The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Who Fed Who in the USSR?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Some data on this topic.

1. Via Egor Kholmogorov’s eponymous article for Komsomolskaya Pravda, source given as “Sovetskaya Rossiya 1992″, according to which the RSFSR and Belarus were the only net donors.

Image

2. Orlowski, Lucjan T. – 1995 – Direct transfers between the former Soviet Union central budget and the republics: Past evidence and current implications

ussr-federal-transfers-1989

Russia, Belarus, and Estonia only net donors, if marginal ones; Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan massively subsidized.

Armenia was massively subsidized, but part of that must have been an artifact of the 1988 earthquake.

Georgia had a reputation for being massively subsidized, but it seems the sums were relatively modest compared to Central Asia.

ussr-federal-transfers-gdp-1989

ussr-federal-transfers-budgets-without-transfers-1989

The figures in the article with their modest transfers seem more serious.

OTOH, I have talked with central Russians who traveled to other republics in the USSR, and the general impression was that living standards were higher – at least as proxied by availability of nice consumer goods, since that was the real limiting factor – outside the RSFSR, especially in Georgia, the Baltics, and Black Sea/Caspian coastal areas.

3. “Average deposit in savings accounts in the republics.”

ussr-savingsby-republic

Whatever the precise numbers, it is clear that transfers in the USSR went from the Russian core to peripheries. In economic terms, the USSR was the exact opposite of Russian imperialism.

The exact same thing continues in the RSFSR Russian Federation.

This has a very long history.

russian-empire-subsidies-turkestan

The Turkestan region was subsidized by the rest of the Russian Empire since its incorporation until its collapse, with a brief exception during 1908-1912 (left – spending; middle – income; right – balance; figures from Boris Mironov’s History of the Russian Empire).

 
Hide 91 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Whatever the precise numbers, it is clear that transfers in the USSR went from the Russian core to peripheries. In economic terms, the USSR was the exact opposite of Russian imperialism.

    That was also how European empires in Africa worked.

  2. The affordability of Imperialism was a major reason for the UK ending it. Two World Wars rather obscured the argument because of military and political confusions for a while. Administration costs money even more so imposition of unwantetd policies. Russia was an Empire even before the USSR.

    • Replies: @neutral
    The American empire also costs a lot of money, but I don't see them ending theirs because financial concerns.
  3. Nice work.

    The affordability of Imperialism was a major reason for the UK ending it. Two World Wars rather obscured the argument because of military and political confusions for a while. Administration costs money even more so imposition of unwantetd policies. Russia’s Empire was a tribute extraction model anyway. Give us furs or we will kill you. People don’t like paying tribute. Trade pays better. Rome fell when expansion stopped. It was an extreme case, it depended not just on tribute but new sources of loot.

    Russia would do best retreating to its Euorpean core. Raw materials are as much of a curse as tribute. The government needs to depnd on the work of its people to create a strong country. Oil revenue means the people depend on the government distributing windfalls, FIRRE prospers. Compare the UK and Germany since North Sea oil.

    The gravity model of trade (I will presnet the Russian model next week at the Westminster Russia Forum meeting) predicts that the EU is overwhelmingly Russia’s best prospect for increased trade followed bu Ukraine the UK and Belarus. Turkey fits in somewhere. On the whole, Russian foreign policy seems opposed to developing this potential. Far away China and Vietnam are preferred partners.

    • Replies: @DFH

    The affordability of Imperialism was a major reason for the UK ending it
     
    Yes, it probably would have ended straight after the war if it had not been subsidised by the Americans. One of the reasons for the incredible stupidity of the British nationalist narrative that the US is our greatest enemy because they destroyed the empire. Corelli Barnett wrote about this very well in his books.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    All of your points here are certainly very valid. That said, though, I wonder if, in a scenario without the Bolshevik Revolution, Central Asia could have gradually become more productive as a result of mass Russian immigration into the region while Russia's interior could have gradually become less productive as a result of mass Central Asian immigration into the region (think of it being a Russian version of the U.S.'s African-American Great Migration during the 20th century).
  4. @Philip Owen
    The affordability of Imperialism was a major reason for the UK ending it. Two World Wars rather obscured the argument because of military and political confusions for a while. Administration costs money even more so imposition of unwantetd policies. Russia was an Empire even before the USSR.

    The American empire also costs a lot of money, but I don’t see them ending theirs because financial concerns.

    • Replies: @Dan Bagrov
    They can afford it, at least for now. The US economy is just so incredibly productive, no prospect for it ending soon.
    , @Excal
    Give it time.
    , @LondonBob
    Why would the Zionists care about the cost of empire born by US taxpayers?
  5. @Philip Owen
    Nice work.

    The affordability of Imperialism was a major reason for the UK ending it. Two World Wars rather obscured the argument because of military and political confusions for a while. Administration costs money even more so imposition of unwantetd policies. Russia's Empire was a tribute extraction model anyway. Give us furs or we will kill you. People don't like paying tribute. Trade pays better. Rome fell when expansion stopped. It was an extreme case, it depended not just on tribute but new sources of loot.

    Russia would do best retreating to its Euorpean core. Raw materials are as much of a curse as tribute. The government needs to depnd on the work of its people to create a strong country. Oil revenue means the people depend on the government distributing windfalls, FIRRE prospers. Compare the UK and Germany since North Sea oil.

    The gravity model of trade (I will presnet the Russian model next week at the Westminster Russia Forum meeting) predicts that the EU is overwhelmingly Russia's best prospect for increased trade followed bu Ukraine the UK and Belarus. Turkey fits in somewhere. On the whole, Russian foreign policy seems opposed to developing this potential. Far away China and Vietnam are preferred partners.

    The affordability of Imperialism was a major reason for the UK ending it

    Yes, it probably would have ended straight after the war if it had not been subsidised by the Americans. One of the reasons for the incredible stupidity of the British nationalist narrative that the US is our greatest enemy because they destroyed the empire. Corelli Barnett wrote about this very well in his books.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    With population of the Ukraine and the Baltics in rapid collapse this argument needs to be reassessed IMO. We can totally afford to reclaim European part of the Empire at least.
  6. No research is necessary: Russia has the most oil, therefore Russia was subsidizing everyone. It’s a no-brainer really, although svidomists such as AP will not be convinced even after reading all the stats

    Funny how the Soviets seemed to really love Georgia and Armenia, yet “hated” Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan was an “unloved” Caucasian republic. Anyone has a theory on that?

    Armenia was massively subsidized, but part of that must have been an artifact of the 1988 earthquake.

    This cannot be the explanation as Tables 1 and 3 clearly show that Armenia has ALWAYS been massively subsidised.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Russia has the most oil, therefore Russia was subsidizing everyone
     
    But oil was not the only product. The USSR (and the COMECON) needed to produce a lot of buses. Hungarian Ikarus buses were marketable in the West. Not very much so, but if our access to western technologies and capital markets wasn’t restricted due to the Soviet occupation and the communist system forced on us by the Soviets, they’d have been better. The USSR used lots of Hungarian Ikarus buses. How can you say that they were worthless? They’d have cost you way more if you wanted to buy buses for real money instead of COMECON toy money a.k.a. transferable rubles. I bet you Estonia also produced a lot of things which would’ve cost Russia way more if it had to be purchased on the international market and not inside of the USSR for toy money.
    , @AP

    Russia has the most oil, therefore Russia was subsidizing everyone. It’s a no-brainer really, although svidomists such as AP will not be convinced even after reading all the stats
     
    I've never disputed this. The idea that Ukraine was rich under Moscow is a silly Sovok one.
  7. @DFH

    The affordability of Imperialism was a major reason for the UK ending it
     
    Yes, it probably would have ended straight after the war if it had not been subsidised by the Americans. One of the reasons for the incredible stupidity of the British nationalist narrative that the US is our greatest enemy because they destroyed the empire. Corelli Barnett wrote about this very well in his books.

    With population of the Ukraine and the Baltics in rapid collapse this argument needs to be reassessed IMO. We can totally afford to reclaim European part of the Empire at least.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @DFH
    And you people wonder where anti-Russian sentiment comes from
    , @reiner Tor
    You are an imperialist. I bet you this third attempt at imperialism will be bad for Russians, so you will keep complaining. Imperialism has always been bad for the core population of empires. But please keep complaining.
  8. @Felix Keverich
    With population of the Ukraine and the Baltics in rapid collapse this argument needs to be reassessed IMO. We can totally afford to reclaim European part of the Empire at least.

    And you people wonder where anti-Russian sentiment comes from

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Kimppis
    From a PR/soft power point of view the problem is that Westerners really seem to think that Putin is already like Keverich. The propaganda campaign against Russia is already so severe that I'm not sure how much worse can it actually get. (Keverich of course doesn't care about any of that, he has made it absolutely clear.)

    So I for one welcome Felix the Great as Putler's successor. (Or more realistically, Patrushev's successor? In... 2030/36?)
  9. @Felix Keverich
    With population of the Ukraine and the Baltics in rapid collapse this argument needs to be reassessed IMO. We can totally afford to reclaim European part of the Empire at least.

    You are an imperialist. I bet you this third attempt at imperialism will be bad for Russians, so you will keep complaining. Imperialism has always been bad for the core population of empires. But please keep complaining.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Most peoples who have the ability to use force and the threat of force to expand the resources at their people’s disposal have done so and eventually will do so. Perhaps sad, but true.

    The Baltics are depopulating. Five point some million people now, then possibly HALF that in 25 years, in all three countries combined. Add the fact that here will be almost no young men available for defense. How will mostly 40- to 80-year-old Lithuanians fare against mostly 18- to 40-year-old foreign men in physical conflict?

    Some other people will, in fact, take that territory over. Should it be Russia, or would we prefer the new Muslim rulers of Sweden, France, and Germany to annex these three lands?

    We see how too many Muslims, Africans,and Arabs are treating the white inhabitants of the rest of Europe as they see Europeans are unwilling to fight back. How will they treat the even weaker, more elderly population of Europeans who remain in the Baltics one generation from now?

    It might be galling to those people to be ruled by Russia, and I don’t blame them at all. But what is the realistic alternative if some other more dangerous people is not to take over?

  10. Hi Felix,

    You’re certainly right about the drastic population decline in the Baltics.

    Lithuania has 2.7 million people and is losing over 30,000 each year net:

    https://countrymeters.info/en/Lithuania/

    Median age 42.7

    Latvia has 1.8 million people and is losing 15,000 per year net:

    https://countrymeters.info/en/Latvia

    Median age 42.5

    Estonia has 1.3 million people andis losing 2,600 per year net:

    https://countrymeters.info/en/Estonia#facts

    Median age 41.6

    Of course, it would seem that European people everywhere will be forced to give up most of the land and resources they have, in time, if they don’t start having children again, not just the Balts. Same for peoples who are substantially european or genetically and culturally related and compatible, people whom we are going to need with us to “survive and reclaim” here in USA and Canada.

    This gloomy prognosis and injunction to have families includes us Americans, and here the process of our dispossession is well under way. Our fertility rate isn’t much more sufficient for long-term survival than the Baltic nations.

    So russians might take the Baltics, but be unable to hold their eastern territories and even more against the Chinese and people who bother to have lots of children (Central Asian Muslims and Chechens, unfortunately).

    In any event, this is one American who is praying & working for the survival of both my country and yours. And I’d rather see the Baltics administered by Russia than see them suffer under Sharia subjugation and African/Arab violence like the rest of Europe.

    Who is going to populate and rule the Baltics? Will it be Russia, or will the young & aggressive new nonEuropean majority spill over from France, Germany, Benelux et al.?

    • Replies: @AP

    So russians might take the Baltics
     
    What a silly scenario.

    How would Russians take the Baltics or anyone else when their own population is also decreasing, just at a slower rate? People expand settlement when they have settlers, a population surplus.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    You know, this really does make me wonder--if Western Europe will begin looking more and more like a dump as a result of massive low-IQ Muslim and African immigration, might some of these migrants decide to move to Eastern Europe? Indeed, one would think that--if they don't actually close their doors--Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Baltic countries could eventually end up being an attractive destination for migrants. True, a lot of the locals there could hate them, but the fact that a third of France voted for the National Front doesn't appear to have convinced many French Muslims and Africans to move out of the country.
  11. @Felix Keverich
    No research is necessary: Russia has the most oil, therefore Russia was subsidizing everyone. It's a no-brainer really, although svidomists such as AP will not be convinced even after reading all the stats

    Funny how the Soviets seemed to really love Georgia and Armenia, yet "hated" Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan was an "unloved" Caucasian republic. Anyone has a theory on that?


    Armenia was massively subsidized, but part of that must have been an artifact of the 1988 earthquake.
     
    This cannot be the explanation as Tables 1 and 3 clearly show that Armenia has ALWAYS been massively subsidised.

    Russia has the most oil, therefore Russia was subsidizing everyone

    But oil was not the only product. The USSR (and the COMECON) needed to produce a lot of buses. Hungarian Ikarus buses were marketable in the West. Not very much so, but if our access to western technologies and capital markets wasn’t restricted due to the Soviet occupation and the communist system forced on us by the Soviets, they’d have been better. The USSR used lots of Hungarian Ikarus buses. How can you say that they were worthless? They’d have cost you way more if you wanted to buy buses for real money instead of COMECON toy money a.k.a. transferable rubles. I bet you Estonia also produced a lot of things which would’ve cost Russia way more if it had to be purchased on the international market and not inside of the USSR for toy money.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Nobody wanted to buy Hungarian buses once the market relations were intoduced in Eastern Europe. This means that in economic terms your buses were actually worthless. Russia was forced to exchange valuable commodities for a substandard product.

    Simply maintaining fuel prices in "brotherly republics" at below international levels amounted to massive transfer of wealth from Russia to "brotherly republics". You mentioned that Hungarian meat consumption peaked in 1970s. This is what made it possible.
  12. How much of the subsidies to Estonia and Latvia went to build housing and infrastructure for the Russian settler population which was settled there as part of a deliberate Russification strategy, to make it impossible or at least difficult for these countries to proclaim independence?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Fair point. Serious question: I have not generally taken an “anti-Russian” tack on here, but does anyone seriously dispute that Russia did exactly what you are saying? And it was working, for Russia.

    In fact, if russians in Latvia had not receded to Russia after the USSR fell, and simply kept having even 2.2 children per woman, they’d already be the majority nationally by now.
    , @anonymous coward

    the Russian settler population which was settled there as part of a deliberate Russification strategy
     
    As a simple counterexample: Tartu was founded in 1030 by Yaroslav I, the same guy who founded the eponymous city of Yaroslavl. (Tartu was originally named 'Yuriev'.)

    Without the Russian and German 'settler populations' since medieval times, there'd be no Baltic countries at all.
    , @inertial
    We've been through it. There was no deliberate /i> Russification strategy for Latvia and Estonia (but for some unfathomable reason, not Lithuania.) No one in the Soviet government would've minded if the Russians Estonianized instead. In fact, Russian schools in Estonia had mandatory Estonian lessons. Same for Latvia.

    Instead, there was a deliberate policy of industrializing Latvia and Estonia (but again, not Lithuania.) As you said yourself, Estonia produced many things that Russia needed. These things were mostly produced by factories built and staffed by Russians. Now, Estonia produces nothing that Russia or anyone else needs, aside from offshore services.
  13. In economic terms, the USSR was the exact opposite of Russian imperialism.

    I think that’s normal for empires – strong regions expand into weaker regions until they go broke from the expense of subsidizing/defending them.

  14. @reiner Tor
    You are an imperialist. I bet you this third attempt at imperialism will be bad for Russians, so you will keep complaining. Imperialism has always been bad for the core population of empires. But please keep complaining.

    Most peoples who have the ability to use force and the threat of force to expand the resources at their people’s disposal have done so and eventually will do so. Perhaps sad, but true.

    The Baltics are depopulating. Five point some million people now, then possibly HALF that in 25 years, in all three countries combined. Add the fact that here will be almost no young men available for defense. How will mostly 40- to 80-year-old Lithuanians fare against mostly 18- to 40-year-old foreign men in physical conflict?

    Some other people will, in fact, take that territory over. Should it be Russia, or would we prefer the new Muslim rulers of Sweden, France, and Germany to annex these three lands?

    We see how too many Muslims, Africans,and Arabs are treating the white inhabitants of the rest of Europe as they see Europeans are unwilling to fight back. How will they treat the even weaker, more elderly population of Europeans who remain in the Baltics one generation from now?

    It might be galling to those people to be ruled by Russia, and I don’t blame them at all. But what is the realistic alternative if some other more dangerous people is not to take over?

    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala

    Most peoples who have the ability to use force and the threat of force to expand the resources at their people’s disposal have done so and eventually will do so. Sad but true.
     
    Sad but not true. It rather seems like people who have the resources to conquer an empire end up spending their resources outside of their core ethnic territory and imperial conquests tend to be net wealth transfers from the conquering ethnic group to the conquered ethnic group. The conquered province does not spend money on defense, for example, while the conqueror will immediately start spending on infrastructure to secure the conquest so the net wealth transfer from the conqueror to the conquered begins when the war isn't even over yet.

    Some people have this ridiculous idea that when the empire of X conquers the province of Y, the emperor of X-people then takes the wealth of the Y-people and distributes the plunder among the common men of X-people. That never happens. Instead, the emperor of X takes some plunder and distributes the land and control over the resources among his loyalist aristocrats. The common people of X get to risk their lives in a war and at best might rob some coins of a dead enemy peasant; after the war they get taxed to build roads, fortifications and palaces in the newly conquered province.

    Empires are fundamentally elite creations. Whether the Russian commoner benefited from the Russian empire was not a major concern for any Tsar. Whether the Roman commoner benefited from Roman conquests was not something that the emperor or the senate cared about. When British aristocrats plotted to take over some newly discovered land they discussed which aristocrat is going to rule it and they never discussed giving anything to working class Englishmen.

    Socialists and nationalists who wanted to build a base with the common man opposed empire because the common man was expected to sacrifice for the sake of imperialism that brought him no personal benefits. Nationalism is fundamentally incompatible with imperialism as no empire ever benefits the core ethnic group so an empire that wants to survive has to suppress the nationalism of the majority ethnic group.

    America has turned into an imperial form of society with a near global sphere of influence built on the backs of the white American soldiers and workers. Not surprisingly, the highest priority of the American empire is to suppress white American nationalism before they start asking whether most white Americans benefit from empire.

