I'm pretty sure the problem is a circle of oligarchs, cronies, and ex-KGB turning the government into a sadistic mob state, and their citizens poor as hell.
This seems pretty similar to descriptions of Russia in 1918 as well. What's up with this place? Maybe it's the cultural influence of the Mongol invasion?
Are you looking for broad “reasons” why history has unfolded the way it did?
What if Russia’s history is not improbable? What if “Western” {democracy + variants of capitalism + colonialism + etc} is actually more of a surprise, probabilistically?
Have you read various commentaries that draw associations and even causal links between natural resources and history? For example, extractable resources tend to correspond with countries that get exploited, either by outsiders or (autocratic or oligarchic) insiders.
(Opinion: Even democratic capitalist countries don’t share a region’s internal wealth very fairly. But it seems that this approach is better than capture by inefficient and corrupt command-and-control forms of government.)
In any case, geopolitical history rarely offers sample sizes large enough to proffer convincing statistical analysis. At best, historians point out convincing theories and evidence of how they play out.
P.S. I use curlies and parens for this crowd because it reduces ambiguity. :)
In this case, I am wondering if a culture other than the present would lead to different outcomes, and specifically wondering if there are significant after-effects of the long-ago Mongol domination. Of course it's near impossible to answer this with any scientific rigor, and I don't have much hope for it :)
It seems that the communist takeover in 1918 was not an obvious "done deal," and at several points things came very close to not happening that way (and going the way of the German social-democratic setup for example).
Ah. I’m not a dedicated Russian scholar, but the big themes to me seem to be:
- Relative cultural isolation of Russia, with the exception of the major cities nearer to Europe. I’d speculate this is partially due to few international trade routes.
- A brutally tough existence, largely due to the climate, economic systems, and over-investment in war.
- No transformational economic gains from territorial gains. The US Colonies, later states, had huge land and resources to colonize and plunder. This created new centers of power and upended Britain’s colonial grip.
- Systemic repression.
- Few alternative centers of power besides the state. Religion plays less of a role in Russian throughout history compared to the West, is this fair?
- High levels of distrust for decades if not centuries, leading to leaders capitalizing on fear.
- Low probability that an aspirational leader could shake the country free of its 20th century roots. No chance that an exiled leader could flee, build a reputation, and return later to transform the country.
I know relativity little about the Mongol influence. What suggests that it might be lasting and enduring?
P.S. This answer would probably be better, more comprehensive, and possibly confidently wrong if aided by a chatty AI.
Let’s talk about the history of Russia. What factors contribute to the county’s “capture” by oligarchs? Why can’t the people topple the autocrats and get something better?
Please respond to my thoughts below. Correct me as needed. Offer contrasting views as appropriate. Agree if I get it right.
{I pasted my comment from above.}
——-
ChatGPT 4.0 responded with:
——-
Your analysis of Russia's history and the factors contributing to its capture by oligarchs is generally on the right track. I will elaborate on some of your points and provide additional perspectives.
Relative cultural isolation: While Russia's geographical location might have limited its interaction with the West, Russia has had a long history of cultural exchange with its neighbors in Asia and Eastern Europe. However, the isolationist policies of certain historical periods, such as during the Soviet era, contributed to this sense of cultural isolation.
Brutally tough existence: The harsh climate and economic systems have indeed played a role in shaping Russia's history. The centralized nature of the Soviet economy and the heavy emphasis on industrialization and military power at the expense of consumer goods and social welfare further exacerbated these issues.
No transformational economic gains from territorial gains: While Russia may not have experienced the same economic benefits as the United States did from territorial expansion, it did gain access to valuable resources and extended its geopolitical influence throughout Eurasia.
Systemic repression: Autocratic rule and repression have been recurring themes in Russian history, with leaders like Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Joseph Stalin, and Vladimir Putin consolidating power and suppressing dissent.
Few alternative centers of power: The Russian Orthodox Church has historically been an influential force in Russian society, but it has often been closely aligned with the state, which limited its potential as an alternative center of power. Furthermore, the state has generally suppressed or co-opted other potential sources of power, such as independent media and civil society organizations.
High levels of distrust: The long history of autocratic rule and government surveillance has contributed to a culture of distrust in Russia. This makes it difficult for democratic movements to gain traction and for people to openly challenge the ruling elite.
Low probability of aspirational leaders: The concentration of power and repression of opposition make it difficult for transformative leaders to emerge within Russia. Even if an exiled leader were to build a reputation abroad, they would likely face significant obstacles upon returning to Russia, including potential arrest or assassination.
