Role of Russia for European prosperity and wellbeing. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15173389
I have recently watched a trailer:



And it got me thinking a bit about history and the similarities in many works of literature and art. We seemingly have a concept of a country being a sort of a "Warden" of the world or some place. It can be that games trailer or Game of Thrones for example. I was thinking about where does this concept comes from in reality and the basic idea that I could think of is its Russia through out history for Europe. Russia has been aggressive towards Europe yes through out history but the prosperity of Russia and Europe seem to be closely connected and usually if Russia weakens then Europe goes in to a sort of economic, technological and cultural decline. Then I started to somehow justify this with historical facts and came to a conclusion that may be there is something to this idea in general.

So if we start from the days of the Roman empire then it is undoubtable that a large problem for them was that they were expecieing constant invasions from the migrating tribes on their borders or from outside which in the end helped the fall of Rome.

Then there was the Middle ages when Russia was starting to appear and funnily enough, High middle ages which is considered the pinnacle of culture and technology at that time has coencided with the rise of the Kievan RUS. By the time of the 10th until the middle of the 13th century culture was prospering, population was growing and so on.

But after the Mongols destroyed the Kievan Principalities then the crysis of the late middle ages start. "Official" date for the late middle ages is 1250 and funnily enough the Mongols managed to destroy the Kievan Rus principalities somewhere around 1240s if I still remember my history correctly.

Then there were the Mongol rule through out the late middle ages in Russia but after came the Renaissance. Once again, now Grand Duchy of Moscowy managed to defeat the Mongol yoke and started establishing the Tsardom of Russia. Again the dates coincide with the start of Renaissance in Europe.

And then we reach the point of Post renaissance, early modern Europe, capitalism, Imperialism and so forth. Time of great technological, cultural and so on progress when Europe basically took over the world. Once again, at this time Russia was relatively stable and fully took control of the steppe tribes or migrating tribes near the caucuses and modern day Ukraine. The only real invasion of Europe from outside was either Russia itself or by the Ottomans. But then again, it was Russia who pummelled the Ottomans to non-existence eventually with other European countries having their own benefits in this process.

After that we had the 2nd World war and the Soviet Union which I am not sure how to rate in this context.

And now we finally get to the modern day. Current Russia seems to be disintegrating little by little under Putin. So the main question here is, although Europe is more united compared to any time in its history, is it a process that we should accelerate or prevent at all costs? Currently, if Russia disintegrates then it will the Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks standing on the forefront of defence against either the Turks or anything else that might come from beyond. Many people forget that simple existence of Russia keeps Erdogans imperialism in check for example. So what does Pofo think about this topic?

If somebody doesn't know then I am heavily against the disintegration of Russia at all costs as stated in several other topics. As much as a threat Russia is and was through history, it is still a very useful bulwark of sorts. (Not to mention the modern iteration of crysis (Immigration for example) and so on that will repeat)
#15173399
I get it, you are worried about the power vacuum that could be created if Russia falls apart. Would it not be possible for Russia to reform and become something that is more palatable to the rest of Europe? Would it not be possible for a reformed and more democratic Russia to form a true partnership with the rest of the free world? If the answer is yes, then your concerns aren't much of a concern no? If the answer is no, then I see your concerns.

That said, it would be easy to smack down Turkey. They are not at the forefront of technological development anyway. They are a second tier pawn to be used by the likes of say China (if Russia is out of the picture).
#15173402
Rancid wrote:I get it, you are worried about the power vacuum that could be created if Russia falls apart. Would it not be possible for Russia to reform and become something that is more palatable to the rest of Europe? Would it not be possible for a reformed and more democratic Russia to form a true partnership with the rest of the free world? If the answer is yes, then your concerns aren't much of a concern no? If the answer is no, then I see your concerns.

That said, it would be easy to smack down Turkey. They are not at the forefront of technological development anyway. They are a second tier pawn to be used by the likes of say China (if Russia is out of the picture).


I mean, sure theoretically it can be reformed like any other place in the world. It is just not going in to that direction. Collapse of Russia would be the largest geopolitical shift since the end of the first world war or the second world war. That is a massive change compared to before and after.
#15173478
JohnRawls wrote:
After that we had the 2nd World war and the Soviet Union which I am not sure how to rate in this context.