    If you want to make another Russian empire, you need to conquer and subjugate the Russian people first so that you can drag them into imperial wars that aren't in their personal interest. The Eurasianists that Karlin hates are consistent in their plan - there's no way to turn a Central Asian empire beneficial for the average ethnic Russian but there is a way to turn it profitable for an elite set of oligarchs, so if you want another Russian empire in the region, you need to crush ethnic Russian nationalism first and turn Russia into a society dominated by a small, closed elite group that can personally expect to benefit from conquests.
  15. The only modern empire which at least truly honestly tried to be good for the core population was Nazi Germany. Of course, it had difficulties attracting allies. The only allies it had were unenthusiastic and didn’t even try to do their best fighting on the front. The Finns, who were the most enthusiastic (since they had their own reasons to fight) for example stopped their troops after reconquering the areas lost in 1940 (and some areas needed to secure those) and then stopped. This made it possible for the Germans to starve to death hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians in Leningrad, but they refused to contribute any more, despite repeated German requests.

    Other than a few divisions of volunteers from a number of countries, no one was willing to fight to help Germany. Not even those whose obvious self-interests lay in preserving the German hegemony, like Hungarians. When Hungarian troops were stationed in Poland, they even gave weapons to the AK. (Though in the Eastern Slavic areas they were cruel to the civilian population.)

    Imperial Japan was definitely worse, spending a lot of resources to subsidize the industrialization of some of its colonies.

    Was there any modern imperialism good for the core population? Except, of course, the conquest of empty or near-empty lands, like Siberia or Canada.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    And most of the territory that became the USA.
    , @AP

    When Hungarian troops were stationed in Poland, they even gave weapons to the AK. (Though in the Eastern Slavic areas they were cruel to the civilian population.)
     
    UPA in Ukraine were supposedly getting weapons from Hungarians.
    , @Dan Bagrov
    I think this is a general rule, not limited to modern empires. No mistake the Byzantine empire lasted so long within its core Greek speaking regions (or areas close to these regions). Russia is really better off without the deadweight of Central Asia.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Imperialism--if you can call it that--appears to have largely worked out very well for the United States of America. For instance, Florida, Texas, and California all became extremely massive population and economic hubs after they were acquired by the U.S.

    Indeed, I wonder if a Russia which avoided the Bolshevik Revolution, won World War I, allowed free migration, and become a developed country by the end of the 20th century would have likewise created its own Sun Belt in the parts of the Ottoman Empire that it would have annexed after the end of World War I as well as in the Caucasus, Kuban, and southern Central Asia.
    , @inertial

    The Finns, who were the most enthusiastic (since they had their own reasons to fight) for example stopped their troops after reconquering the areas lost in 1940 (and some areas needed to secure those) and then stopped.
     
    This myth has to die. Here is a map that shows the maximum advancement of the Finnish army compared to the 1939 borders.

    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/I/m/Finnish_advance_in_Karelia_during_the_Continuation_War.png

  16. @reiner Tor
    How much of the subsidies to Estonia and Latvia went to build housing and infrastructure for the Russian settler population which was settled there as part of a deliberate Russification strategy, to make it impossible or at least difficult for these countries to proclaim independence?

    Fair point. Serious question: I have not generally taken an “anti-Russian” tack on here, but does anyone seriously dispute that Russia did exactly what you are saying? And it was working, for Russia.

    In fact, if russians in Latvia had not receded to Russia after the USSR fell, and simply kept having even 2.2 children per woman, they’d already be the majority nationally by now.

    • Replies: @AP
    Russians in Latvia have fewer children than Latvians in Latvia. Same situation within Ukraine.
  17. @reiner Tor
    The only modern empire which at least truly honestly tried to be good for the core population was Nazi Germany. Of course, it had difficulties attracting allies. The only allies it had were unenthusiastic and didn’t even try to do their best fighting on the front. The Finns, who were the most enthusiastic (since they had their own reasons to fight) for example stopped their troops after reconquering the areas lost in 1940 (and some areas needed to secure those) and then stopped. This made it possible for the Germans to starve to death hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians in Leningrad, but they refused to contribute any more, despite repeated German requests.

    Other than a few divisions of volunteers from a number of countries, no one was willing to fight to help Germany. Not even those whose obvious self-interests lay in preserving the German hegemony, like Hungarians. When Hungarian troops were stationed in Poland, they even gave weapons to the AK. (Though in the Eastern Slavic areas they were cruel to the civilian population.)

    Imperial Japan was definitely worse, spending a lot of resources to subsidize the industrialization of some of its colonies.

    Was there any modern imperialism good for the core population? Except, of course, the conquest of empty or near-empty lands, like Siberia or Canada.

    And most of the territory that became the USA.

  18. @RadicalCenter
    Hi Felix,

    You’re certainly right about the drastic population decline in the Baltics.

    Lithuania has 2.7 million people and is losing over 30,000 each year net:
    https://countrymeters.info/en/Lithuania/
    Median age 42.7

    Latvia has 1.8 million people and is losing 15,000 per year net:
    https://countrymeters.info/en/Latvia
    Median age 42.5

    Estonia has 1.3 million people andis losing 2,600 per year net:
    https://countrymeters.info/en/Estonia#facts
    Median age 41.6

    Of course, it would seem that European people everywhere will be forced to give up most of the land and resources they have, in time, if they don’t start having children again, not just the Balts. Same for peoples who are substantially european or genetically and culturally related and compatible, people whom we are going to need with us to “survive and reclaim” here in USA and Canada.

    This gloomy prognosis and injunction to have families includes us Americans, and here the process of our dispossession is well under way. Our fertility rate isn’t much more sufficient for long-term survival than the Baltic nations.

    So russians might take the Baltics, but be unable to hold their eastern territories and even more against the Chinese and people who bother to have lots of children (Central Asian Muslims and Chechens, unfortunately).

    In any event, this is one American who is praying & working for the survival of both my country and yours. And I’d rather see the Baltics administered by Russia than see them suffer under Sharia subjugation and African/Arab violence like the rest of Europe.

    Who is going to populate and rule the Baltics? Will it be Russia, or will the young & aggressive new nonEuropean majority spill over from France, Germany, Benelux et al.?

    So russians might take the Baltics

    What a silly scenario.

    How would Russians take the Baltics or anyone else when their own population is also decreasing, just at a slower rate? People expand settlement when they have settlers, a population surplus.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    France didn't have much of a surplus population and yet was able to use Italians and Spaniards to settle French Algeria.

    Of course, the question would be who exactly is going to be Russia's version of these Italians and Spaniards. The Chinese?
    , @RadicalCenter
    I wholeheartedly agree that Russians need to have far more children, both inside and outside Russia. And neither my family’s interests nor my nation’s interests would be threatened by Russians growing to a majority in the Baltics in that manner.

    I agree it’s unlikely, and I despair at Russians and our other kindred peoples not bothering to reproduce.
  19. @RadicalCenter
    Fair point. Serious question: I have not generally taken an “anti-Russian” tack on here, but does anyone seriously dispute that Russia did exactly what you are saying? And it was working, for Russia.

    In fact, if russians in Latvia had not receded to Russia after the USSR fell, and simply kept having even 2.2 children per woman, they’d already be the majority nationally by now.

    Russians in Latvia have fewer children than Latvians in Latvia. Same situation within Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Why exactly is this the case?
    , @RadicalCenter
    I know. So Russians have passed up the easy opportunity to take at least Latvia and even the other Baltics peacefully, through demographics. The Russians might have done the same with a larger part of Ukraine too. Hard to understand why they haven’t.

    Poverty doesn’t prevent other races from reproducing (in fact, reproducing to a absurd, permanent-poverty-ensuring level). Why should poverty deter Russians et al. from having a mere two children per woman?? There seems to be a demoralization and a lack of purpose and confidence. Even worse with whites in the West who usually do not have poverty as an excuse.

  20. @reiner Tor
    The only modern empire which at least truly honestly tried to be good for the core population was Nazi Germany. Of course, it had difficulties attracting allies. The only allies it had were unenthusiastic and didn’t even try to do their best fighting on the front. The Finns, who were the most enthusiastic (since they had their own reasons to fight) for example stopped their troops after reconquering the areas lost in 1940 (and some areas needed to secure those) and then stopped. This made it possible for the Germans to starve to death hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians in Leningrad, but they refused to contribute any more, despite repeated German requests.

    Other than a few divisions of volunteers from a number of countries, no one was willing to fight to help Germany. Not even those whose obvious self-interests lay in preserving the German hegemony, like Hungarians. When Hungarian troops were stationed in Poland, they even gave weapons to the AK. (Though in the Eastern Slavic areas they were cruel to the civilian population.)

    Imperial Japan was definitely worse, spending a lot of resources to subsidize the industrialization of some of its colonies.

    Was there any modern imperialism good for the core population? Except, of course, the conquest of empty or near-empty lands, like Siberia or Canada.

    When Hungarian troops were stationed in Poland, they even gave weapons to the AK. (Though in the Eastern Slavic areas they were cruel to the civilian population.)

    UPA in Ukraine were supposedly getting weapons from Hungarians.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It’s possible, though I suspect it was more due to corruption (i.e. they sold their weapons) than brotherly feelings. Though who knows? In Galicia there must have been UPA commanders who went to military school together with some Hungarian officers back in the Dual Monarchy.

    Corruption might have played a role in Poland, but there were many documented cases of giving weapons for free.
  21. @AP

    When Hungarian troops were stationed in Poland, they even gave weapons to the AK. (Though in the Eastern Slavic areas they were cruel to the civilian population.)
     
    UPA in Ukraine were supposedly getting weapons from Hungarians.

    It’s possible, though I suspect it was more due to corruption (i.e. they sold their weapons) than brotherly feelings. Though who knows? In Galicia there must have been UPA commanders who went to military school together with some Hungarian officers back in the Dual Monarchy.

    Corruption might have played a role in Poland, but there were many documented cases of giving weapons for free.

    • Replies: @Mikhail

    It’s possible, though I suspect it was more due to corruption (i.e. they sold their weapons) than brotherly feelings. Though who knows? In Galicia there must have been UPA commanders who went to military school together with some Hungarian officers back in the Dual Monarchy.

    Corruption might have played a role in Poland, but there were many documented cases of giving weapons for free.
     
    Reminded of Soviet era Czechoslovakia indirectly selling arms to the Afghan opposition to the Soviets, as claimed by Brzezinski and stated likewise by some others.
  22. @neutral
    The American empire also costs a lot of money, but I don't see them ending theirs because financial concerns.

    They can afford it, at least for now. The US economy is just so incredibly productive, no prospect for it ending soon.

  23. @reiner Tor
    The only modern empire which at least truly honestly tried to be good for the core population was Nazi Germany. Of course, it had difficulties attracting allies. The only allies it had were unenthusiastic and didn’t even try to do their best fighting on the front. The Finns, who were the most enthusiastic (since they had their own reasons to fight) for example stopped their troops after reconquering the areas lost in 1940 (and some areas needed to secure those) and then stopped. This made it possible for the Germans to starve to death hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians in Leningrad, but they refused to contribute any more, despite repeated German requests.

    Other than a few divisions of volunteers from a number of countries, no one was willing to fight to help Germany. Not even those whose obvious self-interests lay in preserving the German hegemony, like Hungarians. When Hungarian troops were stationed in Poland, they even gave weapons to the AK. (Though in the Eastern Slavic areas they were cruel to the civilian population.)

    Imperial Japan was definitely worse, spending a lot of resources to subsidize the industrialization of some of its colonies.

    Was there any modern imperialism good for the core population? Except, of course, the conquest of empty or near-empty lands, like Siberia or Canada.

    I think this is a general rule, not limited to modern empires. No mistake the Byzantine empire lasted so long within its core Greek speaking regions (or areas close to these regions). Russia is really better off without the deadweight of Central Asia.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Yes, but there are examples of ancient empires which tried to be good for the core populations. Like the Mongols.
  24. @Dan Bagrov
    I think this is a general rule, not limited to modern empires. No mistake the Byzantine empire lasted so long within its core Greek speaking regions (or areas close to these regions). Russia is really better off without the deadweight of Central Asia.

    Yes, but there are examples of ancient empires which tried to be good for the core populations. Like the Mongols.

    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    For a modern nation the big prizes are things like oil deposits that a mounted steppe warrior can't just grab and take back to Mongolia and the ultimate prizes of the age tend to set the nature of warfare - an army of raiders won't help the rulers take over oil fields so rulers don't want armies of raiders.

    You can sometimes see modern a reversion to recruiting soldiers by allowing raiding in for example civil wars where leaders have immediate war aims like not getting executed when the other side wins. But it probably wouldn't even work very well for that in a modern Western civil war since so much of wealth is numbers on a computer now. The raiding model of motivating soldiers won't work again without an economic shift towards creating wealth in a more easily plundered form.
  25. @Felix Keverich
    No research is necessary: Russia has the most oil, therefore Russia was subsidizing everyone. It's a no-brainer really, although svidomists such as AP will not be convinced even after reading all the stats

    Funny how the Soviets seemed to really love Georgia and Armenia, yet "hated" Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan was an "unloved" Caucasian republic. Anyone has a theory on that?


    Armenia was massively subsidized, but part of that must have been an artifact of the 1988 earthquake.
     
    This cannot be the explanation as Tables 1 and 3 clearly show that Armenia has ALWAYS been massively subsidised.

    Russia has the most oil, therefore Russia was subsidizing everyone. It’s a no-brainer really, although svidomists such as AP will not be convinced even after reading all the stats

    I’ve never disputed this. The idea that Ukraine was rich under Moscow is a silly Sovok one.

  26. @RadicalCenter
    Most peoples who have the ability to use force and the threat of force to expand the resources at their people’s disposal have done so and eventually will do so. Perhaps sad, but true.

    The Baltics are depopulating. Five point some million people now, then possibly HALF that in 25 years, in all three countries combined. Add the fact that here will be almost no young men available for defense. How will mostly 40- to 80-year-old Lithuanians fare against mostly 18- to 40-year-old foreign men in physical conflict?

    Some other people will, in fact, take that territory over. Should it be Russia, or would we prefer the new Muslim rulers of Sweden, France, and Germany to annex these three lands?

    We see how too many Muslims, Africans,and Arabs are treating the white inhabitants of the rest of Europe as they see Europeans are unwilling to fight back. How will they treat the even weaker, more elderly population of Europeans who remain in the Baltics one generation from now?

    It might be galling to those people to be ruled by Russia, and I don’t blame them at all. But what is the realistic alternative if some other more dangerous people is not to take over?

    Most peoples who have the ability to use force and the threat of force to expand the resources at their people’s disposal have done so and eventually will do so. Sad but true.

    Sad but not true. It rather seems like people who have the resources to conquer an empire end up spending their resources outside of their core ethnic territory and imperial conquests tend to be net wealth transfers from the conquering ethnic group to the conquered ethnic group. The conquered province does not spend money on defense, for example, while the conqueror will immediately start spending on infrastructure to secure the conquest so the net wealth transfer from the conqueror to the conquered begins when the war isn’t even over yet.

    Some people have this ridiculous idea that when the empire of X conquers the province of Y, the emperor of X-people then takes the wealth of the Y-people and distributes the plunder among the common men of X-people. That never happens. Instead, the emperor of X takes some plunder and distributes the land and control over the resources among his loyalist aristocrats. The common people of X get to risk their lives in a war and at best might rob some coins of a dead enemy peasant; after the war they get taxed to build roads, fortifications and palaces in the newly conquered province.

    Empires are fundamentally elite creations. Whether the Russian commoner benefited from the Russian empire was not a major concern for any Tsar. Whether the Roman commoner benefited from Roman conquests was not something that the emperor or the senate cared about. When British aristocrats plotted to take over some newly discovered land they discussed which aristocrat is going to rule it and they never discussed giving anything to working class Englishmen.

    Socialists and nationalists who wanted to build a base with the common man opposed empire because the common man was expected to sacrifice for the sake of imperialism that brought him no personal benefits. Nationalism is fundamentally incompatible with imperialism as no empire ever benefits the core ethnic group so an empire that wants to survive has to suppress the nationalism of the majority ethnic group.

    America has turned into an imperial form of society with a near global sphere of influence built on the backs of the white American soldiers and workers. Not surprisingly, the highest priority of the American empire is to suppress white American nationalism before they start asking whether most white Americans benefit from empire.

    If you want to make another Russian empire, you need to conquer and subjugate the Russian people first so that you can drag them into imperial wars that aren’t in their personal interest. The Eurasianists that Karlin hates are consistent in their plan – there’s no way to turn a Central Asian empire beneficial for the average ethnic Russian but there is a way to turn it profitable for an elite set of oligarchs, so if you want another Russian empire in the region, you need to crush ethnic Russian nationalism first and turn Russia into a society dominated by a small, closed elite group that can personally expect to benefit from conquests.

    • Replies: @DFH
    Some of these points are true in the case of many empires, but certainly not all.
    For instance, the British empire until at least the 20th century was good for British people of all classes. It paid for its own defenc and provided a surplus outlet that not only massively expanded British lebensraum but also gave many working class Britons better lives than they would have had otherwise. Deaths in wars resulting from the empire were minimal and, for the most part, in a volunteer army. It also co-existed with a strong British nationalism.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Depends on which empire.

    The Romans, for instance, certainly drained their provinces for the profit of the metropolitan center.

    https://nephist.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/2014_01_per-capita-gdp-in-roman-times-according-to-maddison-1990-ppp-dollars1.jpg

    Rome could not have had a million plus population without the massive amounts of grain coming in from Egypt.

    Investors plough money into US assets at rates well beyond those warranted by its risk-adjusted returns on investment. This reflects the US position as a global superpower that offers unparalleled liquidity and security for global investors. It also makes capital very cheap in the US. I have seen estimates that this raises US GDP around 5-10% above what it "should be". If accurate, this means the American Empire may well be profitable for its denizens - it's just hard to notice.

    That said, you are probably correct that the US case aside, there's no realistic way to run a profitable empire these days without going into hardcore Gauleiter territory.
    , @Berty
    All the European empires expropriated vast tracts of land in Africa and gave them to colonists for free. The colonists were untouchable by native authorities and could do almost anything they wanted.

    The Ottoman Empire passed laws barring non-Turks from certain trades and from owning land in parts of the country. Poor Turkish peasants were protected from competition in agriculture as non-Turks were forbidden from selling their goods on the open market.

    The Mughal Empire gave free license for Muslims to butcher Hindus and Buddhists and take their land and the Sultan himself celebrated it.

    The Russian Empire forced nomadic Muslim tribes into settlements so agricultural land could be given to Slavic peasants.

    I could go on.

    I agree with you the empires by and large are elite creations and the elite are the ones who profit from them, but there are plenty of examples of Emperors understanding where their power truly comes from.
  27. @reiner Tor
    Yes, but there are examples of ancient empires which tried to be good for the core populations. Like the Mongols.