Regarding the Mongol influence, the Mongol Empire ruled over Russia in the form of the Golden Horde from the mid-13th century to the late 15th century. While the Mongol rule was oppressive and destructive, it also had lasting effects on Russian society and governance. The Mongols introduced new administrative and taxation systems, and their rule contributed to the centralization of power in Moscow. The legacy of the Mongol rule may have also influenced the development of autocratic rule in Russia, as Russian leaders sought to emulate the highly centralized and powerful systems of their former conquerors.
——-
What other points would you add?
Also, contrast Russia with other countries in similar positions?
——-
In addition to the points previously mentioned, the following factors have also played a role in shaping Russia's political and social landscape:
Ethnic and linguistic diversity: Russia is a vast country that spans multiple time zones and is home to over 190 different ethnic groups. This diversity has sometimes fueled tensions and has presented challenges to the central government in terms of maintaining unity and control.
Historical external threats: Throughout its history, Russia has faced various external threats, including invasions by the Mongols, Napoleon, and Hitler. These events have contributed to a national narrative of vulnerability and a desire for strong, centralized leadership to protect the country.
The Soviet legacy: The Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 had a profound impact on Russia's political, economic, and social fabric. The transition from a centrally planned economy to a market-based system led to widespread economic hardship, inequality, and the rise of the oligarchs. Additionally, the disillusionment with the failures of the Soviet system may have contributed to the public's skepticism of democratic institutions and processes.
When comparing Russia to other countries in similar positions, we can look at:
China: Like Russia, China has a long history of autocratic rule and a highly centralized political system. Both countries have experienced periods of isolation from the West and have pursued aggressive foreign policies in response to perceived threats. However, China's economic transformation and integration into the global market have led to more prosperity and stability than Russia has experienced in recent decades.
Ukraine: As a former Soviet republic, Ukraine has faced similar challenges in transitioning to a market economy and building democratic institutions. Ukraine has also struggled with corruption and oligarchic control, but unlike Russia, it has experienced a series of popular uprisings (such as the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Euromaidan protests in 2014) that have led to changes in government and ongoing efforts to reform its political system.
Turkey: Turkey is another example of a country with a history of autocratic rule and a strong centralized government. While Turkey has experienced periods of democratization and integration with the West, its current political climate under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has seen a return to more authoritarian practices, similar to those in Russia.
These comparisons show that while Russia shares some commonalities with other countries facing similar challenges, its unique historical context, geography, and cultural factors have shaped its distinct trajectory.
Little to do with culture, everything to do with infrastructure, geography and for the 20th century and onwards messy politics. Russias geography is... rather paradoxical.
It's a country with pretty much some of the biggest landmass on earth, but very few of that landmass has been exploitable for resources. For most of history this has largely been due to its climate being rather hostile to humans - Russias more navigable areas are up north, which isn't great if you want to use it for things like farmland and other basic needs. The southern part of the country is on the other hand rather mountainous, which is also hard to grow resources on.
All of that has resulted in a country where most people congregate in big cities and an infrastructure that outside of those cities is just... barely existent.
The result is that anyone wanting to lead Russia will invariably end up gravitating towards concentrated leadership; the individual cities where most Russian citizens live don't have the resources around them to entirely sustain themselves independently, so all of them need to stay together. Combine that with a poor infrastructure and anyone looking for a power grab in the capital has an easy opportunity to do so if a vacuum ever arises[0].
[0]: The tsar was basically a monarch, which historically has been in general how countries operate. Lenin was specifically send to Russia by the Germans to attempt and disrupt the Russian front during WW1 (and Stalin can be summarized as "Lenin but worse"). The between leaders after Stalin were trying to uphold the same beliefs as him. Putin's powergrab is the result of him taking advantage of the fact that Yeltsin screwed up the de-sovietization process and just dumped Russia into anarcho-capitalism overnight (there was basically no transition process between the Soviet model and neoliberalism, which resulted in anarcho-capitalism).
On prominent ancient example that pops into my head right away is Mesopotamia. The Assyrians were famous for their brutality and their depiction of violence as political propaganda. They were despised for their viciousness.
It has been argued that the later Persians and Medes were able to rule with a softer touch because by that time the peoples of Mesopotamia had been "broken into the yoke" - e.g. their local decision making traditions forgotten, decentralized civic structures abandoned.
Russia just popped into existence in 1547. It doesn't have anything to do with the peoples that lived in that region before that. Russia as a whole was brought to earth by aliens.
You see, Kievan Rus equals Russia is the thing I've heard only from Russian officials. After the Mongol invasion different parts had very different paths in history.
Yes, and the people in the domain of the Czardom of Russia never recovered. One could make a point that the independence of the Cossack tribes contributed its share to the "de-imperialization" of the Dniepr region. A benefit the peoples in the Duchy of Moscow and later the Czardom of Russia never had.
