great Britain.

The biggest impact of that war was that, Russia gained its first harbor to the ocean. Before that, Russia had no ocean-faring harbor at all. A Russia without harbor is no different from today's Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Tibet or Xinjiang. Trade was severely restricted and hard to develop, because land transport could not achieve high transport rate, the cost was high, and could easily be blocked by some big nations. Only after getting a harbor, Russia could engage in the Baltic trade, and grew into a big country in the next century.

This, is the destiny of Russia. Yes, its destiny is to "get a harbor". Their direction of development has just been to head for a new harbor. You can then understand why Russia has become so big -- they have been after just three harbors: St. Petersburg facing the Baltic Sea, Crimea facing the Mediterranean Sea, and Haishenwai (Vladivostok) in Asia. Even if just one of their harbors is lost, the economy and logistics relying on that harbor will fall into disarray. In other words, the harbors are the real hearts of Russia. If Russia loses all three harbors, they will revert to that insignificant Muscovite Duchy.

Still, that three harbors' geography are not that fortunate either, as all of them face another strait controlled by someone else. If you control Jutland, you can close off St. Petersburg; if you control Istanbul, you can control the Bosporus and close off Crimea; if you control Manchuria / Korea, you can control the Tsushima Strait and thus put Vladivostok in trouble. And then you will understand why Russia had had war with Ukraine, Japan, Turkey and Germany. All of them are controller of the said straits. If they all ganged up on Russia, they could beat it to death.

This means for its own sake, Russia has to not only protect its harbors, but also overcome the disadvantages of its harbors. It is not that they want to be belligerent. They have to. All three harbors are important to them.

But the worst thing about these three harbors is that, they are not connected at all, which means they cannot support each other. That means one fleet is required to maintain each harbor. As a result, you may find Russia have a large navy, but they can always mobilize one-third of its naval force in action. Similarly, they have to divide on their army and supply. As a result, the military need of Russia is always 3 times of an equivalent country. This, inevitably, scares its neighbors into strengthening their military, resulting in a vicious cycle.

You say they are the Race of Fighters? No, they are Race of Forced Fighters.

In some sense, you can claim Russia is a "union of three almost-landlocked countries, connected to Moscow with a railway". They might have a scary sum, but not even half of it can be put into use every time they enter a war.

That's why Russia really needs nukes. Considering its situation, nukes are their only great help.

In comparison, the United States is very well-placed. They have two coasts, each facing a vast ocean, providing both trade routes and natural barriers. To their north and south, there's only one country, and neither are strong. The US itself is vast, so there's no resource conflict with others. Its only weak spot is the Panama Canal, so their attitude towards Panama has been the same as how Russia treats Ukraine, but to most other countries the US is generally benevolent. This is determined by natural conditions, not their ideologies.

In conclusion, the only savior for Russia is that one day the snows in Siberia are all gone, allowing Russia to possess more non-freezing harbors and utilize the Arctic. Only by then they will not have to cling on all those crappy harbors and put so much military for war effort.

Unfortunately, the ice doesn't seem likely to thaw for Russia.

Summary of his points:
1. Russia is essentially a landlocked country, other than its 3 harbors: St. Petersburg, Crimea and Vladivostok.
2. All three harbors are not direct to the ocean, and neither of them are connected to each other, thus Russia's naval power is inevitably divided.
3. The US is more benevolent to the world than Russia because of their geographical difference, rather than their ideological difference.


(My take? Don't maintain such greatness if it's so hard to maintain!)