    For a modern nation the big prizes are things like oil deposits that a mounted steppe warrior can’t just grab and take back to Mongolia and the ultimate prizes of the age tend to set the nature of warfare – an army of raiders won’t help the rulers take over oil fields so rulers don’t want armies of raiders.

    You can sometimes see modern a reversion to recruiting soldiers by allowing raiding in for example civil wars where leaders have immediate war aims like not getting executed when the other side wins. But it probably wouldn’t even work very well for that in a modern Western civil war since so much of wealth is numbers on a computer now. The raiding model of motivating soldiers won’t work again without an economic shift towards creating wealth in a more easily plundered form.

  28. @Jaakko Raipala

    Most peoples who have the ability to use force and the threat of force to expand the resources at their people’s disposal have done so and eventually will do so. Sad but true.
     
    Sad but not true. It rather seems like people who have the resources to conquer an empire end up spending their resources outside of their core ethnic territory and imperial conquests tend to be net wealth transfers from the conquering ethnic group to the conquered ethnic group. The conquered province does not spend money on defense, for example, while the conqueror will immediately start spending on infrastructure to secure the conquest so the net wealth transfer from the conqueror to the conquered begins when the war isn't even over yet.

    Some people have this ridiculous idea that when the empire of X conquers the province of Y, the emperor of X-people then takes the wealth of the Y-people and distributes the plunder among the common men of X-people. That never happens. Instead, the emperor of X takes some plunder and distributes the land and control over the resources among his loyalist aristocrats. The common people of X get to risk their lives in a war and at best might rob some coins of a dead enemy peasant; after the war they get taxed to build roads, fortifications and palaces in the newly conquered province.

    Empires are fundamentally elite creations. Whether the Russian commoner benefited from the Russian empire was not a major concern for any Tsar. Whether the Roman commoner benefited from Roman conquests was not something that the emperor or the senate cared about. When British aristocrats plotted to take over some newly discovered land they discussed which aristocrat is going to rule it and they never discussed giving anything to working class Englishmen.

    Socialists and nationalists who wanted to build a base with the common man opposed empire because the common man was expected to sacrifice for the sake of imperialism that brought him no personal benefits. Nationalism is fundamentally incompatible with imperialism as no empire ever benefits the core ethnic group so an empire that wants to survive has to suppress the nationalism of the majority ethnic group.

    America has turned into an imperial form of society with a near global sphere of influence built on the backs of the white American soldiers and workers. Not surprisingly, the highest priority of the American empire is to suppress white American nationalism before they start asking whether most white Americans benefit from empire.

    If you want to make another Russian empire, you need to conquer and subjugate the Russian people first so that you can drag them into imperial wars that aren't in their personal interest. The Eurasianists that Karlin hates are consistent in their plan - there's no way to turn a Central Asian empire beneficial for the average ethnic Russian but there is a way to turn it profitable for an elite set of oligarchs, so if you want another Russian empire in the region, you need to crush ethnic Russian nationalism first and turn Russia into a society dominated by a small, closed elite group that can personally expect to benefit from conquests.

    Some of these points are true in the case of many empires, but certainly not all.
    For instance, the British empire until at least the 20th century was good for British people of all classes. It paid for its own defenc and provided a surplus outlet that not only massively expanded British lebensraum but also gave many working class Britons better lives than they would have had otherwise. Deaths in wars resulting from the empire were minimal and, for the most part, in a volunteer army. It also co-existed with a strong British nationalism.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think most empires were initially good for all classes, but eventually they grew so big that it made it possible to concentrate too much power in the hands of too few people, and then eventually they started discarding the interests of the lower classes. Or just simply the lower classes couldn’t keep their leverage infinitely and ended up on the short end of the stick.

    Basically the empire (its central bureaucracy and elite) has eminent interests in survival and long term the selfishness of the imperial core would make the empire as a whole less stable. After all, the imperial elite can take the loyalty of the imperial core ethnicity for granted, while it always has to coerce and bribe the conquered ethnicities into accepting their subjugation.

    Azar Gat in his Nationalism provides multiple examples, some of which were already familiar for me: the Ottomans and Anatolian Turks, the Romans and Latin speaking Italians (though its an interesting case where they managed to assimilate the whole western empire into a “Roman” ethnicity, while the eastern part’s core ethnicity was Greek), the Assyrians and their empire, the ancient Persians etc. Empires never seemed to be good in the long term for the core ethnicity.
  29. @Jaakko Raipala

    Most peoples who have the ability to use force and the threat of force to expand the resources at their people’s disposal have done so and eventually will do so. Sad but true.
     
    Sad but not true. It rather seems like people who have the resources to conquer an empire end up spending their resources outside of their core ethnic territory and imperial conquests tend to be net wealth transfers from the conquering ethnic group to the conquered ethnic group. The conquered province does not spend money on defense, for example, while the conqueror will immediately start spending on infrastructure to secure the conquest so the net wealth transfer from the conqueror to the conquered begins when the war isn't even over yet.

    Some people have this ridiculous idea that when the empire of X conquers the province of Y, the emperor of X-people then takes the wealth of the Y-people and distributes the plunder among the common men of X-people. That never happens. Instead, the emperor of X takes some plunder and distributes the land and control over the resources among his loyalist aristocrats. The common people of X get to risk their lives in a war and at best might rob some coins of a dead enemy peasant; after the war they get taxed to build roads, fortifications and palaces in the newly conquered province.

    Empires are fundamentally elite creations. Whether the Russian commoner benefited from the Russian empire was not a major concern for any Tsar. Whether the Roman commoner benefited from Roman conquests was not something that the emperor or the senate cared about. When British aristocrats plotted to take over some newly discovered land they discussed which aristocrat is going to rule it and they never discussed giving anything to working class Englishmen.

    Socialists and nationalists who wanted to build a base with the common man opposed empire because the common man was expected to sacrifice for the sake of imperialism that brought him no personal benefits. Nationalism is fundamentally incompatible with imperialism as no empire ever benefits the core ethnic group so an empire that wants to survive has to suppress the nationalism of the majority ethnic group.

    America has turned into an imperial form of society with a near global sphere of influence built on the backs of the white American soldiers and workers. Not surprisingly, the highest priority of the American empire is to suppress white American nationalism before they start asking whether most white Americans benefit from empire.

    If you want to make another Russian empire, you need to conquer and subjugate the Russian people first so that you can drag them into imperial wars that aren't in their personal interest. The Eurasianists that Karlin hates are consistent in their plan - there's no way to turn a Central Asian empire beneficial for the average ethnic Russian but there is a way to turn it profitable for an elite set of oligarchs, so if you want another Russian empire in the region, you need to crush ethnic Russian nationalism first and turn Russia into a society dominated by a small, closed elite group that can personally expect to benefit from conquests.

    Depends on which empire.

    The Romans, for instance, certainly drained their provinces for the profit of the metropolitan center.

    Rome could not have had a million plus population without the massive amounts of grain coming in from Egypt.

    Investors plough money into US assets at rates well beyond those warranted by its risk-adjusted returns on investment. This reflects the US position as a global superpower that offers unparalleled liquidity and security for global investors. It also makes capital very cheap in the US. I have seen estimates that this raises US GDP around 5-10% above what it “should be”. If accurate, this means the American Empire may well be profitable for its denizens – it’s just hard to notice.

    That said, you are probably correct that the US case aside, there’s no realistic way to run a profitable empire these days without going into hardcore Gauleiter territory.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The million plus people in Rome itself were not all ethnically Roman. The elite itself was largely from the provinces. The empire itself didn’t result in the proliferation of Roman genes. And then, what’s the point of it all?

    For white Americans the empire is very bad, regardless if they have 10% higher living standards or not. They are poised to become a despised minority in their own country. I’m sure you’re aware that one big rationale for allowing the Civil Rights movement to victory was that they were thought as a good propaganda point in attracting allies in the third world. And of course lower class Americans lose their well-paying manufacturing jobs due to the strong dollar while the upper middle class and upper class enjoy the benefits.
    , @DFH
    iirc, the slave/plantation economy resulting from the early extra-Italian expansion was terrible for the Italian freeholding farmers. The Civil Wars were also a result of the empire. Turchin has two very good chapters about this in Secular Cycles. The rising urban population in the 1st century BC happened at the same time as a declining population overall.
  30. @DFH
    Some of these points are true in the case of many empires, but certainly not all.
    For instance, the British empire until at least the 20th century was good for British people of all classes. It paid for its own defenc and provided a surplus outlet that not only massively expanded British lebensraum but also gave many working class Britons better lives than they would have had otherwise. Deaths in wars resulting from the empire were minimal and, for the most part, in a volunteer army. It also co-existed with a strong British nationalism.

    I think most empires were initially good for all classes, but eventually they grew so big that it made it possible to concentrate too much power in the hands of too few people, and then eventually they started discarding the interests of the lower classes. Or just simply the lower classes couldn’t keep their leverage infinitely and ended up on the short end of the stick.

    Basically the empire (its central bureaucracy and elite) has eminent interests in survival and long term the selfishness of the imperial core would make the empire as a whole less stable. After all, the imperial elite can take the loyalty of the imperial core ethnicity for granted, while it always has to coerce and bribe the conquered ethnicities into accepting their subjugation.

    Azar Gat in his Nationalism provides multiple examples, some of which were already familiar for me: the Ottomans and Anatolian Turks, the Romans and Latin speaking Italians (though its an interesting case where they managed to assimilate the whole western empire into a “Roman” ethnicity, while the eastern part’s core ethnicity was Greek), the Assyrians and their empire, the ancient Persians etc. Empires never seemed to be good in the long term for the core ethnicity.

  31. @Anatoly Karlin
    Depends on which empire.

    The Romans, for instance, certainly drained their provinces for the profit of the metropolitan center.

    https://nephist.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/2014_01_per-capita-gdp-in-roman-times-according-to-maddison-1990-ppp-dollars1.jpg

    Rome could not have had a million plus population without the massive amounts of grain coming in from Egypt.

    Investors plough money into US assets at rates well beyond those warranted by its risk-adjusted returns on investment. This reflects the US position as a global superpower that offers unparalleled liquidity and security for global investors. It also makes capital very cheap in the US. I have seen estimates that this raises US GDP around 5-10% above what it "should be". If accurate, this means the American Empire may well be profitable for its denizens - it's just hard to notice.

    That said, you are probably correct that the US case aside, there's no realistic way to run a profitable empire these days without going into hardcore Gauleiter territory.

    The million plus people in Rome itself were not all ethnically Roman. The elite itself was largely from the provinces. The empire itself didn’t result in the proliferation of Roman genes. And then, what’s the point of it all?

    For white Americans the empire is very bad, regardless if they have 10% higher living standards or not. They are poised to become a despised minority in their own country. I’m sure you’re aware that one big rationale for allowing the Civil Rights movement to victory was that they were thought as a good propaganda point in attracting allies in the third world. And of course lower class Americans lose their well-paying manufacturing jobs due to the strong dollar while the upper middle class and upper class enjoy the benefits.

  32. @DFH
    And you people wonder where anti-Russian sentiment comes from

    From a PR/soft power point of view the problem is that Westerners really seem to think that Putin is already like Keverich. The propaganda campaign against Russia is already so severe that I’m not sure how much worse can it actually get. (Keverich of course doesn’t care about any of that, he has made it absolutely clear.)

    So I for one welcome Felix the Great as Putler’s successor. (Or more realistically, Patrushev’s successor? In… 2030/36?)

  33. @Anatoly Karlin
    Depends on which empire.

    The Romans, for instance, certainly drained their provinces for the profit of the metropolitan center.

    https://nephist.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/2014_01_per-capita-gdp-in-roman-times-according-to-maddison-1990-ppp-dollars1.jpg

    Rome could not have had a million plus population without the massive amounts of grain coming in from Egypt.

    Investors plough money into US assets at rates well beyond those warranted by its risk-adjusted returns on investment. This reflects the US position as a global superpower that offers unparalleled liquidity and security for global investors. It also makes capital very cheap in the US. I have seen estimates that this raises US GDP around 5-10% above what it "should be". If accurate, this means the American Empire may well be profitable for its denizens - it's just hard to notice.

    That said, you are probably correct that the US case aside, there's no realistic way to run a profitable empire these days without going into hardcore Gauleiter territory.

    iirc, the slave/plantation economy resulting from the early extra-Italian expansion was terrible for the Italian freeholding farmers. The Civil Wars were also a result of the empire. Turchin has two very good chapters about this in Secular Cycles. The rising urban population in the 1st century BC happened at the same time as a declining population overall.

  34. Anatoly, I have a question for you: Do you think that southern Turkestan could have eventually become Russia’s version of the U.S.’s Sun Belt had free migration existed within Russia?

  35. @AP

    So russians might take the Baltics
     
    What a silly scenario.

    How would Russians take the Baltics or anyone else when their own population is also decreasing, just at a slower rate? People expand settlement when they have settlers, a population surplus.

    France didn’t have much of a surplus population and yet was able to use Italians and Spaniards to settle French Algeria.

    Of course, the question would be who exactly is going to be Russia’s version of these Italians and Spaniards. The Chinese?

    • Replies: @DFH
    Resettle Eastern Europe with Dagestanis and Uzbeks. Make the Eurasianist dream a reality.
  36. @Mr. XYZ
    France didn't have much of a surplus population and yet was able to use Italians and Spaniards to settle French Algeria.

    Of course, the question would be who exactly is going to be Russia's version of these Italians and Spaniards. The Chinese?

    Resettle Eastern Europe with Dagestanis and Uzbeks. Make the Eurasianist dream a reality.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Their average IQ is probably pretty low, though.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Oh God no. There are far too many Muslims in Russia proper already, not to mention the generally more hostile, less assimilable Muslims in formerly-great formerly-Britain and Western Europe. Why contaminate our brothers in Ukraine?

    Or were you being sarcastic? ;)
  37. @reiner Tor
    The only modern empire which at least truly honestly tried to be good for the core population was Nazi Germany. Of course, it had difficulties attracting allies. The only allies it had were unenthusiastic and didn’t even try to do their best fighting on the front. The Finns, who were the most enthusiastic (since they had their own reasons to fight) for example stopped their troops after reconquering the areas lost in 1940 (and some areas needed to secure those) and then stopped. This made it possible for the Germans to starve to death hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians in Leningrad, but they refused to contribute any more, despite repeated German requests.

    Other than a few divisions of volunteers from a number of countries, no one was willing to fight to help Germany. Not even those whose obvious self-interests lay in preserving the German hegemony, like Hungarians. When Hungarian troops were stationed in Poland, they even gave weapons to the AK. (Though in the Eastern Slavic areas they were cruel to the civilian population.)

    Imperial Japan was definitely worse, spending a lot of resources to subsidize the industrialization of some of its colonies.

    Was there any modern imperialism good for the core population? Except, of course, the conquest of empty or near-empty lands, like Siberia or Canada.

    Imperialism–if you can call it that–appears to have largely worked out very well for the United States of America. For instance, Florida, Texas, and California all became extremely massive population and economic hubs after they were acquired by the U.S.

    Indeed, I wonder if a Russia which avoided the Bolshevik Revolution, won World War I, allowed free migration, and become a developed country by the end of the 20th century would have likewise created its own Sun Belt in the parts of the Ottoman Empire that it would have annexed after the end of World War I as well as in the Caucasus, Kuban, and southern Central Asia.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    That is colonisation, difference between that and rule over foreign peoples.
    , @reiner Tor
    I specifically mentioned that conquering uninhabited or nearly uninhabited areas was always beneficial, like the conquest of Siberia and Canada.
  38. @DFH
    Resettle Eastern Europe with Dagestanis and Uzbeks. Make the Eurasianist dream a reality.

    Their average IQ is probably pretty low, though.

  39. @Philip Owen
    Nice work.

    The affordability of Imperialism was a major reason for the UK ending it. Two World Wars rather obscured the argument because of military and political confusions for a while. Administration costs money even more so imposition of unwantetd policies. Russia's Empire was a tribute extraction model anyway. Give us furs or we will kill you. People don't like paying tribute. Trade pays better. Rome fell when expansion stopped. It was an extreme case, it depended not just on tribute but new sources of loot.

    Russia would do best retreating to its Euorpean core. Raw materials are as much of a curse as tribute. The government needs to depnd on the work of its people to create a strong country. Oil revenue means the people depend on the government distributing windfalls, FIRRE prospers. Compare the UK and Germany since North Sea oil.

    The gravity model of trade (I will presnet the Russian model next week at the Westminster Russia Forum meeting) predicts that the EU is overwhelmingly Russia's best prospect for increased trade followed bu Ukraine the UK and Belarus. Turkey fits in somewhere. On the whole, Russian foreign policy seems opposed to developing this potential. Far away China and Vietnam are preferred partners.

    All of your points here are certainly very valid. That said, though, I wonder if, in a scenario without the Bolshevik Revolution, Central Asia could have gradually become more productive as a result of mass Russian immigration into the region while Russia’s interior could have gradually become less productive as a result of mass Central Asian immigration into the region (think of it being a Russian version of the U.S.’s African-American Great Migration during the 20th century).

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Central Asians are much more functional than Negroes. I think the correct comparison would be with Mexicans and Central Americans.

    There would be many more of them in the Russian heartlands; it is interesting to note that half of the mosques in both Moscow and SPB were built in the late Russian Empire (!). However, they'd be diluted within a much larger East Slavic population; meanwhile, their own numbers might be even smaller than today, because Communist repressions and WW2 affected them lightly, while they'd have had a much earlier demographic transition. There would also certainly be many more Slavic settlers in Central Asia, with North Kazakhstan ("South Siberia") becoming a core Russian territory, Slavic majorities in south Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and possibly Turkmenistan (oil influx), and very large (20%-30%) Slavic minorities in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
  40. @RadicalCenter
    Hi Felix,

    You’re certainly right about the drastic population decline in the Baltics.

    Lithuania has 2.7 million people and is losing over 30,000 each year net:
    https://countrymeters.info/en/Lithuania/
    Median age 42.7

    Latvia has 1.8 million people and is losing 15,000 per year net:
    https://countrymeters.info/en/Latvia
    Median age 42.5

    Estonia has 1.3 million people andis losing 2,600 per year net:
    https://countrymeters.info/en/Estonia#facts
    Median age 41.6

    Of course, it would seem that European people everywhere will be forced to give up most of the land and resources they have, in time, if they don’t start having children again, not just the Balts. Same for peoples who are substantially european or genetically and culturally related and compatible, people whom we are going to need with us to “survive and reclaim” here in USA and Canada.