And now we finally get to the modern day. Current Russia seems to be disintegrating little by little under Putin. So the main question here is, although Europe is more united compared to any time in its history, is it a process that we should accelerate or prevent at all costs? Currently, if Russia disintegrates then it will the Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks standing on the forefront of defence against either the Turks or anything else that might come from beyond. Many people forget that simple existence of Russia keeps Erdogans imperialism in check for example. So what does Pofo think about this topic?

If somebody doesn't know then I am heavily against the disintegration of Russia at all costs as stated in several other topics. As much as a threat Russia is and was through history, it is still a very useful bulwark of sorts. (Not to mention the modern iteration of crysis (Immigration for example) and so on that will repeat)




Quite some food for thought. We must always beware what we wish for.

But you are right. If Russia disintegrates then Nato/Eu face two problems. Military alliances are not formed over abstract and intellectual justifications. There must be a real and palpable enemy. A clear and present danger is the glue that holds a military alliance together. Without it the alliance falls apart. It is already difficult enough getting Nato members to pay up their fair shares, how much more difficult will that task be if individuals cannot point to a clear and present danger to justify the sacrifices?

That poses a danger as the plethora of states emerging from the disintegrated Russian Federation will pose a problem to the European Union not unlike that posed by the various northern and eastern European tribes to the Roman Empire. The new independent states will in all likelihood go through a phase not unlike that post Yugoslavia; boundary disputes, wars, massacres... all of which will push refugees towards Europe.

Will Nato/Eu then expand eastwards to impose a pax on the wild and ungovernable remnants of the Russian Federation? That will be history repeating itself. Nato/Eu will be exactly in the same situation as the later Roman Empire; forced to push to subdue tribes on its periphery in wars that are costly and yielding little benefits; and at a time when the martial ardour of the earlier Roman Republic had long waned.

And I have not yet touched on how the Turks and Chinese will react to that vacuum just created to their north and west. Will they race to fill the vacuum? And if they do will Nato/Eu then have to race against them to fill that vacuum themselves?
#15173525
Juin wrote:Quite some food for thought. We must always beware what we wish for.

But you are right. If Russia disintegrates then Nato/Eu face two problems. Military alliances are not formed over abstract and intellectual justifications. There must be a real and palpable enemy. A clear and present danger is the glue that holds a military alliance together. Without it the alliance falls apart. It is already difficult enough getting Nato members to pay up their fair shares, how much more difficult will that task be if individuals cannot point to a clear and present danger to justify the sacrifices?

That poses a danger as the plethora of states emerging from the disintegrated Russian Federation will pose a problem to the European Union not unlike that posed by the various northern and eastern European tribes to the Roman Empire. The new independent states will in all likelihood go through a phase not unlike that post Yugoslavia; boundary disputes, wars, massacres... all of which will push refugees towards Europe.

Will Nato/Eu then expand eastwards to impose a pax on the wild and ungovernable remnants of the Russian Federation? That will be history repeating itself. Nato/Eu will be exactly in the same situation as the later Roman Empire; forced to push to subdue tribes on its periphery in wars that are costly and yielding little benefits; and at a time when the martial ardour of the earlier Roman Republic had long waned.

And I have not yet touched on how the Turks and Chinese will react to that vacuum just created to their north and west. Will they race to fill the vacuum? And if they do will Nato/Eu then have to race against them to fill that vacuum themselves?


You have classical misconception that the West or Nato need to define themselves as an opponent of somebody. Basically definition by being an opposite of something. That is not the case. West and NATO are institutions with a clear set of values that are known to anybody. West and NATO are ideas in themselves far beyond just some opponent to something. There is no need to worry about anything in this regard.

In case of Russia dissolution, of course NATO will have to expand eastwards because the main friction point will move from the South China Sea somewhere to the Urals. Europe would be the first in line to agree to it and US will not disagree since having now land forces and allies will put pressure on China to behave.

You are correct though that the states will have a process similar to former Yugoslavia. The funny fact is that even the Soviet Union managed to understand this and willingly dissolve itself not to put its people in such a situation. That is why NATO expansion will be even required to put the region back to stability.

Having said that, prosperity long term will probably be very good since looking at history, Kievan principalities, were easier to manage and far more prosperous than other regions of the world. Basically Kievan principalities in the high middle ages were perhaps more advanced than Europe or Asia at that time until the Mongols destroyed everything. Well at least those that had more of a republican or oligarchic forms of rule.