    This gloomy prognosis and injunction to have families includes us Americans, and here the process of our dispossession is well under way. Our fertility rate isn’t much more sufficient for long-term survival than the Baltic nations.

    So russians might take the Baltics, but be unable to hold their eastern territories and even more against the Chinese and people who bother to have lots of children (Central Asian Muslims and Chechens, unfortunately).

    In any event, this is one American who is praying & working for the survival of both my country and yours. And I’d rather see the Baltics administered by Russia than see them suffer under Sharia subjugation and African/Arab violence like the rest of Europe.

    Who is going to populate and rule the Baltics? Will it be Russia, or will the young & aggressive new nonEuropean majority spill over from France, Germany, Benelux et al.?

    You know, this really does make me wonder–if Western Europe will begin looking more and more like a dump as a result of massive low-IQ Muslim and African immigration, might some of these migrants decide to move to Eastern Europe? Indeed, one would think that–if they don’t actually close their doors–Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Baltic countries could eventually end up being an attractive destination for migrants. True, a lot of the locals there could hate them, but the fact that a third of France voted for the National Front doesn’t appear to have convinced many French Muslims and Africans to move out of the country.

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian

    You know, this really does make me wonder–if Western Europe will begin looking more and more like a dump as a result of massive low-IQ Muslim and African immigration, might some of these migrants decide to move to Eastern Europe?
     
    We can use Albanians from ex-Yugoslavia as example of Muslim migrants who get away from a country that went down the toilet. Do they go to Eastern Europe? Lol no. Even though they know Serbian/Macedonian and would easily learn other Slavic languages.

    The largest communities of the Albanian diaspora are particularly found in Italy, Argentina, Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland and the United States. Other important and increasing communities includes in Australia, Canada, France, Belgium, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_diaspora
     
    Eastern European countries need to become richer than New Zealand before someone considers immigration there.
  41. @AP
    Russians in Latvia have fewer children than Latvians in Latvia. Same situation within Ukraine.

    Why exactly is this the case?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    They are older, more urban, and large numbers of them (esp. youth) have emigrated - more so than the natives.
  42. @Mr. XYZ
    All of your points here are certainly very valid. That said, though, I wonder if, in a scenario without the Bolshevik Revolution, Central Asia could have gradually become more productive as a result of mass Russian immigration into the region while Russia's interior could have gradually become less productive as a result of mass Central Asian immigration into the region (think of it being a Russian version of the U.S.'s African-American Great Migration during the 20th century).

    Central Asians are much more functional than Negroes. I think the correct comparison would be with Mexicans and Central Americans.

    There would be many more of them in the Russian heartlands; it is interesting to note that half of the mosques in both Moscow and SPB were built in the late Russian Empire (!). However, they’d be diluted within a much larger East Slavic population; meanwhile, their own numbers might be even smaller than today, because Communist repressions and WW2 affected them lightly, while they’d have had a much earlier demographic transition. There would also certainly be many more Slavic settlers in Central Asia, with North Kazakhstan (“South Siberia”) becoming a core Russian territory, Slavic majorities in south Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and possibly Turkmenistan (oil influx), and very large (20%-30%) Slavic minorities in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Central Asians are much more functional than Negroes. I think the correct comparison would be with Mexicans and Central Americans.
     
    Yes, or I suppose with Southeast Asians (other than the Vietnamese, who have a high average IQ). Mexicans, Central Americans, Laotians, Hmong, Cambodians, Filipinos, Thais, Malays, Indonesians, et cetera generally aren't known for high intellectual achievement, but they do appear to be much less crime-prone than Blacks are.

    There would be many more of them in the Russian heartlands; it is interesting to note that half of the mosques in both Moscow and SPB were built in the late Russian Empire (!). However, they’d be diluted within a much larger East Slavic population;
     
    I do wonder if there is going to be "Slavic flight" from Russian cities which have large Central Asian populations, though. A good way to try checking for this would be to see if Hispanic or Southeast Asian migration into cities in the U.S. caused Whites in these cities to flee them and move elsewhere. I suspect that, whatever the answer is going to be for the U.S., there would have been a similar answer in regards to Central Asians in Russia.

    meanwhile, their own numbers might be even smaller than today, because Communist repressions and WW2 affected them lightly, while they’d have had a much earlier demographic transition.
     
    That I'm not so sure of. For instance, as far as I know, Kazakhs were severely hurt by the famines in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s--something which won't happen in this scenario. As for an earlier demographic transition, it's certainly possible, but I'm less sure of this since Hispanics in the U.S. nowadays still tend to have more children (on average) than Non-Hispanic Whites have. If Hispanics in the U.S. haven't converged to White fertility levels, I'm unsure that Central Asians in Russia's interior would have converged to Slavic fertility levels--especially if they will form their own ghettos within Russian cities.

    There would also certainly be many more Slavic settlers in Central Asia, with North Kazakhstan (“South Siberia”) becoming a core Russian territory, Slavic majorities in south Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and possibly Turkmenistan (oil influx), and very large (20%-30%) Slavic minorities in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
     
    All of this certainly seems very realistic. Of course, I wonder if old people are going to be disproprtionally represented among southern Central Asian Slavs in this scenario in comparison to the Slavs in the Russian interior. After all, I know that a lot of old people in the U.S. have moved to warmer parts of the U.S. such as Florida and Arizona and thus I wonder if something similar could have happened in Russia--with a lot of old Slavs in Russia moving to southern Central Asia, Crimea, the Kuban, the Caucasus, and the parts of the Ottoman Empire which Russia would have acquired in the event of a World War I victory.

    Indeed, in relation to my last point here, do you think that the Caucasus, Trebizond, and the former Armenian Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire would have also had very significant Russian populations nowadays in a scenario where there was no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917?

    In addition to this, do you see Russia ever expanding any further after 1920 in a scenario where there is no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917? For the record, I'm excluding Russia's territorial gains from World War I in this discussion. Also, for what it's worth, I think that Mongolia, Xinjiang, maybe Tibet, maybe southern Sakhalin, and maybe northern Persia/Iran would all be fair targets for Russian expansion after 1920 in a scenario where Russia doesn't go Bolshevik in 1917.
  43. @Mr. XYZ
    Why exactly is this the case?

    They are older, more urban, and large numbers of them (esp. youth) have emigrated – more so than the natives.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    That makes sense. Is it safe to say that, with the exception of IQ, Russians in Latvia and Estonia are similar to Jews in the Soviet Union in the sense that they are older, more urban, and had a lot of their youth emigrate?
  44. @Anatoly Karlin
    Central Asians are much more functional than Negroes. I think the correct comparison would be with Mexicans and Central Americans.

    There would be many more of them in the Russian heartlands; it is interesting to note that half of the mosques in both Moscow and SPB were built in the late Russian Empire (!). However, they'd be diluted within a much larger East Slavic population; meanwhile, their own numbers might be even smaller than today, because Communist repressions and WW2 affected them lightly, while they'd have had a much earlier demographic transition. There would also certainly be many more Slavic settlers in Central Asia, with North Kazakhstan ("South Siberia") becoming a core Russian territory, Slavic majorities in south Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and possibly Turkmenistan (oil influx), and very large (20%-30%) Slavic minorities in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

    Central Asians are much more functional than Negroes. I think the correct comparison would be with Mexicans and Central Americans.

    Yes, or I suppose with Southeast Asians (other than the Vietnamese, who have a high average IQ). Mexicans, Central Americans, Laotians, Hmong, Cambodians, Filipinos, Thais, Malays, Indonesians, et cetera generally aren’t known for high intellectual achievement, but they do appear to be much less crime-prone than Blacks are.

    There would be many more of them in the Russian heartlands; it is interesting to note that half of the mosques in both Moscow and SPB were built in the late Russian Empire (!). However, they’d be diluted within a much larger East Slavic population;

    I do wonder if there is going to be “Slavic flight” from Russian cities which have large Central Asian populations, though. A good way to try checking for this would be to see if Hispanic or Southeast Asian migration into cities in the U.S. caused Whites in these cities to flee them and move elsewhere. I suspect that, whatever the answer is going to be for the U.S., there would have been a similar answer in regards to Central Asians in Russia.

    meanwhile, their own numbers might be even smaller than today, because Communist repressions and WW2 affected them lightly, while they’d have had a much earlier demographic transition.

    That I’m not so sure of. For instance, as far as I know, Kazakhs were severely hurt by the famines in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s–something which won’t happen in this scenario. As for an earlier demographic transition, it’s certainly possible, but I’m less sure of this since Hispanics in the U.S. nowadays still tend to have more children (on average) than Non-Hispanic Whites have. If Hispanics in the U.S. haven’t converged to White fertility levels, I’m unsure that Central Asians in Russia’s interior would have converged to Slavic fertility levels–especially if they will form their own ghettos within Russian cities.

    There would also certainly be many more Slavic settlers in Central Asia, with North Kazakhstan (“South Siberia”) becoming a core Russian territory, Slavic majorities in south Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and possibly Turkmenistan (oil influx), and very large (20%-30%) Slavic minorities in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

    All of this certainly seems very realistic. Of course, I wonder if old people are going to be disproprtionally represented among southern Central Asian Slavs in this scenario in comparison to the Slavs in the Russian interior. After all, I know that a lot of old people in the U.S. have moved to warmer parts of the U.S. such as Florida and Arizona and thus I wonder if something similar could have happened in Russia–with a lot of old Slavs in Russia moving to southern Central Asia, Crimea, the Kuban, the Caucasus, and the parts of the Ottoman Empire which Russia would have acquired in the event of a World War I victory.

    Indeed, in relation to my last point here, do you think that the Caucasus, Trebizond, and the former Armenian Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire would have also had very significant Russian populations nowadays in a scenario where there was no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917?

    In addition to this, do you see Russia ever expanding any further after 1920 in a scenario where there is no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917? For the record, I’m excluding Russia’s territorial gains from World War I in this discussion. Also, for what it’s worth, I think that Mongolia, Xinjiang, maybe Tibet, maybe southern Sakhalin, and maybe northern Persia/Iran would all be fair targets for Russian expansion after 1920 in a scenario where Russia doesn’t go Bolshevik in 1917.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    I do wonder if there is going to be “Slavic flight” from Russian cities which have large Central Asian populations, though... I suspect that, whatever the answer is going to be for the U.S., there would have been a similar answer in regards to Central Asians in Russia.
     
    Generally not, I think. In the US, I lived for about a year in a 70% Latino/prole white neighborhood. It was perfectly safe and people got on well together. The price of the low quality house I rented was at least $150,000, perhaps $250,000. The only (very minor case of theft) I experienced accrued to... a Negro.

    Of course, I wonder if old people are going to be disproprtionally represented among southern Central Asian Slavs in this scenario in comparison to the Slavs in the Russian interior.
     
    Probably not - Central Asia isn't that attractive as a retirement destination. That would be relegated to the Black Sea, although it isn't perfect area (winter winds are very unpleasant there). However, the Turkish Black Sea coast is extremely pleasant. That would have been a huge holiday/retirement destination had Greater Armenia come about.

    In addition to this, do you see Russia ever expanding any further after 1920 in a scenario where there is no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917?
     
    Hard to see how one can seriously speculate about that. But it's likely that Russia would have wanted to recover South Sakhalin.
  45. @Anatoly Karlin
    They are older, more urban, and large numbers of them (esp. youth) have emigrated - more so than the natives.

    That makes sense. Is it safe to say that, with the exception of IQ, Russians in Latvia and Estonia are similar to Jews in the Soviet Union in the sense that they are older, more urban, and had a lot of their youth emigrate?

  46. @neutral
    The American empire also costs a lot of money, but I don't see them ending theirs because financial concerns.

    Give it time.

  47. Also, I just realized that I forgot to mention Afghanistan as another possible target of Russian expansion after 1920 in a scenario where Russia doesn’t go Bolshevik in 1917.

  48. “Russia, Belarus, and Estonia only net donors, if marginal ones; Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan massively subsidized.”

    What about Lithuania?

  49. @Jaakko Raipala

    Most peoples who have the ability to use force and the threat of force to expand the resources at their people’s disposal have done so and eventually will do so. Sad but true.
     
    Sad but not true. It rather seems like people who have the resources to conquer an empire end up spending their resources outside of their core ethnic territory and imperial conquests tend to be net wealth transfers from the conquering ethnic group to the conquered ethnic group. The conquered province does not spend money on defense, for example, while the conqueror will immediately start spending on infrastructure to secure the conquest so the net wealth transfer from the conqueror to the conquered begins when the war isn't even over yet.

    Some people have this ridiculous idea that when the empire of X conquers the province of Y, the emperor of X-people then takes the wealth of the Y-people and distributes the plunder among the common men of X-people. That never happens. Instead, the emperor of X takes some plunder and distributes the land and control over the resources among his loyalist aristocrats. The common people of X get to risk their lives in a war and at best might rob some coins of a dead enemy peasant; after the war they get taxed to build roads, fortifications and palaces in the newly conquered province.

    Empires are fundamentally elite creations. Whether the Russian commoner benefited from the Russian empire was not a major concern for any Tsar. Whether the Roman commoner benefited from Roman conquests was not something that the emperor or the senate cared about. When British aristocrats plotted to take over some newly discovered land they discussed which aristocrat is going to rule it and they never discussed giving anything to working class Englishmen.

    Socialists and nationalists who wanted to build a base with the common man opposed empire because the common man was expected to sacrifice for the sake of imperialism that brought him no personal benefits. Nationalism is fundamentally incompatible with imperialism as no empire ever benefits the core ethnic group so an empire that wants to survive has to suppress the nationalism of the majority ethnic group.

    America has turned into an imperial form of society with a near global sphere of influence built on the backs of the white American soldiers and workers. Not surprisingly, the highest priority of the American empire is to suppress white American nationalism before they start asking whether most white Americans benefit from empire.

    If you want to make another Russian empire, you need to conquer and subjugate the Russian people first so that you can drag them into imperial wars that aren't in their personal interest. The Eurasianists that Karlin hates are consistent in their plan - there's no way to turn a Central Asian empire beneficial for the average ethnic Russian but there is a way to turn it profitable for an elite set of oligarchs, so if you want another Russian empire in the region, you need to crush ethnic Russian nationalism first and turn Russia into a society dominated by a small, closed elite group that can personally expect to benefit from conquests.

    All the European empires expropriated vast tracts of land in Africa and gave them to colonists for free. The colonists were untouchable by native authorities and could do almost anything they wanted.

    The Ottoman Empire passed laws barring non-Turks from certain trades and from owning land in parts of the country. Poor Turkish peasants were protected from competition in agriculture as non-Turks were forbidden from selling their goods on the open market.

    The Mughal Empire gave free license for Muslims to butcher Hindus and Buddhists and take their land and the Sultan himself celebrated it.

    The Russian Empire forced nomadic Muslim tribes into settlements so agricultural land could be given to Slavic peasants.

    I could go on.

    I agree with you the empires by and large are elite creations and the elite are the ones who profit from them, but there are plenty of examples of Emperors understanding where their power truly comes from.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    The colonists
     
    In Soviet times there were Russian colonists in places like Estonia and Uzbekistan, who were given apartments (a big perk in a country where housing was always in short supply), but the houses and infrastructure built for them is showing up as subsidies to these republics in Anatoly’s statistics. So by that metric the USSR was also good for (some) Russians.

    The problem is that the Russians (and Britons in the case of the British Empire) who stayed home were taxed to pay for the army stationed in these colonies. The Russian (and British) people as a whole did not benefit from the system.

    Even our good Admiral Martyanov’s family stayed in Azerbaijan. I wonder if Azeris considered the apartment given to them as some sort of benefit to Azerbaijan, or rather as a benefit to the Russians who lived in them.

  50. @Berty
    All the European empires expropriated vast tracts of land in Africa and gave them to colonists for free. The colonists were untouchable by native authorities and could do almost anything they wanted.

    The Ottoman Empire passed laws barring non-Turks from certain trades and from owning land in parts of the country. Poor Turkish peasants were protected from competition in agriculture as non-Turks were forbidden from selling their goods on the open market.

    The Mughal Empire gave free license for Muslims to butcher Hindus and Buddhists and take their land and the Sultan himself celebrated it.

    The Russian Empire forced nomadic Muslim tribes into settlements so agricultural land could be given to Slavic peasants.

    I could go on.

    I agree with you the empires by and large are elite creations and the elite are the ones who profit from them, but there are plenty of examples of Emperors understanding where their power truly comes from.

    The colonists

    In Soviet times there were Russian colonists in places like Estonia and Uzbekistan, who were given apartments (a big perk in a country where housing was always in short supply), but the houses and infrastructure built for them is showing up as subsidies to these republics in Anatoly’s statistics. So by that metric the USSR was also good for (some) Russians.

    The problem is that the Russians (and Britons in the case of the British Empire) who stayed home were taxed to pay for the army stationed in these colonies. The Russian (and British) people as a whole did not benefit from the system.

    Even our good Admiral Martyanov’s family stayed in Azerbaijan. I wonder if Azeris considered the apartment given to them as some sort of benefit to Azerbaijan, or rather as a benefit to the Russians who lived in them.

  51. @reiner Tor
    How much of the subsidies to Estonia and Latvia went to build housing and infrastructure for the Russian settler population which was settled there as part of a deliberate Russification strategy, to make it impossible or at least difficult for these countries to proclaim independence?

    the Russian settler population which was settled there as part of a deliberate Russification strategy

    As a simple counterexample: Tartu was founded in 1030 by Yaroslav I, the same guy who founded the eponymous city of Yaroslavl. (Tartu was originally named ‘Yuriev’.)

    Without the Russian and German ‘settler populations’ since medieval times, there’d be no Baltic countries at all.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    But then Russia wouldn’t exist without Swedes. Would it be okay if Russia was militarily conquered by Sweden and settled by Swedes?

    We’re talking about the 20th century.

    Anyway, you claim that Tartu was founded by a Varangian prince. This is a half-truth at best, since Tartu had been settled for centuries before Yaroslavl conquered it and built a fort there. It’s not very smart to claim that there would be no city without Yaroslav conquering it and building a fort there.

    Of course only you know what medieval German settlers have to do with the Russians sent to these lands in Soviet times.
    , @AP

    Yaroslav I
     
    Yaroslav I was as much a Russian as Julius Caesar was a Romanian, or Pizarro was a Peruvian.
  52. @anonymous coward

    the Russian settler population which was settled there as part of a deliberate Russification strategy
     
    As a simple counterexample: Tartu was founded in 1030 by Yaroslav I, the same guy who founded the eponymous city of Yaroslavl. (Tartu was originally named 'Yuriev'.)

    Without the Russian and German 'settler populations' since medieval times, there'd be no Baltic countries at all.

    But then Russia wouldn’t exist without Swedes. Would it be okay if Russia was militarily conquered by Sweden and settled by Swedes?

    We’re talking about the 20th century.

    Anyway, you claim that Tartu was founded by a Varangian prince. This is a half-truth at best, since Tartu had been settled for centuries before Yaroslavl conquered it and built a fort there. It’s not very smart to claim that there would be no city without Yaroslav conquering it and building a fort there.

    Of course only you know what medieval German settlers have to do with the Russians sent to these lands in Soviet times.

  53. @Mr. XYZ
    You know, this really does make me wonder--if Western Europe will begin looking more and more like a dump as a result of massive low-IQ Muslim and African immigration, might some of these migrants decide to move to Eastern Europe? Indeed, one would think that--if they don't actually close their doors--Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Baltic countries could eventually end up being an attractive destination for migrants. True, a lot of the locals there could hate them, but the fact that a third of France voted for the National Front doesn't appear to have convinced many French Muslims and Africans to move out of the country.

    You know, this really does make me wonder–if Western Europe will begin looking more and more like a dump as a result of massive low-IQ Muslim and African immigration, might some of these migrants decide to move to Eastern Europe?

    We can use Albanians from ex-Yugoslavia as example of Muslim migrants who get away from a country that went down the toilet. Do they go to Eastern Europe? Lol no. Even though they know Serbian/Macedonian and would easily learn other Slavic languages.

    The largest communities of the Albanian diaspora are particularly found in Italy, Argentina, Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland and the United States. Other important and increasing communities includes in Australia, Canada, France, Belgium, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_diaspora

    Eastern European countries need to become richer than New Zealand before someone considers immigration there.

    • Replies: @Spisarevski

    Eastern European countries need to become richer than New Zealand before someone considers immigration there.
     
    Unfortunately, you are very wrong.

    Anecdotal evidence, but nevertheless: the company I work for (it's in the IT sector) published job ads recently. A full third of all applicants were Africans and Arabs. We were all speechless at the office.
    Good thing that my bosses are as racist as I am, nevertheless this is more than concerning.

    And I live in the poorest country in the EU.

    I see more and more non-white people in the metro every day. There are arabs in my neighbourhood - while I live in a nice apartment in a new building, the neighbourhood as a whole is a working class conglomeration of commie blocks at the outskirts of Sofia, a place that should supposedly be hostile to them. In other neighbourhoods close to the very center of the city, you can rent very nice apartments for cheap just because arabs have suddenly started colonizing the area and nobody wants to live there anymore. I look at the name badges of people who carry them (from cashiers and delivery boys to doctors in hospitals) and I see more and more alien names.

    Went to a popular night club recently, haven't done that for years, and the Bulgarians were a clear minority. Some Indian chick left her bag next to me and I thought "what if it's a bomb" (didn't know she was Indian at the time).

    The other half of the problem is that a fuckton of white people have appeared as well, which I guess would be even more counter-intuitive for you. I am at a point where I am almost not racist anymore because western faggots speaking English or German or Italian annoy me just as much as the shitskins. I feel like I'm not in my own country anymore.

    It's not just "digital nomads" and such, there are a ton of Italians for example working in the office building next to mine, I catch them some mornings in the metro. The job ads I mentioned in the beginning also had applicants from England and Scotland. One of them, a nice white English chick, has been here for years and her CV had several not particularly high paying jobs. Why would you leave England (or any other western country) and look for mediocre, not particularly interesting and not high paying work in fucking Bulgaria is beyond me but nevertheless, the numbers of such people are not trivial and they keep growing.

    I don't know what's going on or why, but I don't like it.
  54. @Mr. XYZ

    Central Asians are much more functional than Negroes. I think the correct comparison would be with Mexicans and Central Americans.
     
    Yes, or I suppose with Southeast Asians (other than the Vietnamese, who have a high average IQ). Mexicans, Central Americans, Laotians, Hmong, Cambodians, Filipinos, Thais, Malays, Indonesians, et cetera generally aren't known for high intellectual achievement, but they do appear to be much less crime-prone than Blacks are.

    There would be many more of them in the Russian heartlands; it is interesting to note that half of the mosques in both Moscow and SPB were built in the late Russian Empire (!). However, they’d be diluted within a much larger East Slavic population;
     
    I do wonder if there is going to be "Slavic flight" from Russian cities which have large Central Asian populations, though. A good way to try checking for this would be to see if Hispanic or Southeast Asian migration into cities in the U.S. caused Whites in these cities to flee them and move elsewhere. I suspect that, whatever the answer is going to be for the U.S., there would have been a similar answer in regards to Central Asians in Russia.

    meanwhile, their own numbers might be even smaller than today, because Communist repressions and WW2 affected them lightly, while they’d have had a much earlier demographic transition.
     
    That I'm not so sure of. For instance, as far as I know, Kazakhs were severely hurt by the famines in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s--something which won't happen in this scenario. As for an earlier demographic transition, it's certainly possible, but I'm less sure of this since Hispanics in the U.S. nowadays still tend to have more children (on average) than Non-Hispanic Whites have. If Hispanics in the U.S. haven't converged to White fertility levels, I'm unsure that Central Asians in Russia's interior would have converged to Slavic fertility levels--especially if they will form their own ghettos within Russian cities.

    There would also certainly be many more Slavic settlers in Central Asia, with North Kazakhstan (“South Siberia”) becoming a core Russian territory, Slavic majorities in south Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and possibly Turkmenistan (oil influx), and very large (20%-30%) Slavic minorities in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
     
    All of this certainly seems very realistic. Of course, I wonder if old people are going to be disproprtionally represented among southern Central Asian Slavs in this scenario in comparison to the Slavs in the Russian interior. After all, I know that a lot of old people in the U.S. have moved to warmer parts of the U.S. such as Florida and Arizona and thus I wonder if something similar could have happened in Russia--with a lot of old Slavs in Russia moving to southern Central Asia, Crimea, the Kuban, the Caucasus, and the parts of the Ottoman Empire which Russia would have acquired in the event of a World War I victory.

    Indeed, in relation to my last point here, do you think that the Caucasus, Trebizond, and the former Armenian Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire would have also had very significant Russian populations nowadays in a scenario where there was no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917?

    In addition to this, do you see Russia ever expanding any further after 1920 in a scenario where there is no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917? For the record, I'm excluding Russia's territorial gains from World War I in this discussion. Also, for what it's worth, I think that Mongolia, Xinjiang, maybe Tibet, maybe southern Sakhalin, and maybe northern Persia/Iran would all be fair targets for Russian expansion after 1920 in a scenario where Russia doesn't go Bolshevik in 1917.

    I do wonder if there is going to be “Slavic flight” from Russian cities which have large Central Asian populations, though… I suspect that, whatever the answer is going to be for the U.S., there would have been a similar answer in regards to Central Asians in Russia.

    Generally not, I think. In the US, I lived for about a year in a 70% Latino/prole white neighborhood. It was perfectly safe and people got on well together. The price of the low quality house I rented was at least $150,000, perhaps $250,000. The only (very minor case of theft) I experienced accrued to… a Negro.

    Of course, I wonder if old people are going to be disproprtionally represented among southern Central Asian Slavs in this scenario in comparison to the Slavs in the Russian interior.

    Probably not – Central Asia isn’t that attractive as a retirement destination. That would be relegated to the Black Sea, although it isn’t perfect area (winter winds are very unpleasant there). However, the Turkish Black Sea coast is extremely pleasant. That would have been a huge holiday/retirement destination had Greater Armenia come about.

    In addition to this, do you see Russia ever expanding any further after 1920 in a scenario where there is no Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917?

    Hard to see how one can seriously speculate about that. But it’s likely that Russia would have wanted to recover South Sakhalin.

  55. @neutral
    The American empire also costs a lot of money, but I don't see them ending theirs because financial concerns.

    Why would the Zionists care about the cost of empire born by US taxpayers?

  56. @Mr. XYZ
    Imperialism--if you can call it that--appears to have largely worked out very well for the United States of America. For instance, Florida, Texas, and California all became extremely massive population and economic hubs after they were acquired by the U.S.

    Indeed, I wonder if a Russia which avoided the Bolshevik Revolution, won World War I, allowed free migration, and become a developed country by the end of the 20th century would have likewise created its own Sun Belt in the parts of the Ottoman Empire that it would have annexed after the end of World War I as well as in the Caucasus, Kuban, and southern Central Asia.

    That is colonisation, difference between that and rule over foreign peoples.

  57. @Mr. XYZ
    Imperialism--if you can call it that--appears to have largely worked out very well for the United States of America. For instance, Florida, Texas, and California all became extremely massive population and economic hubs after they were acquired by the U.S.

    Indeed, I wonder if a Russia which avoided the Bolshevik Revolution, won World War I, allowed free migration, and become a developed country by the end of the 20th century would have likewise created its own Sun Belt in the parts of the Ottoman Empire that it would have annexed after the end of World War I as well as in the Caucasus, Kuban, and southern Central Asia.

    I specifically mentioned that conquering uninhabited or nearly uninhabited areas was always beneficial, like the conquest of Siberia and Canada.

  58. @AP
    Russians in Latvia have fewer children than Latvians in Latvia. Same situation within Ukraine.

    I know. So Russians have passed up the easy opportunity to take at least Latvia and even the other Baltics peacefully, through demographics. The Russians might have done the same with a larger part of Ukraine too. Hard to understand why they haven’t.

    Poverty doesn’t prevent other races from reproducing (in fact, reproducing to a absurd, permanent-poverty-ensuring level). Why should poverty deter Russians et al. from having a mere two children per woman?? There seems to be a demoralization and a lack of purpose and confidence. Even worse with whites in the West who usually do not have poverty as an excuse.

  59. @AP

    So russians might take the Baltics
     
    What a silly scenario.

    How would Russians take the Baltics or anyone else when their own population is also decreasing, just at a slower rate? People expand settlement when they have settlers, a population surplus.

    I wholeheartedly agree that Russians need to have far more children, both inside and outside Russia. And neither my family’s interests nor my nation’s interests would be threatened by Russians growing to a majority in the Baltics in that manner.

    I agree it’s unlikely, and I despair at Russians and our other kindred peoples not bothering to reproduce.

  60. @DFH
    Resettle Eastern Europe with Dagestanis and Uzbeks. Make the Eurasianist dream a reality.

    Oh God no. There are far too many Muslims in Russia proper already, not to mention the generally more hostile, less assimilable Muslims in formerly-great formerly-Britain and Western Europe. Why contaminate our brothers in Ukraine?

    Or were you being sarcastic? ;)

  61. @anonymous coward

    the Russian settler population which was settled there as part of a deliberate Russification strategy
     
    As a simple counterexample: Tartu was founded in 1030 by Yaroslav I, the same guy who founded the eponymous city of Yaroslavl. (Tartu was originally named 'Yuriev'.)

    Without the Russian and German 'settler populations' since medieval times, there'd be no Baltic countries at all.

    Yaroslav I

    Yaroslav I was as much a Russian as Julius Caesar was a Romanian, or Pizarro was a Peruvian.

    • Replies: @Adam
    Neither of your analogies have any relation to Rus. Romania was a far flung and isolated colony of Rome, founded many centuries after the ethnogenesis of the Latins and the founding of the Roman Republic. Pizarro was a Castilian Spaniard who conquered a land over the ocean with absolutely zero cultural or historical relationship with his homeland.

    North Eastern Rus' was a core part of the Rus state and no contemporary of Yaroslav would view the inhabitants of Kiev and Novgorod or Polotsk and Ryazan as a separate nation. A better analogy would the relationship between the modern Scandinavian nations and the Norse. All of them have changed significantly since they were culturally united centuries ago, but all claim direct descent from them and to claim that a Swede is more "Norse" than a Dane is nonsense. However, the Ukrainian - to make up for their immense inferiority complex to the Great Russians - has to distort history to support the idea that Ukrainians are the sole inheritors of Rus. Not a great hill to die on.
  62. @Toronto Russian

    You know, this really does make me wonder–if Western Europe will begin looking more and more like a dump as a result of massive low-IQ Muslim and African immigration, might some of these migrants decide to move to Eastern Europe?
     
    We can use Albanians from ex-Yugoslavia as example of Muslim migrants who get away from a country that went down the toilet. Do they go to Eastern Europe? Lol no. Even though they know Serbian/Macedonian and would easily learn other Slavic languages.

    The largest communities of the Albanian diaspora are particularly found in Italy, Argentina, Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland and the United States. Other important and increasing communities includes in Australia, Canada, France, Belgium, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_diaspora
     
    Eastern European countries need to become richer than New Zealand before someone considers immigration there.

    Eastern European countries need to become richer than New Zealand before someone considers immigration there.

    Unfortunately, you are very wrong.

    Anecdotal evidence, but nevertheless: the company I work for (it’s in the IT sector) published job ads recently. A full third of all applicants were Africans and Arabs. We were all speechless at the office.
    Good thing that my bosses are as racist as I am, nevertheless this is more than concerning.

    And I live in the poorest country in the EU.

    I see more and more non-white people in the metro every day. There are arabs in my neighbourhood – while I live in a nice apartment in a new building, the neighbourhood as a whole is a working class conglomeration of commie blocks at the outskirts of Sofia, a place that should supposedly be hostile to them. In other neighbourhoods close to the very center of the city, you can rent very nice apartments for cheap just because arabs have suddenly started colonizing the area and nobody wants to live there anymore. I look at the name badges of people who carry them (from cashiers and delivery boys to doctors in hospitals) and I see more and more alien names.

    Went to a popular night club recently, haven’t done that for years, and the Bulgarians were a clear minority. Some Indian chick left her bag next to me and I thought “what if it’s a bomb” (didn’t know she was Indian at the time).

    The other half of the problem is that a fuckton of white people have appeared as well, which I guess would be even more counter-intuitive for you. I am at a point where I am almost not racist anymore because western faggots speaking English or German or Italian annoy me just as much as the shitskins. I feel like I’m not in my own country anymore.

    It’s not just “digital nomads” and such, there are a ton of Italians for example working in the office building next to mine, I catch them some mornings in the metro. The job ads I mentioned in the beginning also had applicants from England and Scotland. One of them, a nice white English chick, has been here for years and her CV had several not particularly high paying jobs. Why would you leave England (or any other western country) and look for mediocre, not particularly interesting and not high paying work in fucking Bulgaria is beyond me but nevertheless, the numbers of such people are not trivial and they keep growing.

    I don’t know what’s going on or why, but I don’t like it.

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
    Thanks for your perspective. In immigration rush, like in land rushes of old, not all can stake their claim on the prime land.
    https://youtu.be/yxaJY8UZxn4
    I know Macedonians are handed free Bulgarian passports, but Bulgaria is not their choice destination (that's western EU countries the passport opens the door to).
  63. @reiner Tor

    Russia has the most oil, therefore Russia was subsidizing everyone
     
    But oil was not the only product. The USSR (and the COMECON) needed to produce a lot of buses. Hungarian Ikarus buses were marketable in the West. Not very much so, but if our access to western technologies and capital markets wasn’t restricted due to the Soviet occupation and the communist system forced on us by the Soviets, they’d have been better. The USSR used lots of Hungarian Ikarus buses. How can you say that they were worthless? They’d have cost you way more if you wanted to buy buses for real money instead of COMECON toy money a.k.a. transferable rubles. I bet you Estonia also produced a lot of things which would’ve cost Russia way more if it had to be purchased on the international market and not inside of the USSR for toy money.

    Nobody wanted to buy Hungarian buses once the market relations were intoduced in Eastern Europe. This means that in economic terms your buses were actually worthless. Russia was forced to exchange valuable commodities for a substandard product.

    Simply maintaining fuel prices in “brotherly republics” at below international levels amounted to massive transfer of wealth from Russia to “brotherly republics”. You mentioned that Hungarian meat consumption peaked in 1970s. This is what made it possible.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    First of all, we're talking about the 1970s. The Ikarus 200 series were fine and modern then, we exported to a lot of countries other than the USSR. The issue was that they modernized neither the production nor the products, which was a universal problem across the Eastern Bloc (thank you for the communist system). Anyway, Ikarus didn't cease to exist in 1990, but in the 2000s, because it was starved of capital and when it was sold to a French company in the late 1990s the new owner wasn't interested in modernizing it, instead it just bought its business contacts and markets. A major American bus manufacturer was founded based on the Ikarus product lines, North American Bus Industries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Bus_Industries

    Second, Hungary has been a net agricultural exporter since medieval times with the exception of a few years (maybe 1918-20, 1945-46?), so eating a lot of meat required very little subsidies. It had more to do with the government distorting the market of consumer goods, for example cars and electronic devices (like TVs) were unavailable, while after 1956 the government made sure that basic foodstuffs (including pork and beef - of course low quality) were available at subsidized prices. We were still a net food exporter, and exported food to both the USSR and West Germany.

    Third, oil prices were low until the 1970s, while the Hungarian economy was not yet heavily motorized in the 1960s, and so the subsidies cannot have been that great before. Of course, once oil prices soared, the "brotherly" USSR raised its prices, too. I recently read that the amount of oil we could purchase for the price of one Ikarus bus in 1970 could only be purchased at the cost of eight Ikarus buses by 1978.

    Fourth, Hungary spent a lot of its hard currency on things which served the purposes of the USSR. (Yes, we had hard currency exports. Unlike the USSR whose main hard currency export items were commodities like oil, Hungary managed to export other things.) The USSR asked the "brotherly socialist countries" to subsidize Cuba and Vietnam, and so we had to spend a lot of our meager hard currency reserves on that.

    Fifth, we imported a lot of weapons from the USSR (we had to pay for it with even more foodstuffs and industrial products - buses were just the most important, but far from the only ones), which served no purposes for Hungary other than to be able to fight a war on behalf of the USSR. For example we purchased a large number of nuclear capable Scud missiles for our artillery, which were manned by and paid for Hungary, but which would have used Soviet nuclear warheads against targets given to us by the USSR.

    By the way even if nothing Hungary sold the USSR was worth anything on the international markets (far from true), it's just a replication of the arguments why Russia is a "gas station with nukes": you know, the argument is based on the fact that Russia's exports are mostly oil and gas and a few other commodities. Yet Russia still produces a lot of things which are worth something. The same was true of COMECON trade: a lot of it was worth something, and while it was bad quality, its price was also low: you paid for it with toy money.
  64. @reiner Tor
    How much of the subsidies to Estonia and Latvia went to build housing and infrastructure for the Russian settler population which was settled there as part of a deliberate Russification strategy, to make it impossible or at least difficult for these countries to proclaim independence?