The problem is that helping Russia not dissolve is something that America will probably be not okay with since that could create a super Hegemone on the European continent and beyond. Historically USA is afraid that all European and Russian resources can go to one specific entity which will be a massive threat to anybody if it chooses to act so. European technology and wealth along with Russian resources can create an unassailable state that will be head and shoulders above any other state be it China or US. That would put such a country at around 20% of earths land mass. Much more if we consider that a large chunk of landmass is desert which is barely present in Europe or Russia. The cold regions of Russia could be populated and settled if there was a will to do so.

Basically, if Europe is to help Russia to not dissolve then Europe probably needs an agreement with US regarding this to some degree to make it possible. Perhaps a free trade agreement of sorts so the resources between EU, US and Russia go 50/50 to both EU and Russia while developing the Siberian regions more and so on.
#15173635
Politics_Observer wrote:Well if Russia plays a bigger role in European prosperity, hopefully people over there don't mind living under autocratic regimes given that Russia will certainly want to spread their autocratic type regimes to other countries to ensure the survival of it's own autocratic regime.




Why would the average Russian want more of Gorbachev and Yeltsin? Unfortunately that is the Russian experience with democratic reform. I don't doubt that the average Joe Russian will like a functioning Jeffersonian democracy, but their history is unlikely to convince the Babushka that it is a risk worth taking.
#15173644
Juin wrote:Why would the average Russian want more of Gorbachev and Yeltsin? Unfortunately that is the Russian experience with democratic reform. I don't doubt that the average Joe Russian will like a functioning Jeffersonian democracy, but their history is unlikely to convince the Babushka that it is a risk worth taking.


To some degree that is true but a lot of Babushkas have died already and the TLDR version to this is that this support for the current Putins regime is mostly falsified and not even distributed properly because falsifications in the more European regions of Russia is very problematic.

Putin gets 95% turnout with 99% support in places like Dagestan, Chechnya and some of the Ural regions but European parts is more or less fair. So when it comes to regional or local elections then his fucked more than usual. The global referendums and presidential election he still can falsify to a degree since those regions where it is possible to write 100/100 basically is around 20-22 million votes.

The upcoming Duma election thought are a big problem since the Russian system has a federal part to it but also a local one. The Federal part will be falsified but the local ones is fair game where falsifications will be hard or minimal. Something might change but this seems to be the case.
#15173670
JohnRawls wrote:To some degree that is true but a lot of Babushkas have died already and the TLDR version to this is that this support for the current Putins regime is mostly falsified and not even distributed properly because falsifications in the more European regions of Russia is very problematic.

Putin gets 95% turnout with 99% support in places like Dagestan, Chechnya and some of the Ural regions but European parts is more or less fair. So when it comes to regional or local elections then his fucked more than usual. The global referendums and presidential election he still can falsify to a degree since those regions where it is possible to write 100/100 basically is around 20-22 million votes.

The upcoming Duma election thought are a big problem since the Russian system has a federal part to it but also a local one. The Federal part will be falsified but the local ones is fair game where falsifications will be hard or minimal. Something might change but this seems to be the case.





I asked in some post in the past that we call a spade a spade; Putin is a Dictator, period. The only caution I add is that a dictator is not necessarily a bad thing if history and experience offers more the chaos of anarchy than the regular, well functioning democracies of the west.

I posit that the reality, or the reality as lived by Russians in their recent history, is a choice between bad and badder. Are Russians much more likely to take their chances with the stability and security of the Dictatorship of Putin or the chaos, geostrategic defeats, wipedout pensions of Gorbachev and Yeltsin?

I dont doubt that the vast majority of Russians will like a well functioning Jeffersonian democracy. Problem is anytime they have tried their hand at it it has only led to ruin and something worse. 1917 saw Russia wind up with the brutal Bolsheviks in power. Gorbachev's perestroika and whatever the other slogan was saw Russia suffer a collosal geostrategic defeat with no improvements in domestic economy to justify it. The chaos continued under Yeltsin
#15173692
Juin wrote:I asked in some post in the past that we call a spade a spade; Putin is a Dictator, period. The only caution I add is that a dictator is not necessarily a bad thing if history and experience offers more the chaos of anarchy than the regular, well functioning democracies of the west.

I posit that the reality, or the reality as lived by Russians in their recent history, is a choice between bad and badder. Are Russians much more likely to take their chances with the stability and security of the Dictatorship of Putin or the chaos, geostrategic defeats, wipedout pensions of Gorbachev and Yeltsin?