    We’ve been through it. There was no deliberate /i> Russification strategy for Latvia and Estonia (but for some unfathomable reason, not Lithuania.) No one in the Soviet government would’ve minded if the Russians Estonianized instead. In fact, Russian schools in Estonia had mandatory Estonian lessons. Same for Latvia.

    Instead, there was a deliberate policy of industrializing Latvia and Estonia (but again, not Lithuania.) As you said yourself, Estonia produced many things that Russia needed. These things were mostly produced by factories built and staffed by Russians. Now, Estonia produces nothing that Russia or anyone else needs, aside from offshore services.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Industrialization was also done in Lithuania. Although differently from Latvia and Estonia, it was evenly distributed throughout the region. Factories were built in smaller towns and were staffed by the local population, instead of brought-in Russians. I think it was a deliberate government policy of Soviet Lithuania. Also, out of the three Baltic Republics, Lithuania had the most active anti-soviet guerrilla resistance for many years after WWII. It probably had a limiting effect on Russian immigration.
    , @reiner Tor
    Deliberate or not, the Soviet policy was not good for Estonia. What is it worth if factories are built in Estonia, which are manned and led by Russians, and the whole thing belongs to a government based in Moscow?

    So if you were Estonian, would you be happy this was happening? Should Palestinians celebrate that Palestine now has a modern economy (manned and owned and led by Jews for the benefit of Jews), or do you understand why they don't celebrate it?

    Now, Estonia produces nothing that Russia or anyone else needs, aside from offshore services.
     
    They have a huge IT industry. But see my point above.
  65. @reiner Tor
    The only modern empire which at least truly honestly tried to be good for the core population was Nazi Germany. Of course, it had difficulties attracting allies. The only allies it had were unenthusiastic and didn’t even try to do their best fighting on the front. The Finns, who were the most enthusiastic (since they had their own reasons to fight) for example stopped their troops after reconquering the areas lost in 1940 (and some areas needed to secure those) and then stopped. This made it possible for the Germans to starve to death hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians in Leningrad, but they refused to contribute any more, despite repeated German requests.

    Other than a few divisions of volunteers from a number of countries, no one was willing to fight to help Germany. Not even those whose obvious self-interests lay in preserving the German hegemony, like Hungarians. When Hungarian troops were stationed in Poland, they even gave weapons to the AK. (Though in the Eastern Slavic areas they were cruel to the civilian population.)

    Imperial Japan was definitely worse, spending a lot of resources to subsidize the industrialization of some of its colonies.

    Was there any modern imperialism good for the core population? Except, of course, the conquest of empty or near-empty lands, like Siberia or Canada.

    The Finns, who were the most enthusiastic (since they had their own reasons to fight) for example stopped their troops after reconquering the areas lost in 1940 (and some areas needed to secure those) and then stopped.

    This myth has to die. Here is a map that shows the maximum advancement of the Finnish army compared to the 1939 borders.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    This was a comment, not a military history PhD dissertation. Is there anyone here who hasn't seen and discussed these maps like, hundred times at least?

    International borders are usually not very straight or easily defensible. The Finns reconquered what was lost and then occupied some further areas, so that the frontline became easily defensible. As you can see on the map for yourself.

    Beyond that, they refused to help the Germans any further, despite repeated German requests. You can read it anywhere, I think even on Wikipedia.
  66. @Spisarevski

    Eastern European countries need to become richer than New Zealand before someone considers immigration there.
     
    Unfortunately, you are very wrong.

    Anecdotal evidence, but nevertheless: the company I work for (it's in the IT sector) published job ads recently. A full third of all applicants were Africans and Arabs. We were all speechless at the office.
    Good thing that my bosses are as racist as I am, nevertheless this is more than concerning.

    And I live in the poorest country in the EU.

    I see more and more non-white people in the metro every day. There are arabs in my neighbourhood - while I live in a nice apartment in a new building, the neighbourhood as a whole is a working class conglomeration of commie blocks at the outskirts of Sofia, a place that should supposedly be hostile to them. In other neighbourhoods close to the very center of the city, you can rent very nice apartments for cheap just because arabs have suddenly started colonizing the area and nobody wants to live there anymore. I look at the name badges of people who carry them (from cashiers and delivery boys to doctors in hospitals) and I see more and more alien names.

    Went to a popular night club recently, haven't done that for years, and the Bulgarians were a clear minority. Some Indian chick left her bag next to me and I thought "what if it's a bomb" (didn't know she was Indian at the time).

    The other half of the problem is that a fuckton of white people have appeared as well, which I guess would be even more counter-intuitive for you. I am at a point where I am almost not racist anymore because western faggots speaking English or German or Italian annoy me just as much as the shitskins. I feel like I'm not in my own country anymore.

    It's not just "digital nomads" and such, there are a ton of Italians for example working in the office building next to mine, I catch them some mornings in the metro. The job ads I mentioned in the beginning also had applicants from England and Scotland. One of them, a nice white English chick, has been here for years and her CV had several not particularly high paying jobs. Why would you leave England (or any other western country) and look for mediocre, not particularly interesting and not high paying work in fucking Bulgaria is beyond me but nevertheless, the numbers of such people are not trivial and they keep growing.

    I don't know what's going on or why, but I don't like it.

    Thanks for your perspective. In immigration rush, like in land rushes of old, not all can stake their claim on the prime land.

    I know Macedonians are handed free Bulgarian passports, but Bulgaria is not their choice destination (that’s western EU countries the passport opens the door to).

  67. Anonymous[985] • Disclaimer says:
    @inertial
    We've been through it. There was no deliberate /i> Russification strategy for Latvia and Estonia (but for some unfathomable reason, not Lithuania.) No one in the Soviet government would've minded if the Russians Estonianized instead. In fact, Russian schools in Estonia had mandatory Estonian lessons. Same for Latvia.

    Instead, there was a deliberate policy of industrializing Latvia and Estonia (but again, not Lithuania.) As you said yourself, Estonia produced many things that Russia needed. These things were mostly produced by factories built and staffed by Russians. Now, Estonia produces nothing that Russia or anyone else needs, aside from offshore services.

    Industrialization was also done in Lithuania. Although differently from Latvia and Estonia, it was evenly distributed throughout the region. Factories were built in smaller towns and were staffed by the local population, instead of brought-in Russians. I think it was a deliberate government policy of Soviet Lithuania. Also, out of the three Baltic Republics, Lithuania had the most active anti-soviet guerrilla resistance for many years after WWII. It probably had a limiting effect on Russian immigration.

  68. @AP

    Yaroslav I
     
    Yaroslav I was as much a Russian as Julius Caesar was a Romanian, or Pizarro was a Peruvian.

    Neither of your analogies have any relation to Rus. Romania was a far flung and isolated colony of Rome, founded many centuries after the ethnogenesis of the Latins and the founding of the Roman Republic. Pizarro was a Castilian Spaniard who conquered a land over the ocean with absolutely zero cultural or historical relationship with his homeland.

    North Eastern Rus’ was a core part of the Rus state and no contemporary of Yaroslav would view the inhabitants of Kiev and Novgorod or Polotsk and Ryazan as a separate nation. A better analogy would the relationship between the modern Scandinavian nations and the Norse. All of them have changed significantly since they were culturally united centuries ago, but all claim direct descent from them and to claim that a Swede is more “Norse” than a Dane is nonsense. However, the Ukrainian – to make up for their immense inferiority complex to the Great Russians – has to distort history to support the idea that Ukrainians are the sole inheritors of Rus. Not a great hill to die on.

  69. Your mistake is that you think of the Rus state as a modern or even pre-modern entity, when in reality it was a Viking enterprise in which Norsemen known as Rus ruled Slavs (even selling many of them into slavery) and engaged in some rudimentary law-giving in order to make their trade possible. This “state” fragmented into warring principalities, each allying with one foreign group or another, each massacring the others cities, long before the Mongols finished it off.

    Ukrainians and Russians are equally silly to ascribe Rus as “their” nation – like Afro-Cubans and Guatemalan Mayans arguing over who is more Spanish. But these peoples at least speak the languages of their Spanish conquerors – while the Slavs do retain the eastern Christian faith forced upon them at swordpoint by their Rus Norse masters, they do not even speak the Rus language – Norse.

    The inferiority complexes of the Russian and Ukrainian nationalists lead them to argue over, for example, St. Olga, actually Helga, who slaughtered an entire city of Slavs because they refused to give up tribute to the Norse overlords and killed her husband Ingvar who was trying to extort goods from them. But the two Slavic nations argue about whether she belonged to them.

    That having been said, while northwestern Rus was indeed a “core” part of Rus, this was a historical dead end, crushed by Moscow, which was not even mentioned until about 100 years after Yaroslav lived. So the analogy with Romania is accurate, even though Ukrainians aren’t Romans either.

    • Replies: @Adam
    Your argument would be right if Rus' had only lasted from the 9th to the early 10th century. However it endured for centuries more. The Rus' may have originated as Scandinavians, but they were assimilated by the East Slavs. The Rurikids were Slavs by a few generations.

    Also, I'm not sure what the obsession with the founding date of Moscow is. Muscovites didn't appear out of nowhere, they migrated from nearby, older cities. The people of Moscow were the same as the people in older cities, and at the time of its foundation, the people in Kiev. Large swaths of Ukraine weren't even Slavic until many centuries after the Moscow Principality was founded.

    I do agree that Rus is not a source of legitimacy for either Russia or Ukraine. It was a primitive backwater that did not reach the level of culture or development of even the Norse. But I can't stand the Ukrainian distortion of history.
  70. @AP
    Your mistake is that you think of the Rus state as a modern or even pre-modern entity, when in reality it was a Viking enterprise in which Norsemen known as Rus ruled Slavs (even selling many of them into slavery) and engaged in some rudimentary law-giving in order to make their trade possible. This "state" fragmented into warring principalities, each allying with one foreign group or another, each massacring the others cities, long before the Mongols finished it off.

    Ukrainians and Russians are equally silly to ascribe Rus as "their" nation - like Afro-Cubans and Guatemalan Mayans arguing over who is more Spanish. But these peoples at least speak the languages of their Spanish conquerors - while the Slavs do retain the eastern Christian faith forced upon them at swordpoint by their Rus Norse masters, they do not even speak the Rus language - Norse.

    The inferiority complexes of the Russian and Ukrainian nationalists lead them to argue over, for example, St. Olga, actually Helga, who slaughtered an entire city of Slavs because they refused to give up tribute to the Norse overlords and killed her husband Ingvar who was trying to extort goods from them. But the two Slavic nations argue about whether she belonged to them.

    That having been said, while northwestern Rus was indeed a "core" part of Rus, this was a historical dead end, crushed by Moscow, which was not even mentioned until about 100 years after Yaroslav lived. So the analogy with Romania is accurate, even though Ukrainians aren't Romans either.

    Your argument would be right if Rus’ had only lasted from the 9th to the early 10th century. However it endured for centuries more. The Rus’ may have originated as Scandinavians, but they were assimilated by the East Slavs. The Rurikids were Slavs by a few generations.

    Also, I’m not sure what the obsession with the founding date of Moscow is. Muscovites didn’t appear out of nowhere, they migrated from nearby, older cities. The people of Moscow were the same as the people in older cities, and at the time of its foundation, the people in Kiev. Large swaths of Ukraine weren’t even Slavic until many centuries after the Moscow Principality was founded.

    I do agree that Rus is not a source of legitimacy for either Russia or Ukraine. It was a primitive backwater that did not reach the level of culture or development of even the Norse. But I can’t stand the Ukrainian distortion of history.

    • Replies: @AP

    Your argument would be right if Rus’ had only lasted from the 9th to the early 10th century. However it endured for centuries more.
     
    Yarolav - Scandinavian mother, half-Scandinavian (at least) father, and Scandinavian wife. There is more written about him in the Sagas than in the Chronicles. Seized the throne using Scandinavian troops. Early 11th century.

    Muscovites didn’t appear out of nowhere, they migrated from nearby, older cities.
     
    Sure. And they mixed with local tribes also. American founding fathers had roots in England. Therefore, London is an ancient American city. Romania was settled in part by Latins moving from what is now Italy. So Julius Caesar was a Romanian.

    The people of Moscow were the same as the people in older cities, and at the time of its foundation, the people in Kiev.
     
    No, they were descended from different tribes, plus with some admixture from non-Slavic indigenous people. The Rus state was not some homogeneous modern nation state. It's like Spanish ruling Mayans and Aztecs. Kievens came from a different tribe than did Suzdalians (ancestors of Muscovites). These tribes had separated centuries before the Rus arrived. They probably already spoke different dialects.

    Large swaths of Ukraine weren’t even Slavic
     
    Sure. As was almost all of Russia, by territory.

    But I can’t stand the Ukrainian distortion of history.
     
    Russian distortion is better? Ukrainians at least can claim the city of Kiev. If Russian history had been built around Novgorod it would be similarly ridiculous, but instead it is more so, though not by much.
    , @Mikhail

    I do agree that Rus is not a source of legitimacy for either Russia or Ukraine. It was a primitive backwater that did not reach the level of culture or development of even the Norse. But I can’t stand the Ukrainian distortion of history.
     
    Not true. At its zenith, it was impressive for what was evident elsewhere at the time.

    As for some the other related discussion, there's a good deal of myth making among some who say they're myth busting.

    There's a reasonable basis for modern day Russia, Ukraine and Russia to feel historically and culturally linked to Rus.

  71. @Adam
    Your argument would be right if Rus' had only lasted from the 9th to the early 10th century. However it endured for centuries more. The Rus' may have originated as Scandinavians, but they were assimilated by the East Slavs. The Rurikids were Slavs by a few generations.

    Also, I'm not sure what the obsession with the founding date of Moscow is. Muscovites didn't appear out of nowhere, they migrated from nearby, older cities. The people of Moscow were the same as the people in older cities, and at the time of its foundation, the people in Kiev. Large swaths of Ukraine weren't even Slavic until many centuries after the Moscow Principality was founded.

    I do agree that Rus is not a source of legitimacy for either Russia or Ukraine. It was a primitive backwater that did not reach the level of culture or development of even the Norse. But I can't stand the Ukrainian distortion of history.

    Your argument would be right if Rus’ had only lasted from the 9th to the early 10th century. However it endured for centuries more.

    Yarolav – Scandinavian mother, half-Scandinavian (at least) father, and Scandinavian wife. There is more written about him in the Sagas than in the Chronicles. Seized the throne using Scandinavian troops. Early 11th century.

    Muscovites didn’t appear out of nowhere, they migrated from nearby, older cities.

    Sure. And they mixed with local tribes also. American founding fathers had roots in England. Therefore, London is an ancient American city. Romania was settled in part by Latins moving from what is now Italy. So Julius Caesar was a Romanian.

    The people of Moscow were the same as the people in older cities, and at the time of its foundation, the people in Kiev.

    No, they were descended from different tribes, plus with some admixture from non-Slavic indigenous people. The Rus state was not some homogeneous modern nation state. It’s like Spanish ruling Mayans and Aztecs. Kievens came from a different tribe than did Suzdalians (ancestors of Muscovites). These tribes had separated centuries before the Rus arrived. They probably already spoke different dialects.

    Large swaths of Ukraine weren’t even Slavic

    Sure. As was almost all of Russia, by territory.

    But I can’t stand the Ukrainian distortion of history.

    Russian distortion is better? Ukrainians at least can claim the city of Kiev. If Russian history had been built around Novgorod it would be similarly ridiculous, but instead it is more so, though not by much.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    More distortions on your part in the form of what you choose to note and omit.

    Oleg from Novgorod settled in Kiev, right at the time of the academically termed entity known as Kievan Rus. Bogolyubsky the legit heir to the Kiev throne developed Suzdal.

    Countries the world over have different kind of ethnic mixes due to the influence of geography and some different historical experience.
  72. @Felix Keverich
    Nobody wanted to buy Hungarian buses once the market relations were intoduced in Eastern Europe. This means that in economic terms your buses were actually worthless. Russia was forced to exchange valuable commodities for a substandard product.

    Simply maintaining fuel prices in "brotherly republics" at below international levels amounted to massive transfer of wealth from Russia to "brotherly republics". You mentioned that Hungarian meat consumption peaked in 1970s. This is what made it possible.

    First of all, we’re talking about the 1970s. The Ikarus 200 series were fine and modern then, we exported to a lot of countries other than the USSR. The issue was that they modernized neither the production nor the products, which was a universal problem across the Eastern Bloc (thank you for the communist system). Anyway, Ikarus didn’t cease to exist in 1990, but in the 2000s, because it was starved of capital and when it was sold to a French company in the late 1990s the new owner wasn’t interested in modernizing it, instead it just bought its business contacts and markets. A major American bus manufacturer was founded based on the Ikarus product lines, North American Bus Industries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Bus_Industries

    Second, Hungary has been a net agricultural exporter since medieval times with the exception of a few years (maybe 1918-20, 1945-46?), so eating a lot of meat required very little subsidies. It had more to do with the government distorting the market of consumer goods, for example cars and electronic devices (like TVs) were unavailable, while after 1956 the government made sure that basic foodstuffs (including pork and beef – of course low quality) were available at subsidized prices. We were still a net food exporter, and exported food to both the USSR and West Germany.

    Third, oil prices were low until the 1970s, while the Hungarian economy was not yet heavily motorized in the 1960s, and so the subsidies cannot have been that great before. Of course, once oil prices soared, the “brotherly” USSR raised its prices, too. I recently read that the amount of oil we could purchase for the price of one Ikarus bus in 1970 could only be purchased at the cost of eight Ikarus buses by 1978.

    Fourth, Hungary spent a lot of its hard currency on things which served the purposes of the USSR. (Yes, we had hard currency exports. Unlike the USSR whose main hard currency export items were commodities like oil, Hungary managed to export other things.) The USSR asked the “brotherly socialist countries” to subsidize Cuba and Vietnam, and so we had to spend a lot of our meager hard currency reserves on that.

    Fifth, we imported a lot of weapons from the USSR (we had to pay for it with even more foodstuffs and industrial products – buses were just the most important, but far from the only ones), which served no purposes for Hungary other than to be able to fight a war on behalf of the USSR. For example we purchased a large number of nuclear capable Scud missiles for our artillery, which were manned by and paid for Hungary, but which would have used Soviet nuclear warheads against targets given to us by the USSR.

    By the way even if nothing Hungary sold the USSR was worth anything on the international markets (far from true), it’s just a replication of the arguments why Russia is a “gas station with nukes”: you know, the argument is based on the fact that Russia’s exports are mostly oil and gas and a few other commodities. Yet Russia still produces a lot of things which are worth something. The same was true of COMECON trade: a lot of it was worth something, and while it was bad quality, its price was also low: you paid for it with toy money.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Did I hit a nerve or something? You wrote an essay to prove that Communist Hungary was not a parasite. lol

    I don't really care enough to study and understand this subject in great detail. I do know that fuel prices were equalized within the borders of the Soviet Union, and that means Russia was subsidising other republics of USSR.
  73. @inertial
    We've been through it. There was no deliberate /i> Russification strategy for Latvia and Estonia (but for some unfathomable reason, not Lithuania.) No one in the Soviet government would've minded if the Russians Estonianized instead. In fact, Russian schools in Estonia had mandatory Estonian lessons. Same for Latvia.

    Instead, there was a deliberate policy of industrializing Latvia and Estonia (but again, not Lithuania.) As you said yourself, Estonia produced many things that Russia needed. These things were mostly produced by factories built and staffed by Russians. Now, Estonia produces nothing that Russia or anyone else needs, aside from offshore services.

    Deliberate or not, the Soviet policy was not good for Estonia. What is it worth if factories are built in Estonia, which are manned and led by Russians, and the whole thing belongs to a government based in Moscow?

    So if you were Estonian, would you be happy this was happening? Should Palestinians celebrate that Palestine now has a modern economy (manned and owned and led by Jews for the benefit of Jews), or do you understand why they don’t celebrate it?

    Now, Estonia produces nothing that Russia or anyone else needs, aside from offshore services.

    They have a huge IT industry. But see my point above.

  74. @inertial

    The Finns, who were the most enthusiastic (since they had their own reasons to fight) for example stopped their troops after reconquering the areas lost in 1940 (and some areas needed to secure those) and then stopped.
     
    This myth has to die. Here is a map that shows the maximum advancement of the Finnish army compared to the 1939 borders.

    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/I/m/Finnish_advance_in_Karelia_during_the_Continuation_War.png

    This was a comment, not a military history PhD dissertation. Is there anyone here who hasn’t seen and discussed these maps like, hundred times at least?

    International borders are usually not very straight or easily defensible. The Finns reconquered what was lost and then occupied some further areas, so that the frontline became easily defensible. As you can see on the map for yourself.

    Beyond that, they refused to help the Germans any further, despite repeated German requests. You can read it anywhere, I think even on Wikipedia.

  75. @reiner Tor
    First of all, we're talking about the 1970s. The Ikarus 200 series were fine and modern then, we exported to a lot of countries other than the USSR. The issue was that they modernized neither the production nor the products, which was a universal problem across the Eastern Bloc (thank you for the communist system). Anyway, Ikarus didn't cease to exist in 1990, but in the 2000s, because it was starved of capital and when it was sold to a French company in the late 1990s the new owner wasn't interested in modernizing it, instead it just bought its business contacts and markets. A major American bus manufacturer was founded based on the Ikarus product lines, North American Bus Industries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Bus_Industries

    Second, Hungary has been a net agricultural exporter since medieval times with the exception of a few years (maybe 1918-20, 1945-46?), so eating a lot of meat required very little subsidies. It had more to do with the government distorting the market of consumer goods, for example cars and electronic devices (like TVs) were unavailable, while after 1956 the government made sure that basic foodstuffs (including pork and beef - of course low quality) were available at subsidized prices. We were still a net food exporter, and exported food to both the USSR and West Germany.

    Third, oil prices were low until the 1970s, while the Hungarian economy was not yet heavily motorized in the 1960s, and so the subsidies cannot have been that great before. Of course, once oil prices soared, the "brotherly" USSR raised its prices, too. I recently read that the amount of oil we could purchase for the price of one Ikarus bus in 1970 could only be purchased at the cost of eight Ikarus buses by 1978.

    Fourth, Hungary spent a lot of its hard currency on things which served the purposes of the USSR. (Yes, we had hard currency exports. Unlike the USSR whose main hard currency export items were commodities like oil, Hungary managed to export other things.) The USSR asked the "brotherly socialist countries" to subsidize Cuba and Vietnam, and so we had to spend a lot of our meager hard currency reserves on that.

    Fifth, we imported a lot of weapons from the USSR (we had to pay for it with even more foodstuffs and industrial products - buses were just the most important, but far from the only ones), which served no purposes for Hungary other than to be able to fight a war on behalf of the USSR. For example we purchased a large number of nuclear capable Scud missiles for our artillery, which were manned by and paid for Hungary, but which would have used Soviet nuclear warheads against targets given to us by the USSR.

    By the way even if nothing Hungary sold the USSR was worth anything on the international markets (far from true), it's just a replication of the arguments why Russia is a "gas station with nukes": you know, the argument is based on the fact that Russia's exports are mostly oil and gas and a few other commodities. Yet Russia still produces a lot of things which are worth something. The same was true of COMECON trade: a lot of it was worth something, and while it was bad quality, its price was also low: you paid for it with toy money.

    Did I hit a nerve or something? You wrote an essay to prove that Communist Hungary was not a parasite. lol

    I don’t really care enough to study and understand this subject in great detail. I do know that fuel prices were equalized within the borders of the Soviet Union, and that means Russia was subsidising other republics of USSR.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Did I hit a nerve or something?
     
    Yes, I don't take it kindly when you as a former occupier accuse my country of shirking its responsibilities to maintain your empire. It's your job to maintain your empire. I told you empire is usually bad for the core ethnicity for a number of reasons.

    fuel prices were equalized within the borders of the Soviet Union, and that means Russia was subsidising other republics of USSR
     
    It's likely that Russia subsidized most republics, especially Central Asia (I don't really think Estonia was subsidized), but that's not because fuel prices were subsidized. That's meaningless, because only toy money was involved anyway.

    By the way most of Central Asia (and Azerbaijan) did produce a lot of oil and natural gas, which makes your argument even more nonsensical. The issue is, they probably didn't produce anything else, and while you perhaps couldn't sell those other products on the international markets, they still had to be produced and given to Central Asia anyway. (Uzbekistan produced a lot of aircraft. Of course most people working in its aircraft industry above the level of janitors were probably Russians, so the whole project was worthless for Uzbekistan, while for Russia it meant that at great cost they built housing far away from Russia, and then send the Russians to work and live there. They were part of the "Russia" part of the equation in a proper sense, both from a Russian and an Uzbek perspective.)

  76. @Felix Keverich
    Did I hit a nerve or something? You wrote an essay to prove that Communist Hungary was not a parasite. lol

    I don't really care enough to study and understand this subject in great detail. I do know that fuel prices were equalized within the borders of the Soviet Union, and that means Russia was subsidising other republics of USSR.

    Did I hit a nerve or something?

    Yes, I don’t take it kindly when you as a former occupier accuse my country of shirking its responsibilities to maintain your empire. It’s your job to maintain your empire. I told you empire is usually bad for the core ethnicity for a number of reasons.

    fuel prices were equalized within the borders of the Soviet Union, and that means Russia was subsidising other republics of USSR

    It’s likely that Russia subsidized most republics, especially Central Asia (I don’t really think Estonia was subsidized), but that’s not because fuel prices were subsidized. That’s meaningless, because only toy money was involved anyway.

    By the way most of Central Asia (and Azerbaijan) did produce a lot of oil and natural gas, which makes your argument even more nonsensical. The issue is, they probably didn’t produce anything else, and while you perhaps couldn’t sell those other products on the international markets, they still had to be produced and given to Central Asia anyway. (Uzbekistan produced a lot of aircraft. Of course most people working in its aircraft industry above the level of janitors were probably Russians, so the whole project was worthless for Uzbekistan, while for Russia it meant that at great cost they built housing far away from Russia, and then send the Russians to work and live there. They were part of the “Russia” part of the equation in a proper sense, both from a Russian and an Uzbek perspective.)

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    It’s likely that Russia subsidized most republics, especially Central Asia (I don’t really think Estonia was subsidized), but that’s not because fuel prices were subsidized. That’s meaningless, because only toy money was involved anyway.

    By the way most of Central Asia (and Azerbaijan) did produce a lot of oil and natural gas, which makes your argument even more nonsensical.
     
    It doesn't make sense to you, because you don't understand economics. Soviet republics consumed huge amount of energy because it was abundant and cheap. This energy could have been sold abroad at international prices making Russia rich. The difference between international and domestic prices, multiplied by consumption in the republics - that's the size of the subsidy that Russia provided to other republics in USSR.

    The most subsidized Soviet republic was actually the Ukraine. It had plenty of energy-intensive industries, which IMPLODED, when the country was gradually forced to pay market rates for Russian fuel.
  77. @reiner Tor

    Did I hit a nerve or something?
     
    Yes, I don't take it kindly when you as a former occupier accuse my country of shirking its responsibilities to maintain your empire. It's your job to maintain your empire. I told you empire is usually bad for the core ethnicity for a number of reasons.

    fuel prices were equalized within the borders of the Soviet Union, and that means Russia was subsidising other republics of USSR
     
    It's likely that Russia subsidized most republics, especially Central Asia (I don't really think Estonia was subsidized), but that's not because fuel prices were subsidized. That's meaningless, because only toy money was involved anyway.

    By the way most of Central Asia (and Azerbaijan) did produce a lot of oil and natural gas, which makes your argument even more nonsensical. The issue is, they probably didn't produce anything else, and while you perhaps couldn't sell those other products on the international markets, they still had to be produced and given to Central Asia anyway. (Uzbekistan produced a lot of aircraft. Of course most people working in its aircraft industry above the level of janitors were probably Russians, so the whole project was worthless for Uzbekistan, while for Russia it meant that at great cost they built housing far away from Russia, and then send the Russians to work and live there. They were part of the "Russia" part of the equation in a proper sense, both from a Russian and an Uzbek perspective.)

    It’s likely that Russia subsidized most republics, especially Central Asia (I don’t really think Estonia was subsidized), but that’s not because fuel prices were subsidized. That’s meaningless, because only toy money was involved anyway.

    By the way most of Central Asia (and Azerbaijan) did produce a lot of oil and natural gas, which makes your argument even more nonsensical.

    It doesn’t make sense to you, because you don’t understand economics. Soviet republics consumed huge amount of energy because it was abundant and cheap. This energy could have been sold abroad at international prices making Russia rich. The difference between international and domestic prices, multiplied by consumption in the republics – that’s the size of the subsidy that Russia provided to other republics in USSR.

    The most subsidized Soviet republic was actually the Ukraine. It had plenty of energy-intensive industries, which IMPLODED, when the country was gradually forced to pay market rates for Russian fuel.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    The difference between international and domestic prices, multiplied by consumption in the republics – that’s the size of the subsidy that Russia provided to other republics in USSR.
     
    You couldn't have sold all that oil on the international market without a collapse of oil prices, so the point is moot. And as I wrote, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan also had a lot of oil and/or natural gas. Kazakhstan currently has similar living standards as Russia, which shows that it probably has more oil and natural gas. Uzbeks served in the Soviet military. What would be the market rate salary for those soldiers?

    I already mentioned the Ikarus buses, the Ikarus 286 could be sold even in the US, for example. (Of course, just like your oil, not all of the Ikarus production could be sold outside the Comecon. Actually, only some of it could. There was heavy competition in the bus market, so it would've been difficult. But how can you say they were worthless?) Now you might argue that you sold us the oil cheap (compared to what? trade was in toy money), but could you have bought all of those buses from West Germany for the same price? Of course not.

    Russian living standards actually collapsed more than Hungarian living standards when you had to purchase everything on the open market for your oil (and we had to purchase our oil for dollars), which tells you something. Though I'm not sure what: probably the Soviet economy was the most distorted of all, so it disintegrated the most. The smaller pieces (led by less talented elites) fell hardest. The Baltics now enjoy higher living standards than Russia, so maybe they cannot have been so much subsidized, whatever you believe.

    I think most of the "subsidies" were in fact just lighter burden: the Soviet military and foreign aid (to failed or near failed states like Angola or Cuba or North Korea) cost enormous amounts, and Russia proper bore the brunt of the burden. Even the in kind contributions: Russians served in the best trained divisions, while Uzbeks (or Hungarians etc.) shirked. But so what? It was not the Uzbeks' (or Hungarians') empire, so why should they have bore any of the burden?
    , @reiner Tor
    Your arguments are the same as the "Russia is a gas station with nukes" arguments: the bulk of Russia's exports are oil & natural gas, therefore, so the argument goes, it produces nothing else of importance. Which is nonsense.
    , @AP

    The most subsidized Soviet republic was actually the Ukraine. It had plenty of energy-intensive industries, which IMPLODED, when the country was gradually forced to pay market rates for Russian fuel.
     
    1. Many of these industries were made to employ Russian colonists.

    2. Western Ukraine had large gas deposits that were taken from western Ukraine and used by the USSR. This gas could have been used strictly for the benefit of western Ukraine.

  78. @Felix Keverich

    It’s likely that Russia subsidized most republics, especially Central Asia (I don’t really think Estonia was subsidized), but that’s not because fuel prices were subsidized. That’s meaningless, because only toy money was involved anyway.

    By the way most of Central Asia (and Azerbaijan) did produce a lot of oil and natural gas, which makes your argument even more nonsensical.
     
    It doesn't make sense to you, because you don't understand economics. Soviet republics consumed huge amount of energy because it was abundant and cheap. This energy could have been sold abroad at international prices making Russia rich. The difference between international and domestic prices, multiplied by consumption in the republics - that's the size of the subsidy that Russia provided to other republics in USSR.

    The most subsidized Soviet republic was actually the Ukraine. It had plenty of energy-intensive industries, which IMPLODED, when the country was gradually forced to pay market rates for Russian fuel.

    The difference between international and domestic prices, multiplied by consumption in the republics – that’s the size of the subsidy that Russia provided to other republics in USSR.

    You couldn’t have sold all that oil on the international market without a collapse of oil prices, so the point is moot. And as I wrote, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan also had a lot of oil and/or natural gas. Kazakhstan currently has similar living standards as Russia, which shows that it probably has more oil and natural gas. Uzbeks served in the Soviet military. What would be the market rate salary for those soldiers?

    I already mentioned the Ikarus buses, the Ikarus 286 could be sold even in the US, for example. (Of course, just like your oil, not all of the Ikarus production could be sold outside the Comecon. Actually, only some of it could. There was heavy competition in the bus market, so it would’ve been difficult. But how can you say they were worthless?) Now you might argue that you sold us the oil cheap (compared to what? trade was in toy money), but could you have bought all of those buses from West Germany for the same price? Of course not.

    Russian living standards actually collapsed more than Hungarian living standards when you had to purchase everything on the open market for your oil (and we had to purchase our oil for dollars), which tells you something. Though I’m not sure what: probably the Soviet economy was the most distorted of all, so it disintegrated the most. The smaller pieces (led by less talented elites) fell hardest. The Baltics now enjoy higher living standards than Russia, so maybe they cannot have been so much subsidized, whatever you believe.

    I think most of the “subsidies” were in fact just lighter burden: the Soviet military and foreign aid (to failed or near failed states like Angola or Cuba or North Korea) cost enormous amounts, and Russia proper bore the brunt of the burden. Even the in kind contributions: Russians served in the best trained divisions, while Uzbeks (or Hungarians etc.) shirked. But so what? It was not the Uzbeks’ (or Hungarians’) empire, so why should they have bore any of the burden?

    • Replies: @JL

    The Baltics now enjoy higher living standards than Russia, so maybe they cannot have been so much subsidized, whatever you believe.
     
    Aren't they even more subsidized now, just by the EU as opposed to the USSR?
  79. @Felix Keverich

    It’s likely that Russia subsidized most republics, especially Central Asia (I don’t really think Estonia was subsidized), but that’s not because fuel prices were subsidized. That’s meaningless, because only toy money was involved anyway.

    By the way most of Central Asia (and Azerbaijan) did produce a lot of oil and natural gas, which makes your argument even more nonsensical.
     
    It doesn't make sense to you, because you don't understand economics. Soviet republics consumed huge amount of energy because it was abundant and cheap. This energy could have been sold abroad at international prices making Russia rich. The difference between international and domestic prices, multiplied by consumption in the republics - that's the size of the subsidy that Russia provided to other republics in USSR.

    The most subsidized Soviet republic was actually the Ukraine. It had plenty of energy-intensive industries, which IMPLODED, when the country was gradually forced to pay market rates for Russian fuel.

    Your arguments are the same as the “Russia is a gas station with nukes” arguments: the bulk of Russia’s exports are oil & natural gas, therefore, so the argument goes, it produces nothing else of importance. Which is nonsense.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    We speak different languages: I try talking economics to you, and you respond with emotional arguments. History already proved me right. Today we see Ukrainians living in the dirt, their per capita GDP - a small fraction of Russia's level. Belarus is doing better than the Ukraine, in part because energy subsidies were preserved for Belarus. You shouldn't be so dismissive of this thing - having someone else pay your energy bill helps!
  80. @reiner Tor
    Your arguments are the same as the "Russia is a gas station with nukes" arguments: the bulk of Russia's exports are oil & natural gas, therefore, so the argument goes, it produces nothing else of importance. Which is nonsense.

    We speak different languages: I try talking economics to you, and you respond with emotional arguments. History already proved me right. Today we see Ukrainians living in the dirt, their per capita GDP – a small fraction of Russia’s level. Belarus is doing better than the Ukraine, in part because energy subsidies were preserved for Belarus. You shouldn’t be so dismissive of this thing – having someone else pay your energy bill helps!

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It's a very economic argument that you couldn't have sold the oil you sent to Ukraine or Hungary on the world market, because it wouldn't have absorbed the quantity without a collapse in prices.

    Similarly, it's also a very economic argument that the Ikarus buses were worth something, since they could be sold in America. Even if, just like your oil, the world market couldn't absorb all of the Ikarus production in the 1970s or early 1980s (when it was still relatively modern).

    It's also an economic argument that Kazakhstan has oil and natural gas, probably on a per capita basis even more than Russia.

    Another point of mine was that what I'm saying is that what you think of as "subsidies" was actually just a somewhat lighter burden of empire. Russians had to bear the brunt of the burden of maintaining the empire, while the other paid much less into that project.

    You still failed to spell out if you consider it a subsidy to Estonia if Russians in Russia were taxed to build houses and factories in Estonia for Russian workers who would then populate Estonia. Because in reality this "subsidy" must've been a net negative for Estonia. Ditto for Latvia.

    History already proved me right. Today we see Ukrainians living in the dirt, their per capita GDP – a small fraction of Russia’s level. Belarus is doing better than the Ukraine, in part because energy subsidies were preserved for Belarus. You shouldn’t be so dismissive of this thing – having someone else pay your energy bill helps!
     