I dont doubt that the vast majority of Russians will like a well functioning Jeffersonian democracy. Problem is anytime they have tried their hand at it it has only led to ruin and something worse. 1917 saw Russia wind up with the brutal Bolsheviks in power. Gorbachev's perestroika and whatever the other slogan was saw Russia suffer a collosal geostrategic defeat with no improvements in domestic economy to justify it. The chaos continued under Yeltsin


Problem with modern dictatorships is ultimately that they do not respect or understand human capital. The most important economic asset right now is how well and developed your population is and they will then figure out how to make the money given the chance. IT companies are basically making money out of thin air by providing different kind of services world wide. There are no resource companies in the top 10 largest company lists. All of them are either banks or IT companies, this is not 1990s or 2000s anymore. The world has moved on.

Sadly dictatorships do not provide development nor the opportunities usually. The only dictatorship that has achieved any parity with the liberal democracies is Singapore. There are also some examples from resource rich places like Saudi Arabia or Dubai but those are unachievable by anybody else since per capita nobody has enough resources like that compared to them. It also begs the question of what will happen once the world switches to something else like renewables.

Gorbachevs perestroika failed because ultimately he and his advisors didn't know anything about economy and how could they, they were communists. Same goes about early Yeltsin but the later Yeltsin basically made modern early 2000s and onwards prosperity possible until Russia reached the middle income trap of sorts. Being unable to beat it, Putin started to become more dictatorial and so on to cling to power. The 98,99 and onward growth till around 2008 was Yeltsin reforms success and growing oil prices. Actually probably mostly Yeltsin reforms because as we see right now, oil price is relatively useless for Russia's growth right now.

The classical problem of the middle income trap is that to beat it, you also need to significantly curb on corruption, attain a good standard of rule of law, some equality achievements also. Those things seem to be vaguely connected to the economy but in reality they are not. You can't have businesses running if there are too many impediments or "extra taxation" of sorts on them. Not to mention investment will not flow at all which is perhaps the most important aspect to this.
#15173694
@JohnRawls

Yup, nobody is going to want to do business in a country where corruption is rampant and dictatorships have plenty of corruption. You have to have the rule of law established, otherwise, foreign investment will dry up and with it, the country's standard of living and prosperity.
#15173696
Politics_Observer wrote:@JohnRawls

Yup, nobody is going to want to do business in a country where corruption is rampant and dictatorships have plenty of corruption. You have to have the rule of law established, otherwise, foreign investment will dry up and with it, the country's standard of living and prosperity.



I dont think there is that direct a correlation between dictatorship and corruption. A dictator can do an excellent job, JohnRawls provided the example of Singapore's Lee Quan Yew. Hope I spelled it right. And on the democracies side of the board one can point out hopelessly corrupt countries like Nigeria.

But over the long run the superiority of democracies over dictatorships begins to tell. Dictatorships, even under the best of a dictator, has the disadvantage that it is a closed field not open to competition. Democracies on the other hand tend towards widening the playing field, reduction of obstacles to startups, more competion, better choices for consumers, more profits for entrepreneurs.

Even the best run dictatorship eventually has to open up, or else it fossilises, inertia sets in, and growth drops
#15173697
@Juin

I don't know if I buy that. I think it's a terrible idea to go and do business in Russia given the corruption and organized crime. You probably end up getting extorted by the Russian mob as soon as they start smelling your success. And if you weren't getting extorted by the Russian mob, the Russian government would probably be extorting you in someway given it's corruption. Heck, the Russian mob is probably part of the Russian government. Not only that, but you would probably get tailed by the FSB and be on a FSB watch list.
#15173698
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

I don't know if I buy that. I think it's a terrible idea to go and do business in Russia given the corruption and organized crime. You probably end up getting extorted by the Russian mob as soon as they start smelling your success. And if you weren't getting extorted by the Russian mob, the Russian government would probably be extorting you in someway given it's corruption. Heck, the Russian mob is probably part of the Russian government. Not only that, but you would probably get tailed by the FSB and be on a FSB watch list.



Ukraine is as equally corrupt, if not more so.

And even if Putin is replaced tomorrow by a democracy the Russian mob is not just gonna disappear. The Oligarchs will still be there. As a matter of fact the immediate Presidents elected after Putin will in all likelihood have been financed by Oligarchs, and would be in the pockets of the Oligarchs.

The kind of well functioning democracy you have in mind takes time.

Ukraine has not had a dictatorship of the Putin cloth. Yet it has been beset by rampant corruption since its independence in 1991. Wasnt Yanukovich the legally elected President? Wasnt he kicked out and replaced by another Oligarch?

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]

...Or maybe because there are many witnesses sayin[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]