    But Hungary's economy didn't collapse nearly as badly when we stopped buying oil for Ikarus buses and had to pay with dollars for it, whereas Russia's economy did much worse when you stopped receiving the Ikarus buses in exchange for oil and had to buy your buses for dollars.

    Let me tell you this - the size of the collapse after the fall of communism tells you very little about who subsidized who. One factor is that the smaller pieces of the formerly integrated Soviet economy did much worse for obvious reasons. Another factor is that the more incompetent elites did worse - those from Ukraine's elites who were worth something went to Moscow.
  81. A little comment for the poster above who said that Russia could save EE from illegal migrants – at the moment, most of the illegal migrants (at least in the case of the Baltics and Ukraine) arrive across the Eastern border (from Russia). The numbers are gradually increasing year after year (we’re currently drafting a protocol for what both the authorities and regular citizens should do if, for instance, 500 Vietnamese suddenly show up on the Eastern border). If things get much worse, the long term solution might be to exit the Ottawa convention and mine the border.

    With regards to potential migration from Western countries, eventually, a visa regime must be reinstated (Festung Intermarium is the only solution and the only savior). But things would have to get really bad in the West first. Besides, nobody will give Arabs any weapons or allow them in the parliament (and there won’t be a comprehensive, generous welfare referral system for asylum seekers any time soon). There will be special forces units in place (one Latvian man can deal with 3-5 Arabs). Regarding legal immigration – yes, it will be a problem because that’s hard to manage (the current immigration lobby is, of course, already screaming because of the pressures in the labor market, and while preference will be given to skilled Slavs, these things are hard to manage, as we’re witnessing in the West, with all the Asian IT workers, etc).

  82. @Felix Keverich
    We speak different languages: I try talking economics to you, and you respond with emotional arguments. History already proved me right. Today we see Ukrainians living in the dirt, their per capita GDP - a small fraction of Russia's level. Belarus is doing better than the Ukraine, in part because energy subsidies were preserved for Belarus. You shouldn't be so dismissive of this thing - having someone else pay your energy bill helps!

    It’s a very economic argument that you couldn’t have sold the oil you sent to Ukraine or Hungary on the world market, because it wouldn’t have absorbed the quantity without a collapse in prices.

    Similarly, it’s also a very economic argument that the Ikarus buses were worth something, since they could be sold in America. Even if, just like your oil, the world market couldn’t absorb all of the Ikarus production in the 1970s or early 1980s (when it was still relatively modern).

    It’s also an economic argument that Kazakhstan has oil and natural gas, probably on a per capita basis even more than Russia.

    Another point of mine was that what I’m saying is that what you think of as “subsidies” was actually just a somewhat lighter burden of empire. Russians had to bear the brunt of the burden of maintaining the empire, while the other paid much less into that project.

    You still failed to spell out if you consider it a subsidy to Estonia if Russians in Russia were taxed to build houses and factories in Estonia for Russian workers who would then populate Estonia. Because in reality this “subsidy” must’ve been a net negative for Estonia. Ditto for Latvia.

    History already proved me right. Today we see Ukrainians living in the dirt, their per capita GDP – a small fraction of Russia’s level. Belarus is doing better than the Ukraine, in part because energy subsidies were preserved for Belarus. You shouldn’t be so dismissive of this thing – having someone else pay your energy bill helps!

    But Hungary’s economy didn’t collapse nearly as badly when we stopped buying oil for Ikarus buses and had to pay with dollars for it, whereas Russia’s economy did much worse when you stopped receiving the Ikarus buses in exchange for oil and had to buy your buses for dollars.

    Let me tell you this – the size of the collapse after the fall of communism tells you very little about who subsidized who. One factor is that the smaller pieces of the formerly integrated Soviet economy did much worse for obvious reasons. Another factor is that the more incompetent elites did worse – those from Ukraine’s elites who were worth something went to Moscow.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    It’s a very economic argument that you couldn’t have sold the oil you sent to Ukraine or Hungary on the world market, because it wouldn’t have absorbed the quantity without a collapse in prices.
     
    What a stupid thing to say: international market is orders of magnitute bigger!

    It is obvious that you're clueless about the subject, so don't act like you can comment on who was subsidizing who in USSR. This is ultimately a conversation about money.
  83. @Felix Keverich

    It’s likely that Russia subsidized most republics, especially Central Asia (I don’t really think Estonia was subsidized), but that’s not because fuel prices were subsidized. That’s meaningless, because only toy money was involved anyway.

    By the way most of Central Asia (and Azerbaijan) did produce a lot of oil and natural gas, which makes your argument even more nonsensical.
     
    It doesn't make sense to you, because you don't understand economics. Soviet republics consumed huge amount of energy because it was abundant and cheap. This energy could have been sold abroad at international prices making Russia rich. The difference between international and domestic prices, multiplied by consumption in the republics - that's the size of the subsidy that Russia provided to other republics in USSR.

    The most subsidized Soviet republic was actually the Ukraine. It had plenty of energy-intensive industries, which IMPLODED, when the country was gradually forced to pay market rates for Russian fuel.

    The most subsidized Soviet republic was actually the Ukraine. It had plenty of energy-intensive industries, which IMPLODED, when the country was gradually forced to pay market rates for Russian fuel.

    1. Many of these industries were made to employ Russian colonists.

    2. Western Ukraine had large gas deposits that were taken from western Ukraine and used by the USSR. This gas could have been used strictly for the benefit of western Ukraine.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Commies loved heavy industry, regardless of local circumstances.

    In the 1950s they tried to build a huge steel industry in Hungary, though Hungary lacked quality coal and quality iron ore for that. They built a whole new city (called Sztálinváros, literally Stalin City) for the purpose of housing a big steelworks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duna%C3%BAjv%C3%A1ros

    Western Ukraine had large gas deposits that were taken from western Ukraine and used by the USSR.
     
    Hungary and Czechia had uranium ore. The Hungarian ore was very bad quality, and by the 1980s required huge government subsidies to keep it going, but until the end of the Cold War the USSR bought it for toy money and so we had to produce it. Communist countries usually exported some products at a loss to hard currency markets, but this was one case of production sold to the USSR.

    It won't show up in most statistics, because the Soviets might've paid enough oil for the uranium ore in terms of price (uranium ore prices had fallen a lot by the 1980s), simply that it required a lot of effort and cost to produce and enrich it to a sufficient degree, but we were required by Comecon treaties to do it nevertheless. It would have been cheaper to produce something which could be sold to Western Europe at a loss and buy oil for the hard currency received.
  84. @reiner Tor

    The difference between international and domestic prices, multiplied by consumption in the republics – that’s the size of the subsidy that Russia provided to other republics in USSR.
     
    You couldn't have sold all that oil on the international market without a collapse of oil prices, so the point is moot. And as I wrote, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan also had a lot of oil and/or natural gas. Kazakhstan currently has similar living standards as Russia, which shows that it probably has more oil and natural gas. Uzbeks served in the Soviet military. What would be the market rate salary for those soldiers?

    I already mentioned the Ikarus buses, the Ikarus 286 could be sold even in the US, for example. (Of course, just like your oil, not all of the Ikarus production could be sold outside the Comecon. Actually, only some of it could. There was heavy competition in the bus market, so it would've been difficult. But how can you say they were worthless?) Now you might argue that you sold us the oil cheap (compared to what? trade was in toy money), but could you have bought all of those buses from West Germany for the same price? Of course not.

    Russian living standards actually collapsed more than Hungarian living standards when you had to purchase everything on the open market for your oil (and we had to purchase our oil for dollars), which tells you something. Though I'm not sure what: probably the Soviet economy was the most distorted of all, so it disintegrated the most. The smaller pieces (led by less talented elites) fell hardest. The Baltics now enjoy higher living standards than Russia, so maybe they cannot have been so much subsidized, whatever you believe.

    I think most of the "subsidies" were in fact just lighter burden: the Soviet military and foreign aid (to failed or near failed states like Angola or Cuba or North Korea) cost enormous amounts, and Russia proper bore the brunt of the burden. Even the in kind contributions: Russians served in the best trained divisions, while Uzbeks (or Hungarians etc.) shirked. But so what? It was not the Uzbeks' (or Hungarians') empire, so why should they have bore any of the burden?

    The Baltics now enjoy higher living standards than Russia, so maybe they cannot have been so much subsidized, whatever you believe.

    Aren’t they even more subsidized now, just by the EU as opposed to the USSR?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    You're correct, so that amounts to 2% of GDP. Though it was higher recently, and was much lower until 2009.

    http://money-go-round.eu/Country.aspx?id=EE

    http://money-go-round.eu/Country.aspx?id=LV

    http://money-go-round.eu/Country.aspx?id=LT
  85. @JL

    The Baltics now enjoy higher living standards than Russia, so maybe they cannot have been so much subsidized, whatever you believe.
     
    Aren't they even more subsidized now, just by the EU as opposed to the USSR?

    You’re correct, so that amounts to 2% of GDP. Though it was higher recently, and was much lower until 2009.

    http://money-go-round.eu/Country.aspx?id=EE

    http://money-go-round.eu/Country.aspx?id=LV

    http://money-go-round.eu/Country.aspx?id=LT

  86. @AP

    The most subsidized Soviet republic was actually the Ukraine. It had plenty of energy-intensive industries, which IMPLODED, when the country was gradually forced to pay market rates for Russian fuel.
     
    1. Many of these industries were made to employ Russian colonists.

    2. Western Ukraine had large gas deposits that were taken from western Ukraine and used by the USSR. This gas could have been used strictly for the benefit of western Ukraine.

    Commies loved heavy industry, regardless of local circumstances.

    In the 1950s they tried to build a huge steel industry in Hungary, though Hungary lacked quality coal and quality iron ore for that. They built a whole new city (called Sztálinváros, literally Stalin City) for the purpose of housing a big steelworks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duna%C3%BAjv%C3%A1ros

    Western Ukraine had large gas deposits that were taken from western Ukraine and used by the USSR.

    Hungary and Czechia had uranium ore. The Hungarian ore was very bad quality, and by the 1980s required huge government subsidies to keep it going, but until the end of the Cold War the USSR bought it for toy money and so we had to produce it. Communist countries usually exported some products at a loss to hard currency markets, but this was one case of production sold to the USSR.

    It won’t show up in most statistics, because the Soviets might’ve paid enough oil for the uranium ore in terms of price (uranium ore prices had fallen a lot by the 1980s), simply that it required a lot of effort and cost to produce and enrich it to a sufficient degree, but we were required by Comecon treaties to do it nevertheless. It would have been cheaper to produce something which could be sold to Western Europe at a loss and buy oil for the hard currency received.

  87. @reiner Tor
    It's a very economic argument that you couldn't have sold the oil you sent to Ukraine or Hungary on the world market, because it wouldn't have absorbed the quantity without a collapse in prices.

    Similarly, it's also a very economic argument that the Ikarus buses were worth something, since they could be sold in America. Even if, just like your oil, the world market couldn't absorb all of the Ikarus production in the 1970s or early 1980s (when it was still relatively modern).

    It's also an economic argument that Kazakhstan has oil and natural gas, probably on a per capita basis even more than Russia.

    Another point of mine was that what I'm saying is that what you think of as "subsidies" was actually just a somewhat lighter burden of empire. Russians had to bear the brunt of the burden of maintaining the empire, while the other paid much less into that project.

    You still failed to spell out if you consider it a subsidy to Estonia if Russians in Russia were taxed to build houses and factories in Estonia for Russian workers who would then populate Estonia. Because in reality this "subsidy" must've been a net negative for Estonia. Ditto for Latvia.

    History already proved me right. Today we see Ukrainians living in the dirt, their per capita GDP – a small fraction of Russia’s level. Belarus is doing better than the Ukraine, in part because energy subsidies were preserved for Belarus. You shouldn’t be so dismissive of this thing – having someone else pay your energy bill helps!
     
    But Hungary's economy didn't collapse nearly as badly when we stopped buying oil for Ikarus buses and had to pay with dollars for it, whereas Russia's economy did much worse when you stopped receiving the Ikarus buses in exchange for oil and had to buy your buses for dollars.

    Let me tell you this - the size of the collapse after the fall of communism tells you very little about who subsidized who. One factor is that the smaller pieces of the formerly integrated Soviet economy did much worse for obvious reasons. Another factor is that the more incompetent elites did worse - those from Ukraine's elites who were worth something went to Moscow.

    It’s a very economic argument that you couldn’t have sold the oil you sent to Ukraine or Hungary on the world market, because it wouldn’t have absorbed the quantity without a collapse in prices.

    What a stupid thing to say: international market is orders of magnitute bigger!

    It is obvious that you’re clueless about the subject, so don’t act like you can comment on who was subsidizing who in USSR. This is ultimately a conversation about money.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    What is your point? You can say that you could've sold the oil sold to Hungary elsewhere. You can perhaps say the same thing about the oil sent to Ukraine. You can say the same about Estonia, Poland, East Germany, etc.

    But you cannot say that could've just dumped all of this oil on the world market without causing a slump in the prices. Demand for crude oil is relatively inelastic to demand, so relatively small changes in supply (1-2%) can cause large price swings. And I think the total consumption of the Comecon allies plus all the non-oil-producing Soviet republics was significantly more than that. For example I just checked Poland's oil imports, and they stood at around 300,000 bbl/day in the 1980s, which was something like 0.5% of world oil imports. That is Poland alone. I'd be surprised if rest of Comecon plus oil importing republics together weren't at least 3% of world oil demand.

    And of course a lot of the products we supplied (like foodstuffs etc.) could be sold elsewhere.

    Can I take you accept my other points (like about Kazakhstan having oil as well)?
  88. @Felix Keverich

    It’s a very economic argument that you couldn’t have sold the oil you sent to Ukraine or Hungary on the world market, because it wouldn’t have absorbed the quantity without a collapse in prices.
     
    What a stupid thing to say: international market is orders of magnitute bigger!

    It is obvious that you're clueless about the subject, so don't act like you can comment on who was subsidizing who in USSR. This is ultimately a conversation about money.

    What is your point? You can say that you could’ve sold the oil sold to Hungary elsewhere. You can perhaps say the same thing about the oil sent to Ukraine. You can say the same about Estonia, Poland, East Germany, etc.

    But you cannot say that could’ve just dumped all of this oil on the world market without causing a slump in the prices. Demand for crude oil is relatively inelastic to demand, so relatively small changes in supply (1-2%) can cause large price swings. And I think the total consumption of the Comecon allies plus all the non-oil-producing Soviet republics was significantly more than that. For example I just checked Poland’s oil imports, and they stood at around 300,000 bbl/day in the 1980s, which was something like 0.5% of world oil imports. That is Poland alone. I’d be surprised if rest of Comecon plus oil importing republics together weren’t at least 3% of world oil demand.

    And of course a lot of the products we supplied (like foodstuffs etc.) could be sold elsewhere.

    Can I take you accept my other points (like about Kazakhstan having oil as well)?

  89. @reiner Tor
    It’s possible, though I suspect it was more due to corruption (i.e. they sold their weapons) than brotherly feelings. Though who knows? In Galicia there must have been UPA commanders who went to military school together with some Hungarian officers back in the Dual Monarchy.

    Corruption might have played a role in Poland, but there were many documented cases of giving weapons for free.

    It’s possible, though I suspect it was more due to corruption (i.e. they sold their weapons) than brotherly feelings. Though who knows? In Galicia there must have been UPA commanders who went to military school together with some Hungarian officers back in the Dual Monarchy.

    Corruption might have played a role in Poland, but there were many documented cases of giving weapons for free.

    Reminded of Soviet era Czechoslovakia indirectly selling arms to the Afghan opposition to the Soviets, as claimed by Brzezinski and stated likewise by some others.

  90. @Adam
    Your argument would be right if Rus' had only lasted from the 9th to the early 10th century. However it endured for centuries more. The Rus' may have originated as Scandinavians, but they were assimilated by the East Slavs. The Rurikids were Slavs by a few generations.

    Also, I'm not sure what the obsession with the founding date of Moscow is. Muscovites didn't appear out of nowhere, they migrated from nearby, older cities. The people of Moscow were the same as the people in older cities, and at the time of its foundation, the people in Kiev. Large swaths of Ukraine weren't even Slavic until many centuries after the Moscow Principality was founded.

    I do agree that Rus is not a source of legitimacy for either Russia or Ukraine. It was a primitive backwater that did not reach the level of culture or development of even the Norse. But I can't stand the Ukrainian distortion of history.

    I do agree that Rus is not a source of legitimacy for either Russia or Ukraine. It was a primitive backwater that did not reach the level of culture or development of even the Norse. But I can’t stand the Ukrainian distortion of history.

    Not true. At its zenith, it was impressive for what was evident elsewhere at the time.

    As for some the other related discussion, there’s a good deal of myth making among some who say they’re myth busting.

    There’s a reasonable basis for modern day Russia, Ukraine and Russia to feel historically and culturally linked to Rus.

  91. @AP

    Your argument would be right if Rus’ had only lasted from the 9th to the early 10th century. However it endured for centuries more.
     
    Yarolav - Scandinavian mother, half-Scandinavian (at least) father, and Scandinavian wife. There is more written about him in the Sagas than in the Chronicles. Seized the throne using Scandinavian troops. Early 11th century.

    Muscovites didn’t appear out of nowhere, they migrated from nearby, older cities.
     
    Sure. And they mixed with local tribes also. American founding fathers had roots in England. Therefore, London is an ancient American city. Romania was settled in part by Latins moving from what is now Italy. So Julius Caesar was a Romanian.

    The people of Moscow were the same as the people in older cities, and at the time of its foundation, the people in Kiev.
     
    No, they were descended from different tribes, plus with some admixture from non-Slavic indigenous people. The Rus state was not some homogeneous modern nation state. It's like Spanish ruling Mayans and Aztecs. Kievens came from a different tribe than did Suzdalians (ancestors of Muscovites). These tribes had separated centuries before the Rus arrived. They probably already spoke different dialects.

    Large swaths of Ukraine weren’t even Slavic
     
    Sure. As was almost all of Russia, by territory.

    But I can’t stand the Ukrainian distortion of history.
     
    Russian distortion is better? Ukrainians at least can claim the city of Kiev. If Russian history had been built around Novgorod it would be similarly ridiculous, but instead it is more so, though not by much.

    More distortions on your part in the form of what you choose to note and omit.

    Oleg from Novgorod settled in Kiev, right at the time of the academically termed entity known as Kievan Rus. Bogolyubsky the legit heir to the Kiev throne developed Suzdal.

    Countries the world over have different kind of ethnic mixes due to the influence of geography and some different historical experience.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS