The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Do Russians Feed the Caucasus?
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The magazine Profile.ru in 2015 compiled a list of Russia’s most subsidized regions.

It went exactly as you’d expect.

# Russian Region %dep. Majority Group
1 Ingushetia 85.0% Caucasian
2 Chechnya 81.4% Caucasian
3 Crimea 80.0% Russian
4 Tyva 77.1% Other Minority
5 Sevastopol 75.0% Russian
6 Altay 73.5% Russian
7 Dagestan 70.0% Caucasian
8 Karachaevo-Cherkessia 68.5% Caucasian
9 Kamchatka 64.7% Russian
10 Jewish Autonomous oblast 60.3% Russian
11 North Ossetia 56.3% Caucasian
12 Kabardino-Balkaria 56.2% Caucasian
13 Kalmykia 54.0% Other Minority
14 Amur 52.9% Russian
15 Buryatia 51.8% Russian

Of the top 15 regions, where federal subsidies make up more than 50% of the local budget, six were ethnic minority republics of the Caucasus. The top two were Ingushetia and Chechnya, which also have Russia’s highest unemployment rates by far.

Only seven of the most subsidized regions were majority Russian. However, Crimea and Sevastopol have a high level of subsidies for the very understandable reason that they are under Ukrainian blockade and international sanctions, and currently undergoing economic integration with Russia; while the Altay Republic and Buryatia both have sizable non-Russian minorities. Kamchatka krai, the Jewish Autonomous oblast, and Amur oblast are the only strong majority Russian regions that source a majority of their incomes from federal subsidies.

So statistically, Russian nationalists are not wrong when they say that Russians are “feeding the Caucasus.”

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Caucasus, Finance, Russia 
Hide 67 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. What would be your ideal solution, would you like to get rid of the Caucasus republics? But that could be problematic regarding security issues, couldn’t it?

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    Ideal solution is to keep the territory, get rid of the natives somehow. Of course, the ideal solution isn't always practical, but we know for a fact that giving them independence will accomplish nothing, as these people will simply move to live in Russian cities, just like Central Asians did.

    Personally, I'm in favor of Israeli style apartheid system for North Caucasus. End all fiscal transfers, keep Caucasians walled off in their mountain regions, restrict their movements across Russia, use overwhelming force if they get rowdy.

    Replies: @A22

  2. I believe this was also the situation with the USSR.

    Offhand, I’d guess it is all dwarfed by the domestic subsidies of ethnic groups in the West. I wouldn’t be surprised if Puerto Rico ultimately cost the US a lot more than the non-Russian republics cost Russia.

  3. Hmm:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/04/chechen-leader-ramzan-kadyrov-odds-russia-calls-protests-killings/

    I guess that pan-Islamic activism is a pretty big negative when weighed against Kadyrov’s “positives” like his harsh words against homos…

  4. I think that the subsidies to the Caucasus by the Russians are hush money. They are afraid that the Caucasians might sue the white race for copyright violations for using the term Caucasians to describe their race.

    Then if the courts rule in favor of the geographical Caucasians, the white race might be left feeling the whiter shade of pale – totally confused about their identity, and who knows, they might even start to call themselves multiculturalists.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Cyrano


    They are afraid that the Caucasians might sue the white race for copyright violations for using the term Caucasians to describe their race.
     
    Does anybody apart from Americans actually still use "Caucasians" in the sense of "whites"? I don't know about Russia, but as far as I can tell it isn't commonly used that way in continental Europe, or even in Britain.

    Replies: @Cyrano

  5. German_reader says:
    @Cyrano
    I think that the subsidies to the Caucasus by the Russians are hush money. They are afraid that the Caucasians might sue the white race for copyright violations for using the term Caucasians to describe their race.

    Then if the courts rule in favor of the geographical Caucasians, the white race might be left feeling the whiter shade of pale – totally confused about their identity, and who knows, they might even start to call themselves multiculturalists.

    Replies: @German_reader

    They are afraid that the Caucasians might sue the white race for copyright violations for using the term Caucasians to describe their race.

    Does anybody apart from Americans actually still use “Caucasians” in the sense of “whites”? I don’t know about Russia, but as far as I can tell it isn’t commonly used that way in continental Europe, or even in Britain.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    @German_reader

    You a probably right. I was just trying to be funny.

    Replies: @German_reader

  6. : In regards to security issues, Russia (and the West) could still maintain security cooperation with the leaders of newly independent Caucasian states, no?

    Plus, if things become really bad, can’t Russia simply invade these states and implement regime change there?

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Mr. XYZ


    In regards to security issues, Russia (and the West) could still maintain security cooperation with the leaders of newly independent Caucasian states, no?

    Plus, if things become really bad, can’t Russia simply invade these states and implement regime change there?
     

    But that's pretty much what has already happened in regard to Chechnya; iirc after the 1st war it became a haven for Islamists terrorising neighbouring areas, which led to the 2nd war...what would be a viable long-term solution?
    , @Felix Keverich
    @Mr. XYZ

    I seriously question the underlying logic here:

    On what basis should the Caucasus be independent?

    Do you guys think that western territories with majority non-white populations should become separate countries? Should London become a separate "country"? I hear in some cities in West Germany most of the population under 18 is non-white - so how do you propose we should partition Germany? :)

    Replies: @German_reader, @Hector_St_Clare

  7. @German_reader
    What would be your ideal solution, would you like to get rid of the Caucasus republics? But that could be problematic regarding security issues, couldn't it?

    Replies: @Felix Keverich

    Ideal solution is to keep the territory, get rid of the natives somehow. Of course, the ideal solution isn’t always practical, but we know for a fact that giving them independence will accomplish nothing, as these people will simply move to live in Russian cities, just like Central Asians did.

    Personally, I’m in favor of Israeli style apartheid system for North Caucasus. End all fiscal transfers, keep Caucasians walled off in their mountain regions, restrict their movements across Russia, use overwhelming force if they get rowdy.

    • Replies: @A22
    @Felix Keverich

    I suggest labeling them all as gays and sending them to Germany and/or Sweden.

  8. German_reader says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @German_reader: In regards to security issues, Russia (and the West) could still maintain security cooperation with the leaders of newly independent Caucasian states, no?

    Plus, if things become really bad, can't Russia simply invade these states and implement regime change there?

    Replies: @German_reader, @Felix Keverich

    In regards to security issues, Russia (and the West) could still maintain security cooperation with the leaders of newly independent Caucasian states, no?

    Plus, if things become really bad, can’t Russia simply invade these states and implement regime change there?

    But that’s pretty much what has already happened in regard to Chechnya; iirc after the 1st war it became a haven for Islamists terrorising neighbouring areas, which led to the 2nd war…what would be a viable long-term solution?

  9. @Mr. XYZ
    @German_reader: In regards to security issues, Russia (and the West) could still maintain security cooperation with the leaders of newly independent Caucasian states, no?

    Plus, if things become really bad, can't Russia simply invade these states and implement regime change there?

    Replies: @German_reader, @Felix Keverich

    I seriously question the underlying logic here:

    On what basis should the Caucasus be independent?

    Do you guys think that western territories with majority non-white populations should become separate countries? Should London become a separate “country”? I hear in some cities in West Germany most of the population under 18 is non-white – so how do you propose we should partition Germany? 🙂

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    Should London become a separate “country”? I hear in some cities in West Germany most of the population under 18 is non-white – so how do you propose we should partition Germany?
     
    In effect something like this might eventually happen, large parts of Britain and Germany won't be "British" or "German" in any meaningful way anyway. Arguably it might even be better for patriots if they wouldn't have to live in a common state with more "diverse" and "cosmopolitan" areas...I mean, is London still England? Does it have a beneficial effect on the rest of England?
    But anyway, you can't really compare regions that have been English or German since the 10th century or longer and whose loss to foreigners is incredibly painful on an emotional level to colonial territories Russia conquered only in the 19th century.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich

    , @Hector_St_Clare
    @Felix Keverich

    The Caucasus should be independent on the grounds that it was forcibly incorporated into Russia in the first place, it's radically different ethnically and culturally, and many Caucasian peoples never recognized legitimacy of Russian conquest in the first place. They need to be made their own countries and separated from Russia proper.

    I'd actually be in favour of partitioning England and possibly countries like Austria as well, cordoning off places like London and Vienna into independent city-states. I don't know enough about Germany to say- liberal immigration policies seem to really be popular there- but if there's enough social division over these issues, maybe partitioning Germany would be a good idea too. possibly along the old East vs. West lines- all the immigrants seem to be in west Germany, more or less.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich

  10. German_reader says:
    @Felix Keverich
    @Mr. XYZ

    I seriously question the underlying logic here:

    On what basis should the Caucasus be independent?

    Do you guys think that western territories with majority non-white populations should become separate countries? Should London become a separate "country"? I hear in some cities in West Germany most of the population under 18 is non-white - so how do you propose we should partition Germany? :)

    Replies: @German_reader, @Hector_St_Clare

    Should London become a separate “country”? I hear in some cities in West Germany most of the population under 18 is non-white – so how do you propose we should partition Germany?

    In effect something like this might eventually happen, large parts of Britain and Germany won’t be “British” or “German” in any meaningful way anyway. Arguably it might even be better for patriots if they wouldn’t have to live in a common state with more “diverse” and “cosmopolitan” areas…I mean, is London still England? Does it have a beneficial effect on the rest of England?
    But anyway, you can’t really compare regions that have been English or German since the 10th century or longer and whose loss to foreigners is incredibly painful on an emotional level to colonial territories Russia conquered only in the 19th century.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    As a Russian, I don't see it that way. And I don't like surrendering territory: it's deprives us of power and resources, and it solves absolutely nothing (just look at what happened with Central Asia).

    Replies: @German_reader

  11. @German_reader
    @Cyrano


    They are afraid that the Caucasians might sue the white race for copyright violations for using the term Caucasians to describe their race.
     
    Does anybody apart from Americans actually still use "Caucasians" in the sense of "whites"? I don't know about Russia, but as far as I can tell it isn't commonly used that way in continental Europe, or even in Britain.

    Replies: @Cyrano

    You a probably right. I was just trying to be funny.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Cyrano

    I know :-)
    I still wonder about "Caucasians" though, its continuing use for "whites" seems to be pecular to the US (which is odd since its origins in that sense lie with 19th century racial theories which don't fit at all with the present intellectual climate in the US).

  12. @Cyrano
    @German_reader

    You a probably right. I was just trying to be funny.

    Replies: @German_reader

    I know 🙂
    I still wonder about “Caucasians” though, its continuing use for “whites” seems to be pecular to the US (which is odd since its origins in that sense lie with 19th century racial theories which don’t fit at all with the present intellectual climate in the US).

  13. @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    Should London become a separate “country”? I hear in some cities in West Germany most of the population under 18 is non-white – so how do you propose we should partition Germany?
     
    In effect something like this might eventually happen, large parts of Britain and Germany won't be "British" or "German" in any meaningful way anyway. Arguably it might even be better for patriots if they wouldn't have to live in a common state with more "diverse" and "cosmopolitan" areas...I mean, is London still England? Does it have a beneficial effect on the rest of England?
    But anyway, you can't really compare regions that have been English or German since the 10th century or longer and whose loss to foreigners is incredibly painful on an emotional level to colonial territories Russia conquered only in the 19th century.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich

    As a Russian, I don’t see it that way. And I don’t like surrendering territory: it’s deprives us of power and resources, and it solves absolutely nothing (just look at what happened with Central Asia).

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    it’s deprives us of power and resources
     
    If I understand Ak correctly, he believes those regions are actually a drain on resources.
    Personally I have no opinion on the matter; it just seems to me Russia hasn't really found a viable long-term strategy for the Caucasus (or at least for Chechnya). Someone like Kadyrov can hardly be considered as reliable and will eventually cause trouble.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich, @Anatoly Karlin, @The Big Red Scary

  14. I strongly suspect that perhaps even some of your neighbors in your apartment building are subsidizing some of your other neighbors – what the fuck? The time has come for super-productive high-IQ individuals to leave this rotten place full of lazy mediocre bastards — and move to beautiful Galt’s Gulch already! Enough is enough.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  15. German_reader says:
    @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    As a Russian, I don't see it that way. And I don't like surrendering territory: it's deprives us of power and resources, and it solves absolutely nothing (just look at what happened with Central Asia).

    Replies: @German_reader

    it’s deprives us of power and resources

    If I understand Ak correctly, he believes those regions are actually a drain on resources.
    Personally I have no opinion on the matter; it just seems to me Russia hasn’t really found a viable long-term strategy for the Caucasus (or at least for Chechnya). Someone like Kadyrov can hardly be considered as reliable and will eventually cause trouble.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    There is no Chechnya, or Karelia - these are just names on the map, this whole land is equally Russian, and it's non-negotiable. The land itself is never a drain on resources.

    We do need a strategy to deal with the Chechens (and other ethnic minorities, there is a lot of them in Russia). But it cannot involve surrendering land. That's just dumb!

    Replies: @German_reader, @Hector_St_Clare

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @German_reader

    Yeah I try to avoid being overly prescriptive, my readers do that for me well enough.

    Sailer has this down to an art form.

    , @The Big Red Scary
    @German_reader

    " Someone like Kadyrov can hardly be considered as reliable and will eventually cause trouble."

    This article discusses how complicated the situation is:

    https://gordonhahn.com/2017/05/05/chechnya-russias-black-hole-putins-achilles-heel-complete-version-parts-1-and-2/

    I'd like to make a general caveat, however, which is that while there is good reason to be concerned about this and other problems, one somehow has to estimate the magnitude of a problem before
    choosing a course of action, and I see very few attempts at such estimation, with this or any other scary problem. An expert on Caucasian extremism, like Gordon Hahn, might be particularly prone to over-estimating the threat from his subject of expertise.

    Replies: @German_reader

  16. @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    it’s deprives us of power and resources
     
    If I understand Ak correctly, he believes those regions are actually a drain on resources.
    Personally I have no opinion on the matter; it just seems to me Russia hasn't really found a viable long-term strategy for the Caucasus (or at least for Chechnya). Someone like Kadyrov can hardly be considered as reliable and will eventually cause trouble.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich, @Anatoly Karlin, @The Big Red Scary

    There is no Chechnya, or Karelia – these are just names on the map, this whole land is equally Russian, and it’s non-negotiable. The land itself is never a drain on resources.

    We do need a strategy to deal with the Chechens (and other ethnic minorities, there is a lot of them in Russia). But it cannot involve surrendering land. That’s just dumb!

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich

    That sounds like a rather extreme position...and what kind of a strategy for ethnic minorities are you thinking of? You can't just forcibly Russify all of them, let alone just expel or kill them. That would be very bad pr for Russia.
    Anyway, I'd like to read AK's ideas for how to deal with those problematic regions.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich, @iffen

    , @Hector_St_Clare
    @Felix Keverich

    you can consistently be in favour of ethnic homogeneity as a goal in defining nationhood, or you can be in favour of 'power and resources', but you can't be both. Unless you want to go the route of 19th century colonialism, and that didn't end well. (The Nazis and the South Africans represent even unsavoury variations on the same theme).

    This sort of power-worship (and that's exactly the same phrase that German Reader used to describe Richard Spencer, and I think it perfectly sums up why I consider him so morally dangerous) is really creepy at best, and at worst it can go some very dark places. I have nothing against people wanting to live in relatively homogenous societies made up mostly of people who share common descent, ethnic heritage, more or less similar phenotype, etc.. I favour that goal, wich is why I favour independence for the Caucasus, just like I favoured independence for Pakistan, and also why I favour limiting mass migration into Europe. You want to have your cake and eat it too, by having a large Russia and also one dominated by ethnic Russians.

    I don't get the obsession with bigness anyway and never have. Most of the world's large countries would probably be a lot better off if they were smaller, and most of them have smaller neighbors which seem to function much better.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich, @sinotibetan

  17. German_reader says:
    @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    There is no Chechnya, or Karelia - these are just names on the map, this whole land is equally Russian, and it's non-negotiable. The land itself is never a drain on resources.

    We do need a strategy to deal with the Chechens (and other ethnic minorities, there is a lot of them in Russia). But it cannot involve surrendering land. That's just dumb!

    Replies: @German_reader, @Hector_St_Clare

    That sounds like a rather extreme position…and what kind of a strategy for ethnic minorities are you thinking of? You can’t just forcibly Russify all of them, let alone just expel or kill them. That would be very bad pr for Russia.
    Anyway, I’d like to read AK’s ideas for how to deal with those problematic regions.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    I already outlined my strategy for North Caucasus - Israeli style apartheid. We don't need to Russify the natives, we just need to restrain their movement; keep them from infesting Russian cities.

    , @iffen
    @German_reader

    Anyway, I’d like to read AK’s ideas for how to deal with those problematic regions.

    AK hasn't gone there AFAIK. He did say that one could be an atheist as long as one was a Russian Ortodox atheist.

  18. @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich

    That sounds like a rather extreme position...and what kind of a strategy for ethnic minorities are you thinking of? You can't just forcibly Russify all of them, let alone just expel or kill them. That would be very bad pr for Russia.
    Anyway, I'd like to read AK's ideas for how to deal with those problematic regions.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich, @iffen

    I already outlined my strategy for North Caucasus – Israeli style apartheid. We don’t need to Russify the natives, we just need to restrain their movement; keep them from infesting Russian cities.

  19. @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich

    That sounds like a rather extreme position...and what kind of a strategy for ethnic minorities are you thinking of? You can't just forcibly Russify all of them, let alone just expel or kill them. That would be very bad pr for Russia.
    Anyway, I'd like to read AK's ideas for how to deal with those problematic regions.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich, @iffen

    Anyway, I’d like to read AK’s ideas for how to deal with those problematic regions.

    AK hasn’t gone there AFAIK. He did say that one could be an atheist as long as one was a Russian Ortodox atheist.

  20. @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    it’s deprives us of power and resources
     
    If I understand Ak correctly, he believes those regions are actually a drain on resources.
    Personally I have no opinion on the matter; it just seems to me Russia hasn't really found a viable long-term strategy for the Caucasus (or at least for Chechnya). Someone like Kadyrov can hardly be considered as reliable and will eventually cause trouble.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich, @Anatoly Karlin, @The Big Red Scary

    Yeah I try to avoid being overly prescriptive, my readers do that for me well enough.

    Sailer has this down to an art form.

  21. @Felix Keverich
    @Mr. XYZ

    I seriously question the underlying logic here:

    On what basis should the Caucasus be independent?

    Do you guys think that western territories with majority non-white populations should become separate countries? Should London become a separate "country"? I hear in some cities in West Germany most of the population under 18 is non-white - so how do you propose we should partition Germany? :)

    Replies: @German_reader, @Hector_St_Clare

    The Caucasus should be independent on the grounds that it was forcibly incorporated into Russia in the first place, it’s radically different ethnically and culturally, and many Caucasian peoples never recognized legitimacy of Russian conquest in the first place. They need to be made their own countries and separated from Russia proper.

    I’d actually be in favour of partitioning England and possibly countries like Austria as well, cordoning off places like London and Vienna into independent city-states. I don’t know enough about Germany to say- liberal immigration policies seem to really be popular there- but if there’s enough social division over these issues, maybe partitioning Germany would be a good idea too. possibly along the old East vs. West lines- all the immigrants seem to be in west Germany, more or less.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    @Hector_St_Clare

    You realise that the entire North America was "forcibly incorporated" in Canada&USA?

    There are no nations in North Caucasus. These are primitives, tribals, who never really left early Middle Age.

  22. @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    There is no Chechnya, or Karelia - these are just names on the map, this whole land is equally Russian, and it's non-negotiable. The land itself is never a drain on resources.

    We do need a strategy to deal with the Chechens (and other ethnic minorities, there is a lot of them in Russia). But it cannot involve surrendering land. That's just dumb!

    Replies: @German_reader, @Hector_St_Clare

    you can consistently be in favour of ethnic homogeneity as a goal in defining nationhood, or you can be in favour of ‘power and resources’, but you can’t be both. Unless you want to go the route of 19th century colonialism, and that didn’t end well. (The Nazis and the South Africans represent even unsavoury variations on the same theme).

    This sort of power-worship (and that’s exactly the same phrase that German Reader used to describe Richard Spencer, and I think it perfectly sums up why I consider him so morally dangerous) is really creepy at best, and at worst it can go some very dark places. I have nothing against people wanting to live in relatively homogenous societies made up mostly of people who share common descent, ethnic heritage, more or less similar phenotype, etc.. I favour that goal, wich is why I favour independence for the Caucasus, just like I favoured independence for Pakistan, and also why I favour limiting mass migration into Europe. You want to have your cake and eat it too, by having a large Russia and also one dominated by ethnic Russians.

    I don’t get the obsession with bigness anyway and never have. Most of the world’s large countries would probably be a lot better off if they were smaller, and most of them have smaller neighbors which seem to function much better.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    @Hector_St_Clare

    Hey, if State of Israel can still be "a beacon of democracy for mankind", while keeping Palestinians in holding pens, then I see no reason why this solution can't be replicated here. I'm not saying we should exterminate the Chechens - just keep them safely contained within their reservation so they can't hurt us, treat them like a form of wildlife of something.

    Replies: @sinotibetan, @German_reader

    , @sinotibetan
    @Hector_St_Clare

    I share your view ..... that people living in a homogeneous nation(phenotype + culture - wise) is preferable to multiethnic states( especially when the different ethnicities have visibly different phenotypes and culturally different). Hence a state like Sweden should have remained monoethnic(with perhaps a very small Saami minority plus other Scandinavians like Finns and Norwegians who could have assimilated well) ...too bad their political elites(and population) think otherwise. The scientific + technological + economic success of generally 'monoethnic' Japan(and South Korea) is proof that the current Western mantra multiculturalism and/or multiethnicalism = progress is nonsense. The great scientific progress of the 18th till early/mid 20th Century in Europe occured in rather homogenous societies(the migrant nationalities were majority still assimiliable Europeans).
    Most multicultural or multiethnic nations currently are due to imperialistic adventures of the great powers of the past(either nations subjugated into a bigger empire or ethnic groups forced by an imperial power to migrate to a foreign colony etc.)
    And I agree.... sometimes we cannot have both: a homogenous society but authority and power over homelands of subjugated nations. Tibet and Xinjiang( and to a lesser extend Nei Monggol) for the Chinese; the North Caucasian republics for the Russians.
    Yet at the same time, I think I can understand Felix's feelings on this issue. 'Based on history...these Caucasian areas were incorporated into Russia. They are part of Russia. Why should Russia give them up?'. For the Chinese , 'giving up' Tibet , Xinjiang and Nei Monggol are even greater territorial loss than all North Caucasus combined. And they have similar reasons as the Russians to hold on to these territories - that these regions were within the grip of the Qing dynasty(even though the emperors of this dynasty were not even ethnic Han Chinese).
    I have laid down some of my guess(in another thread in this blog) why Russia doesnt just kick the Chechens out. It perhaps boils down to geopolitics at play...
    Another thing I notice is the majority of Russian people(including 'ultranationalists') do not seem to have issues with say Volga Finns or Buddhist Asians like Buryats or Tyvans(despite their northeast Asian phenotypes and different cultures). My guess is these groups are fine with respecting the dominance of Russians ethnically and culturally. Whereas groups like Chechens or migrant groups like Tajiks compete for this dominance - partly due to their own inherent 'ethnic pride' combined with the religion of Islam. I think these 2 almost always precipitates violence and visciousness. One can compare Tibetan separatism vs Uyghur separatism and note the relative levels of violence lead to a common denominator - Islam.

  23. @Hector_St_Clare
    @Felix Keverich

    The Caucasus should be independent on the grounds that it was forcibly incorporated into Russia in the first place, it's radically different ethnically and culturally, and many Caucasian peoples never recognized legitimacy of Russian conquest in the first place. They need to be made their own countries and separated from Russia proper.

    I'd actually be in favour of partitioning England and possibly countries like Austria as well, cordoning off places like London and Vienna into independent city-states. I don't know enough about Germany to say- liberal immigration policies seem to really be popular there- but if there's enough social division over these issues, maybe partitioning Germany would be a good idea too. possibly along the old East vs. West lines- all the immigrants seem to be in west Germany, more or less.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich

    You realise that the entire North America was “forcibly incorporated” in Canada&USA?

    There are no nations in North Caucasus. These are primitives, tribals, who never really left early Middle Age.

  24. @Hector_St_Clare
    @Felix Keverich

    you can consistently be in favour of ethnic homogeneity as a goal in defining nationhood, or you can be in favour of 'power and resources', but you can't be both. Unless you want to go the route of 19th century colonialism, and that didn't end well. (The Nazis and the South Africans represent even unsavoury variations on the same theme).

    This sort of power-worship (and that's exactly the same phrase that German Reader used to describe Richard Spencer, and I think it perfectly sums up why I consider him so morally dangerous) is really creepy at best, and at worst it can go some very dark places. I have nothing against people wanting to live in relatively homogenous societies made up mostly of people who share common descent, ethnic heritage, more or less similar phenotype, etc.. I favour that goal, wich is why I favour independence for the Caucasus, just like I favoured independence for Pakistan, and also why I favour limiting mass migration into Europe. You want to have your cake and eat it too, by having a large Russia and also one dominated by ethnic Russians.

    I don't get the obsession with bigness anyway and never have. Most of the world's large countries would probably be a lot better off if they were smaller, and most of them have smaller neighbors which seem to function much better.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich, @sinotibetan

    Hey, if State of Israel can still be “a beacon of democracy for mankind”, while keeping Palestinians in holding pens, then I see no reason why this solution can’t be replicated here. I’m not saying we should exterminate the Chechens – just keep them safely contained within their reservation so they can’t hurt us, treat them like a form of wildlife of something.

    • Replies: @sinotibetan
    @Felix Keverich

    The problem is no one can 'keep them' confined in some reservations for long. 'Treating them like a wildlife' will give geopolitical rivals of Russia like the EU and the USA to claim the 'moral higher ground' that 'Russia violates human rights'. Even nations who symphatize with Russia will not be able to support this. Not good for international relations and diplomacy.
    Worse ...the USA may do their American thingy...support 'the oppressed Chechens' as a pretext to weaken Russia by all means, using gross human rights violation by Russia as a moral justification.
    Whether it is Muslim terrorists landmowing victims in some city in Western Europe or Kadyrov spewing solidarity with Rohingyas or Uyghur 'splittists' using daggers to kill victims or some pastor decapitated etc - somehow it has to do with Islam. Islam is both religion and a political ideology. Part of the solution is how non Muslims deal with Islam. We cannot rely on politicians because they all fear this ideology which has more than 1 billion adherents and growing fast, they will never say it out or figure a solution. Their solution is say niceties and appease. I am not sure what the solution(s) may be but the longer we are in a state of denial, the worse the future carnage will be.

    Replies: @Cyrano, @Felix Keverich, @A22

    , @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    Hey, if State of Israel can still be “a beacon of democracy for mankind”
     
    Apart from Americans and some dumb "conservatives" in Europe nobody believes this, Israel's image has suffered a lot.
    And anyway, the situation isn't exactly comparable. I can see how there could be real arguments against Russia giving up the Caucasus (security concerns regarding Islamism; could it lead to separatist movements in other areas and lead to the breakup of the Russian Federation - which might diminish Russia's power in international politics and put it at the mercy of the US), I make no judgment on the matter...but is the Caucasus central to Russian national identity like the territories Israel controls or wants to control are to at least some strains of Zionism? That seems doubtful to me.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich

  25. @Hector_St_Clare
    @Felix Keverich

    you can consistently be in favour of ethnic homogeneity as a goal in defining nationhood, or you can be in favour of 'power and resources', but you can't be both. Unless you want to go the route of 19th century colonialism, and that didn't end well. (The Nazis and the South Africans represent even unsavoury variations on the same theme).

    This sort of power-worship (and that's exactly the same phrase that German Reader used to describe Richard Spencer, and I think it perfectly sums up why I consider him so morally dangerous) is really creepy at best, and at worst it can go some very dark places. I have nothing against people wanting to live in relatively homogenous societies made up mostly of people who share common descent, ethnic heritage, more or less similar phenotype, etc.. I favour that goal, wich is why I favour independence for the Caucasus, just like I favoured independence for Pakistan, and also why I favour limiting mass migration into Europe. You want to have your cake and eat it too, by having a large Russia and also one dominated by ethnic Russians.

    I don't get the obsession with bigness anyway and never have. Most of the world's large countries would probably be a lot better off if they were smaller, and most of them have smaller neighbors which seem to function much better.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich, @sinotibetan

    I share your view ….. that people living in a homogeneous nation(phenotype + culture – wise) is preferable to multiethnic states( especially when the different ethnicities have visibly different phenotypes and culturally different). Hence a state like Sweden should have remained monoethnic(with perhaps a very small Saami minority plus other Scandinavians like Finns and Norwegians who could have assimilated well) …too bad their political elites(and population) think otherwise. The scientific + technological + economic success of generally ‘monoethnic’ Japan(and South Korea) is proof that the current Western mantra multiculturalism and/or multiethnicalism = progress is nonsense. The great scientific progress of the 18th till early/mid 20th Century in Europe occured in rather homogenous societies(the migrant nationalities were majority still assimiliable Europeans).
    Most multicultural or multiethnic nations currently are due to imperialistic adventures of the great powers of the past(either nations subjugated into a bigger empire or ethnic groups forced by an imperial power to migrate to a foreign colony etc.)
    And I agree…. sometimes we cannot have both: a homogenous society but authority and power over homelands of subjugated nations. Tibet and Xinjiang( and to a lesser extend Nei Monggol) for the Chinese; the North Caucasian republics for the Russians.
    Yet at the same time, I think I can understand Felix’s feelings on this issue. ‘Based on history…these Caucasian areas were incorporated into Russia. They are part of Russia. Why should Russia give them up?’. For the Chinese , ‘giving up’ Tibet , Xinjiang and Nei Monggol are even greater territorial loss than all North Caucasus combined. And they have similar reasons as the Russians to hold on to these territories – that these regions were within the grip of the Qing dynasty(even though the emperors of this dynasty were not even ethnic Han Chinese).
    I have laid down some of my guess(in another thread in this blog) why Russia doesnt just kick the Chechens out. It perhaps boils down to geopolitics at play…
    Another thing I notice is the majority of Russian people(including ‘ultranationalists’) do not seem to have issues with say Volga Finns or Buddhist Asians like Buryats or Tyvans(despite their northeast Asian phenotypes and different cultures). My guess is these groups are fine with respecting the dominance of Russians ethnically and culturally. Whereas groups like Chechens or migrant groups like Tajiks compete for this dominance – partly due to their own inherent ‘ethnic pride’ combined with the religion of Islam. I think these 2 almost always precipitates violence and visciousness. One can compare Tibetan separatism vs Uyghur separatism and note the relative levels of violence lead to a common denominator – Islam.

  26. @Felix Keverich
    @Hector_St_Clare

    Hey, if State of Israel can still be "a beacon of democracy for mankind", while keeping Palestinians in holding pens, then I see no reason why this solution can't be replicated here. I'm not saying we should exterminate the Chechens - just keep them safely contained within their reservation so they can't hurt us, treat them like a form of wildlife of something.

    Replies: @sinotibetan, @German_reader

    The problem is no one can ‘keep them’ confined in some reservations for long. ‘Treating them like a wildlife’ will give geopolitical rivals of Russia like the EU and the USA to claim the ‘moral higher ground’ that ‘Russia violates human rights’. Even nations who symphatize with Russia will not be able to support this. Not good for international relations and diplomacy.
    Worse …the USA may do their American thingy…support ‘the oppressed Chechens’ as a pretext to weaken Russia by all means, using gross human rights violation by Russia as a moral justification.
    Whether it is Muslim terrorists landmowing victims in some city in Western Europe or Kadyrov spewing solidarity with Rohingyas or Uyghur ‘splittists’ using daggers to kill victims or some pastor decapitated etc – somehow it has to do with Islam. Islam is both religion and a political ideology. Part of the solution is how non Muslims deal with Islam. We cannot rely on politicians because they all fear this ideology which has more than 1 billion adherents and growing fast, they will never say it out or figure a solution. Their solution is say niceties and appease. I am not sure what the solution(s) may be but the longer we are in a state of denial, the worse the future carnage will be.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    @sinotibetan


    The problem is no one can ‘keep them’ confined in some reservations for long. ‘Treating them like a wildlife’ will give geopolitical rivals of Russia like the EU and the USA to claim the ‘moral higher ground’ that ‘Russia violates human rights’.
     
    They can take them to US and EU and show them the beauty of "democracy", and maybe someone like Tsarnaev brothers will pay them back for their kindness. Terrorism is wrong only when conducted against US, otherwise it can be a useful tool of "diplomacy".
    , @Felix Keverich
    @sinotibetan


    Worse …the USA may do their American thingy…support ‘the oppressed Chechens’ as a pretext to weaken Russia by all means, using gross human rights violation by Russia as a moral justification.
     
    The USA is not going to do anything they don't already do. At the end of the day, it's the job of Russian military, secret services etc to secure the border, make sure no weapons smuggling and no organized insurgency is going on.

    'Moral high ground' is not a good reason to tolerate bad Caucasian behavior, and since their behavior cannot change, we'll need to take steps to insulate our population.

    Replies: @sinotibetan

    , @A22
    @sinotibetan

    Backing off to not anger the West is not really logical.
    the US&EU are already doing their best to weaken off Russia with continuous sanctions ( even when they lift old sanctions new sanctions for whatever stupid reason are quickly introduced).
    So it is pretty much status quo, US&EU will introduce some sanctions. China and the rest of asia will not care.
    Also Apartheid can be done in a smart way such that it minimizes pr damage.

    Replies: @sinotibetan

  27. @sinotibetan
    @Felix Keverich

    The problem is no one can 'keep them' confined in some reservations for long. 'Treating them like a wildlife' will give geopolitical rivals of Russia like the EU and the USA to claim the 'moral higher ground' that 'Russia violates human rights'. Even nations who symphatize with Russia will not be able to support this. Not good for international relations and diplomacy.
    Worse ...the USA may do their American thingy...support 'the oppressed Chechens' as a pretext to weaken Russia by all means, using gross human rights violation by Russia as a moral justification.
    Whether it is Muslim terrorists landmowing victims in some city in Western Europe or Kadyrov spewing solidarity with Rohingyas or Uyghur 'splittists' using daggers to kill victims or some pastor decapitated etc - somehow it has to do with Islam. Islam is both religion and a political ideology. Part of the solution is how non Muslims deal with Islam. We cannot rely on politicians because they all fear this ideology which has more than 1 billion adherents and growing fast, they will never say it out or figure a solution. Their solution is say niceties and appease. I am not sure what the solution(s) may be but the longer we are in a state of denial, the worse the future carnage will be.

    Replies: @Cyrano, @Felix Keverich, @A22

    The problem is no one can ‘keep them’ confined in some reservations for long. ‘Treating them like a wildlife’ will give geopolitical rivals of Russia like the EU and the USA to claim the ‘moral higher ground’ that ‘Russia violates human rights’.

    They can take them to US and EU and show them the beauty of “democracy”, and maybe someone like Tsarnaev brothers will pay them back for their kindness. Terrorism is wrong only when conducted against US, otherwise it can be a useful tool of “diplomacy”.

  28. German_reader says:
    @Felix Keverich
    @Hector_St_Clare

    Hey, if State of Israel can still be "a beacon of democracy for mankind", while keeping Palestinians in holding pens, then I see no reason why this solution can't be replicated here. I'm not saying we should exterminate the Chechens - just keep them safely contained within their reservation so they can't hurt us, treat them like a form of wildlife of something.

    Replies: @sinotibetan, @German_reader

    Hey, if State of Israel can still be “a beacon of democracy for mankind”

    Apart from Americans and some dumb “conservatives” in Europe nobody believes this, Israel’s image has suffered a lot.
    And anyway, the situation isn’t exactly comparable. I can see how there could be real arguments against Russia giving up the Caucasus (security concerns regarding Islamism; could it lead to separatist movements in other areas and lead to the breakup of the Russian Federation – which might diminish Russia’s power in international politics and put it at the mercy of the US), I make no judgment on the matter…but is the Caucasus central to Russian national identity like the territories Israel controls or wants to control are to at least some strains of Zionism? That seems doubtful to me.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    If we're going to talk about Russian identity, then Ukraine and Belarus should be annexed. I was referring to specific socio-political model, which I believe could be replicated in Russia's Caucasus. The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine.

    Replies: @iffen, @German_reader

  29. @sinotibetan
    @Felix Keverich

    The problem is no one can 'keep them' confined in some reservations for long. 'Treating them like a wildlife' will give geopolitical rivals of Russia like the EU and the USA to claim the 'moral higher ground' that 'Russia violates human rights'. Even nations who symphatize with Russia will not be able to support this. Not good for international relations and diplomacy.
    Worse ...the USA may do their American thingy...support 'the oppressed Chechens' as a pretext to weaken Russia by all means, using gross human rights violation by Russia as a moral justification.
    Whether it is Muslim terrorists landmowing victims in some city in Western Europe or Kadyrov spewing solidarity with Rohingyas or Uyghur 'splittists' using daggers to kill victims or some pastor decapitated etc - somehow it has to do with Islam. Islam is both religion and a political ideology. Part of the solution is how non Muslims deal with Islam. We cannot rely on politicians because they all fear this ideology which has more than 1 billion adherents and growing fast, they will never say it out or figure a solution. Their solution is say niceties and appease. I am not sure what the solution(s) may be but the longer we are in a state of denial, the worse the future carnage will be.

    Replies: @Cyrano, @Felix Keverich, @A22

    Worse …the USA may do their American thingy…support ‘the oppressed Chechens’ as a pretext to weaken Russia by all means, using gross human rights violation by Russia as a moral justification.

    The USA is not going to do anything they don’t already do. At the end of the day, it’s the job of Russian military, secret services etc to secure the border, make sure no weapons smuggling and no organized insurgency is going on.

    ‘Moral high ground’ is not a good reason to tolerate bad Caucasian behavior, and since their behavior cannot change, we’ll need to take steps to insulate our population.

    • Replies: @sinotibetan
    @Felix Keverich

    As I alluded to A22, I am not really suggesting to back off from Western 'anger' indefinitely, it's a question of timing.
    The other thing is how to practically include the north caucasus within Russia and yet treating the natives there humanely and yet 'insulate' Russians from 'Caucasian violence' - I have no idea if it can ever be done.

  30. @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    Ideal solution is to keep the territory, get rid of the natives somehow. Of course, the ideal solution isn't always practical, but we know for a fact that giving them independence will accomplish nothing, as these people will simply move to live in Russian cities, just like Central Asians did.

    Personally, I'm in favor of Israeli style apartheid system for North Caucasus. End all fiscal transfers, keep Caucasians walled off in their mountain regions, restrict their movements across Russia, use overwhelming force if they get rowdy.

    Replies: @A22

    I suggest labeling them all as gays and sending them to Germany and/or Sweden.

  31. @sinotibetan
    @Felix Keverich

    The problem is no one can 'keep them' confined in some reservations for long. 'Treating them like a wildlife' will give geopolitical rivals of Russia like the EU and the USA to claim the 'moral higher ground' that 'Russia violates human rights'. Even nations who symphatize with Russia will not be able to support this. Not good for international relations and diplomacy.
    Worse ...the USA may do their American thingy...support 'the oppressed Chechens' as a pretext to weaken Russia by all means, using gross human rights violation by Russia as a moral justification.
    Whether it is Muslim terrorists landmowing victims in some city in Western Europe or Kadyrov spewing solidarity with Rohingyas or Uyghur 'splittists' using daggers to kill victims or some pastor decapitated etc - somehow it has to do with Islam. Islam is both religion and a political ideology. Part of the solution is how non Muslims deal with Islam. We cannot rely on politicians because they all fear this ideology which has more than 1 billion adherents and growing fast, they will never say it out or figure a solution. Their solution is say niceties and appease. I am not sure what the solution(s) may be but the longer we are in a state of denial, the worse the future carnage will be.

    Replies: @Cyrano, @Felix Keverich, @A22

    Backing off to not anger the West is not really logical.
    the US&EU are already doing their best to weaken off Russia with continuous sanctions ( even when they lift old sanctions new sanctions for whatever stupid reason are quickly introduced).
    So it is pretty much status quo, US&EU will introduce some sanctions. China and the rest of asia will not care.
    Also Apartheid can be done in a smart way such that it minimizes pr damage.

    • Replies: @sinotibetan
    @A22

    Agree, EU and USA are doing all they can to weaken Russia.
    That said, the USA and EU are still too powerful ,I think, to completely snub off.
    China, I agree, couldn't care less, but their economic intertwinings with the West mean they tend to just be neutral in these issues which , in my view, isn't enough a support. Japan and South Korea are American Asian lapdogs.
    I am trying to say, it is perhaps too early to snub the West until the Russo-Chinese alliance becomes more formidable. And Japan and South Korea to be weaned out of their American idol worship(ie their fear of China) and Eastern Europe of their EU idol worship(ie their fear of Russia).
    To me America and Western Europe with their rabid multiculturalism are ultimately doomed polities. For the rest of the world...we have to stand our ground and not crumble by Western meddlings and wait for the eventuality.
    Care to elaborate on the smart Apartheid?
    De-islamization of the Caucasian ethnicities would be a good thing but I cant even think how.

  32. Russian nationalists are not wrong when they say that Russians are “feeding the Caucasus.”

    Are Russian nationalists really Russian nationalists or are they Russian traitors? Any attempt to make Russia smaller means that Russia is more vulnerable to Russia’s enemies, Nato and the USA. Do Russian nationalists want to make Russia kowtow to the USA?????

    Bigger is always better, somehow methods must be found to make the Russian “Empire” work better and even grow bigger. Russia must just manage matters more efficiently than the Soviet Union did. Muslims must be controlled, that is definite, but so must Jews. Muslims have the added benefit that they make good soldiers. Look how in Donetsk and Luhansk the average Russian soldier doesn’t really want to “volunteer” because the pay is too little and the risks too high, but the “Caucasian’s” don’t seem to have that problem.

    So in times of peace Russia might have to subsidize here and there, within reason. Not everyone can be rich, that’s obvious, but some need to be aided in achieving self sufficiency, within reason. Muslims should be happy if they have to live their lives just like the Prophet Mohammed did. All this modern stuff like cars, electricity, tv’s, etc, is all haram (forbidden) because its not in the Koran.

    Russia should take over all the former Soviet Republics, except for all those Eastern European monkeys like Poland, Latvia, etc. If war breaks out Russia would be glad to have all that available manpower and resources. “In times of peace a wise man prepares for war.”

    Short term thinking by bean counters (accountants / MBA’s) always ruins everything, rather think long term like engineers do. If Russia plays her cards right, she can extend the middle finger to all on earth and in space for the next 1000 years.

    • Replies: @Parbes
    @gT

    The sanest and most intelligent comment on this thread so far... Bravo!

    Anatoly Karlin should take his half-baked HBD theories based on exam-score data and his fantasies of an almost-pure ethnostate in a country the size of Russia; and SHOVE them. These theories and prescriptions seem like they've been developed in a near-autistic mental state, with no appreciation of existing internal and external conditions and threats, or consideration of real-world consequences. Adoption of Karlin's nerdy HBD-nationalist dogma as actual policy in Russia would lead to swift disaster, with vicious ethnic and regional separatist conflicts breaking out across the country and Russia losing her crucial geostrategic Northern Caucasus defensive underbelly - which would morph into a U.S./NATO and jihadi forward base aimed at the rest of Russia in no time, just as the former Ukrainian and Baltic Soviet republics and allied Warsaw Pact nations such as Poland and Romania have now become daggers aimed at the heart of Russia, governed by hostile anti-Russian regimes and bristling with NATO troops, bases and missiles on Russia's border. In case of the loss of the Northern Caucasus, it would be even WORSE - ten times worse.

    Sometimes I can't help suspecting that Karlin may actually be some sort of a U.S. intelligence agent sent on a mission to foment trouble in Russia (now that the liberast subversives seem to have failed) by riling up the dumber and more gullible elements among the ethnonationalist scene there.

    , @AP
    @gT


    Bigger is always better
     
    So do you think that America would be better if it annexed Mexico? And Mexicans are orders of magnitude less troublesome than are Chechens.

    But I see you support Russia annexing Central Asia if it could. Why not take Afghanistan too? And Pakistan while you are at it.

    Replies: @gT

  33. @A22
    @sinotibetan

    Backing off to not anger the West is not really logical.
    the US&EU are already doing their best to weaken off Russia with continuous sanctions ( even when they lift old sanctions new sanctions for whatever stupid reason are quickly introduced).
    So it is pretty much status quo, US&EU will introduce some sanctions. China and the rest of asia will not care.
    Also Apartheid can be done in a smart way such that it minimizes pr damage.

    Replies: @sinotibetan

    Agree, EU and USA are doing all they can to weaken Russia.
    That said, the USA and EU are still too powerful ,I think, to completely snub off.
    China, I agree, couldn’t care less, but their economic intertwinings with the West mean they tend to just be neutral in these issues which , in my view, isn’t enough a support. Japan and South Korea are American Asian lapdogs.
    I am trying to say, it is perhaps too early to snub the West until the Russo-Chinese alliance becomes more formidable. And Japan and South Korea to be weaned out of their American idol worship(ie their fear of China) and Eastern Europe of their EU idol worship(ie their fear of Russia).
    To me America and Western Europe with their rabid multiculturalism are ultimately doomed polities. For the rest of the world…we have to stand our ground and not crumble by Western meddlings and wait for the eventuality.
    Care to elaborate on the smart Apartheid?
    De-islamization of the Caucasian ethnicities would be a good thing but I cant even think how.

  34. @Felix Keverich
    @sinotibetan


    Worse …the USA may do their American thingy…support ‘the oppressed Chechens’ as a pretext to weaken Russia by all means, using gross human rights violation by Russia as a moral justification.
     
    The USA is not going to do anything they don't already do. At the end of the day, it's the job of Russian military, secret services etc to secure the border, make sure no weapons smuggling and no organized insurgency is going on.

    'Moral high ground' is not a good reason to tolerate bad Caucasian behavior, and since their behavior cannot change, we'll need to take steps to insulate our population.

    Replies: @sinotibetan

    As I alluded to A22, I am not really suggesting to back off from Western ‘anger’ indefinitely, it’s a question of timing.
    The other thing is how to practically include the north caucasus within Russia and yet treating the natives there humanely and yet ‘insulate’ Russians from ‘Caucasian violence’ – I have no idea if it can ever be done.

  35. @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    Hey, if State of Israel can still be “a beacon of democracy for mankind”
     
    Apart from Americans and some dumb "conservatives" in Europe nobody believes this, Israel's image has suffered a lot.
    And anyway, the situation isn't exactly comparable. I can see how there could be real arguments against Russia giving up the Caucasus (security concerns regarding Islamism; could it lead to separatist movements in other areas and lead to the breakup of the Russian Federation - which might diminish Russia's power in international politics and put it at the mercy of the US), I make no judgment on the matter...but is the Caucasus central to Russian national identity like the territories Israel controls or wants to control are to at least some strains of Zionism? That seems doubtful to me.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich

    If we’re going to talk about Russian identity, then Ukraine and Belarus should be annexed. I was referring to specific socio-political model, which I believe could be replicated in Russia’s Caucasus. The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Felix Keverich

    The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine

    Chechens are settlers in Chechnya? Wow!

    , @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine.
     
    There aren't many Russian settlers in Chechnya though anymore, if I understand correctly the Chechens expelled them during the 1990s. There are plenty of Israelis who want to colonize the West bank...do many Russians want to go to Chechnya (I certainly wouldn't)?
    Anyway, my intention isn't to lecture you or engage in pointless moralizing, I'm just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia's relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.

    Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji, @Avery, @melanf

  36. @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    If we're going to talk about Russian identity, then Ukraine and Belarus should be annexed. I was referring to specific socio-political model, which I believe could be replicated in Russia's Caucasus. The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine.

    Replies: @iffen, @German_reader

    The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine

    Chechens are settlers in Chechnya? Wow!

  37. German_reader says:
    @Felix Keverich
    @German_reader

    If we're going to talk about Russian identity, then Ukraine and Belarus should be annexed. I was referring to specific socio-political model, which I believe could be replicated in Russia's Caucasus. The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine.

    Replies: @iffen, @German_reader

    The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine.

    There aren’t many Russian settlers in Chechnya though anymore, if I understand correctly the Chechens expelled them during the 1990s. There are plenty of Israelis who want to colonize the West bank…do many Russians want to go to Chechnya (I certainly wouldn’t)?
    Anyway, my intention isn’t to lecture you or engage in pointless moralizing, I’m just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia’s relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    @German_reader


    or how Russia’s relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future
     
    It appears to be stable and relatively peaceful now, to compare with, say, Muslim enclaves in the Philippines, or Jammu and Kashmir in India.
    , @Avery
    @German_reader

    {I’m just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia’s relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.}

    The reason Russian empire expanded southward in the first place was because its heartland was being attacked by various roaming and nomadic invaders from the South. If Russia leaves, Caucasus republics will not stay independent for long. They will be 'independent' in name only, but will be taken over and run by multitudes of historic and contemporary Muslim enemies and rivals of Russia: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,....you name it.

    Then it will be back to the situation of centuries ago when Russia was just Grand Duchy of Moscow.

    Same with Chechnya: Russian Empire invaded and took over Chechnya, because Chechen bandits were raiding Russian settlements to the North, kidnapping people and holding them for ransom.
    btw: Chechens reverted to their bandit ways during the brief, lawless 'independence' period after Russia's defeat in 1st Chechen war.

    Same with Crimea: Russian Empire finally cleared Crimea of its Islamist Tatar scum, after suffering 3 centuries of raids by savage Islamist nomads. Millions of Slavs were kidnapped from Russian lands and sold into slavery.

    , @melanf
    @German_reader


    I’m just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia’s relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.
     
    At present, Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan relatively peaceful region, due to the fact that the Russian intelligence services a systematic exterminated the jihadists.
    http://imgur.com/a/kuxcW

    In the case of a (hypothetical) independence of these republics, they will start a civil war (accompanied by a flow of refugees to Russia), in which radical jihadists will win . After that, these areas will become ISIS-like enclaves, and "military bases" for waging Jihad against Russia. Of course, in this case, to deal with these tumors will be many times more expensive.


    I should add that subsidies for the Islamic regions of the Caucasus have one positive consequence - due to their growing standard of living the birth rate is falling (this is good because the trouble of these places - overpopulation)

    Replies: @German_reader, @Anonymous

  38. @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine.
     
    There aren't many Russian settlers in Chechnya though anymore, if I understand correctly the Chechens expelled them during the 1990s. There are plenty of Israelis who want to colonize the West bank...do many Russians want to go to Chechnya (I certainly wouldn't)?
    Anyway, my intention isn't to lecture you or engage in pointless moralizing, I'm just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia's relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.

    Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji, @Avery, @melanf

    or how Russia’s relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future

    It appears to be stable and relatively peaceful now, to compare with, say, Muslim enclaves in the Philippines, or Jammu and Kashmir in India.

  39. @gT

    Russian nationalists are not wrong when they say that Russians are “feeding the Caucasus.”

     

    Are Russian nationalists really Russian nationalists or are they Russian traitors? Any attempt to make Russia smaller means that Russia is more vulnerable to Russia's enemies, Nato and the USA. Do Russian nationalists want to make Russia kowtow to the USA?????

    Bigger is always better, somehow methods must be found to make the Russian "Empire" work better and even grow bigger. Russia must just manage matters more efficiently than the Soviet Union did. Muslims must be controlled, that is definite, but so must Jews. Muslims have the added benefit that they make good soldiers. Look how in Donetsk and Luhansk the average Russian soldier doesn't really want to "volunteer" because the pay is too little and the risks too high, but the "Caucasian's" don't seem to have that problem.

    So in times of peace Russia might have to subsidize here and there, within reason. Not everyone can be rich, that's obvious, but some need to be aided in achieving self sufficiency, within reason. Muslims should be happy if they have to live their lives just like the Prophet Mohammed did. All this modern stuff like cars, electricity, tv's, etc, is all haram (forbidden) because its not in the Koran.

    Russia should take over all the former Soviet Republics, except for all those Eastern European monkeys like Poland, Latvia, etc. If war breaks out Russia would be glad to have all that available manpower and resources. “In times of peace a wise man prepares for war.”

    Short term thinking by bean counters (accountants / MBA's) always ruins everything, rather think long term like engineers do. If Russia plays her cards right, she can extend the middle finger to all on earth and in space for the next 1000 years.

    Replies: @Parbes, @AP

    The sanest and most intelligent comment on this thread so far… Bravo!

    Anatoly Karlin should take his half-baked HBD theories based on exam-score data and his fantasies of an almost-pure ethnostate in a country the size of Russia; and SHOVE them. These theories and prescriptions seem like they’ve been developed in a near-autistic mental state, with no appreciation of existing internal and external conditions and threats, or consideration of real-world consequences. Adoption of Karlin’s nerdy HBD-nationalist dogma as actual policy in Russia would lead to swift disaster, with vicious ethnic and regional separatist conflicts breaking out across the country and Russia losing her crucial geostrategic Northern Caucasus defensive underbelly – which would morph into a U.S./NATO and jihadi forward base aimed at the rest of Russia in no time, just as the former Ukrainian and Baltic Soviet republics and allied Warsaw Pact nations such as Poland and Romania have now become daggers aimed at the heart of Russia, governed by hostile anti-Russian regimes and bristling with NATO troops, bases and missiles on Russia’s border. In case of the loss of the Northern Caucasus, it would be even WORSE – ten times worse.

    Sometimes I can’t help suspecting that Karlin may actually be some sort of a U.S. intelligence agent sent on a mission to foment trouble in Russia (now that the liberast subversives seem to have failed) by riling up the dumber and more gullible elements among the ethnonationalist scene there.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  40. @gT

    Russian nationalists are not wrong when they say that Russians are “feeding the Caucasus.”

     

    Are Russian nationalists really Russian nationalists or are they Russian traitors? Any attempt to make Russia smaller means that Russia is more vulnerable to Russia's enemies, Nato and the USA. Do Russian nationalists want to make Russia kowtow to the USA?????

    Bigger is always better, somehow methods must be found to make the Russian "Empire" work better and even grow bigger. Russia must just manage matters more efficiently than the Soviet Union did. Muslims must be controlled, that is definite, but so must Jews. Muslims have the added benefit that they make good soldiers. Look how in Donetsk and Luhansk the average Russian soldier doesn't really want to "volunteer" because the pay is too little and the risks too high, but the "Caucasian's" don't seem to have that problem.

    So in times of peace Russia might have to subsidize here and there, within reason. Not everyone can be rich, that's obvious, but some need to be aided in achieving self sufficiency, within reason. Muslims should be happy if they have to live their lives just like the Prophet Mohammed did. All this modern stuff like cars, electricity, tv's, etc, is all haram (forbidden) because its not in the Koran.

    Russia should take over all the former Soviet Republics, except for all those Eastern European monkeys like Poland, Latvia, etc. If war breaks out Russia would be glad to have all that available manpower and resources. “In times of peace a wise man prepares for war.”

    Short term thinking by bean counters (accountants / MBA's) always ruins everything, rather think long term like engineers do. If Russia plays her cards right, she can extend the middle finger to all on earth and in space for the next 1000 years.

    Replies: @Parbes, @AP

    Bigger is always better

    So do you think that America would be better if it annexed Mexico? And Mexicans are orders of magnitude less troublesome than are Chechens.

    But I see you support Russia annexing Central Asia if it could. Why not take Afghanistan too? And Pakistan while you are at it.

    • Replies: @gT
    @AP

    Nope, bigger is always better only applies to the Russian brown bear, not to the American bald eagle. Russia should annex Central Asia, Ukraine and BeloRussia, those areas belong to Russia since the days of the Tsars.

    Think of Russia as a hand. The palm of the hand is Russian and Orthodox, and must always remain Russian and Orthodox, some of the fingers of the hand are Asiatic or Moslem. When war comes the palm and the fingers come together to form a fist to KO whoever is stupid enough to get that close. That one baby finger on the one hand, Chechnya, has got a very useful altitude (attitude with vengeance), that's the reason why the Russian Special Forces have their training base there.

    At a much later stage Afghanistan would make a great addition to the Russian "Empire". They're self sufficient and are sitting on lots of untapped mineral resources. The Afghans have respect for the Russians, they don't respect the Americans. Pakistan is too much trouble.

    Replies: @ussr andy

  41. @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine.
     
    There aren't many Russian settlers in Chechnya though anymore, if I understand correctly the Chechens expelled them during the 1990s. There are plenty of Israelis who want to colonize the West bank...do many Russians want to go to Chechnya (I certainly wouldn't)?
    Anyway, my intention isn't to lecture you or engage in pointless moralizing, I'm just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia's relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.

    Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji, @Avery, @melanf

    {I’m just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia’s relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.}

    The reason Russian empire expanded southward in the first place was because its heartland was being attacked by various roaming and nomadic invaders from the South. If Russia leaves, Caucasus republics will not stay independent for long. They will be ‘independent’ in name only, but will be taken over and run by multitudes of historic and contemporary Muslim enemies and rivals of Russia: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,….you name it.

    Then it will be back to the situation of centuries ago when Russia was just Grand Duchy of Moscow.

    Same with Chechnya: Russian Empire invaded and took over Chechnya, because Chechen bandits were raiding Russian settlements to the North, kidnapping people and holding them for ransom.
    btw: Chechens reverted to their bandit ways during the brief, lawless ‘independence’ period after Russia’s defeat in 1st Chechen war.

    Same with Crimea: Russian Empire finally cleared Crimea of its Islamist Tatar scum, after suffering 3 centuries of raids by savage Islamist nomads. Millions of Slavs were kidnapped from Russian lands and sold into slavery.

  42. @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    it’s deprives us of power and resources
     
    If I understand Ak correctly, he believes those regions are actually a drain on resources.
    Personally I have no opinion on the matter; it just seems to me Russia hasn't really found a viable long-term strategy for the Caucasus (or at least for Chechnya). Someone like Kadyrov can hardly be considered as reliable and will eventually cause trouble.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich, @Anatoly Karlin, @The Big Red Scary

    ” Someone like Kadyrov can hardly be considered as reliable and will eventually cause trouble.”

    This article discusses how complicated the situation is:

    https://gordonhahn.com/2017/05/05/chechnya-russias-black-hole-putins-achilles-heel-complete-version-parts-1-and-2/

    I’d like to make a general caveat, however, which is that while there is good reason to be concerned about this and other problems, one somehow has to estimate the magnitude of a problem before
    choosing a course of action, and I see very few attempts at such estimation, with this or any other scary problem. An expert on Caucasian extremism, like Gordon Hahn, might be particularly prone to over-estimating the threat from his subject of expertise.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @The Big Red Scary

    Thanks for the link, that's pretty interesting. Seems to confirm a negative view of Chechens and their culture.

    Replies: @The Big Red Scary

  43. @German_reader
    @Felix Keverich


    The situation is in fact quite comparable, because Jews are settlers in Israel/Palestine.
     
    There aren't many Russian settlers in Chechnya though anymore, if I understand correctly the Chechens expelled them during the 1990s. There are plenty of Israelis who want to colonize the West bank...do many Russians want to go to Chechnya (I certainly wouldn't)?
    Anyway, my intention isn't to lecture you or engage in pointless moralizing, I'm just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia's relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.

    Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji, @Avery, @melanf

    I’m just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia’s relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.

    At present, Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan relatively peaceful region, due to the fact that the Russian intelligence services a systematic exterminated the jihadists.

    View post on imgur.com

    In the case of a (hypothetical) independence of these republics, they will start a civil war (accompanied by a flow of refugees to Russia), in which radical jihadists will win . After that, these areas will become ISIS-like enclaves, and “military bases” for waging Jihad against Russia. Of course, in this case, to deal with these tumors will be many times more expensive.

    I should add that subsidies for the Islamic regions of the Caucasus have one positive consequence – due to their growing standard of living the birth rate is falling (this is good because the trouble of these places – overpopulation)

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @melanf


    In the case of a (hypothetical) independence of these republics, they will start a civil war (accompanied by a flow of refugees to Russia), in which radical jihadists will win . After that, these areas will become ISIS-like enclaves, and “military bases” for waging Jihad against Russia.
     
    If I understand correctly, that's what happened after the 1st Chechen war, so it looks like a serious danger.
    Seems like there aren't really any good alternatives to the present course then.
    , @Anonymous
    @melanf

    The likely more important reason for the stability is the exodus of jihadists and potential jihadi recruits to Syria and Iraq.

  44. @AP
    @gT


    Bigger is always better
     
    So do you think that America would be better if it annexed Mexico? And Mexicans are orders of magnitude less troublesome than are Chechens.

    But I see you support Russia annexing Central Asia if it could. Why not take Afghanistan too? And Pakistan while you are at it.

    Replies: @gT

    Nope, bigger is always better only applies to the Russian brown bear, not to the American bald eagle. Russia should annex Central Asia, Ukraine and BeloRussia, those areas belong to Russia since the days of the Tsars.

    Think of Russia as a hand. The palm of the hand is Russian and Orthodox, and must always remain Russian and Orthodox, some of the fingers of the hand are Asiatic or Moslem. When war comes the palm and the fingers come together to form a fist to KO whoever is stupid enough to get that close. That one baby finger on the one hand, Chechnya, has got a very useful altitude (attitude with vengeance), that’s the reason why the Russian Special Forces have their training base there.

    At a much later stage Afghanistan would make a great addition to the Russian “Empire”. They’re self sufficient and are sitting on lots of untapped mineral resources. The Afghans have respect for the Russians, they don’t respect the Americans. Pakistan is too much trouble.

    • Replies: @ussr andy
    @gT


    When war comes the palm and the fingers come together to form a fist
     
    didn't they defect wholesale to Adolf last time?

    Replies: @gT

  45. German_reader says:
    @melanf
    @German_reader


    I’m just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia’s relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.
     
    At present, Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan relatively peaceful region, due to the fact that the Russian intelligence services a systematic exterminated the jihadists.
    http://imgur.com/a/kuxcW

    In the case of a (hypothetical) independence of these republics, they will start a civil war (accompanied by a flow of refugees to Russia), in which radical jihadists will win . After that, these areas will become ISIS-like enclaves, and "military bases" for waging Jihad against Russia. Of course, in this case, to deal with these tumors will be many times more expensive.


    I should add that subsidies for the Islamic regions of the Caucasus have one positive consequence - due to their growing standard of living the birth rate is falling (this is good because the trouble of these places - overpopulation)

    Replies: @German_reader, @Anonymous

    In the case of a (hypothetical) independence of these republics, they will start a civil war (accompanied by a flow of refugees to Russia), in which radical jihadists will win . After that, these areas will become ISIS-like enclaves, and “military bases” for waging Jihad against Russia.

    If I understand correctly, that’s what happened after the 1st Chechen war, so it looks like a serious danger.
    Seems like there aren’t really any good alternatives to the present course then.

  46. @The Big Red Scary
    @German_reader

    " Someone like Kadyrov can hardly be considered as reliable and will eventually cause trouble."

    This article discusses how complicated the situation is:

    https://gordonhahn.com/2017/05/05/chechnya-russias-black-hole-putins-achilles-heel-complete-version-parts-1-and-2/

    I'd like to make a general caveat, however, which is that while there is good reason to be concerned about this and other problems, one somehow has to estimate the magnitude of a problem before
    choosing a course of action, and I see very few attempts at such estimation, with this or any other scary problem. An expert on Caucasian extremism, like Gordon Hahn, might be particularly prone to over-estimating the threat from his subject of expertise.

    Replies: @German_reader

    Thanks for the link, that’s pretty interesting. Seems to confirm a negative view of Chechens and their culture.

    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    @German_reader

    It is interesting, but there are no statistics there, and no mention of base rates, so it is not so useful in estimating the magnitude of the problem. For example, Chechens make up roughly .8 percent of the population of the Russian federation, according to the numbers on Wikipedia. By contrast, drug addicts make up roughly 1.6 percent of the population. And don't even mention alcoholics. So you'd have to compare the base rates for violent criminality in these populations to begin to understand how much of a problem Chechens are. For example, I'd like to know what percentage of Chechen men, aged 16-40, have killed someone, versus the same for drug addicts or alcoholics.

    Anecdotally, Chechens are very much over-represented in the "Russian" mafia, which Anatoly discussed at some point. But to what degree? Are there any reliable statistics on this?

    And even the really crazy ones who have sworn allegiance to ISIS number in the few thousands, from the estimates that I have seen. I suspect the rest of them really just want to go about their lives and are probably damned tired of war.

    I am saying all these things not to deny that there is a problem, but to point out that it is not so easy to know how big the problem is.

  47. @German_reader
    @The Big Red Scary

    Thanks for the link, that's pretty interesting. Seems to confirm a negative view of Chechens and their culture.

    Replies: @The Big Red Scary

    It is interesting, but there are no statistics there, and no mention of base rates, so it is not so useful in estimating the magnitude of the problem. For example, Chechens make up roughly .8 percent of the population of the Russian federation, according to the numbers on Wikipedia. By contrast, drug addicts make up roughly 1.6 percent of the population. And don’t even mention alcoholics. So you’d have to compare the base rates for violent criminality in these populations to begin to understand how much of a problem Chechens are. For example, I’d like to know what percentage of Chechen men, aged 16-40, have killed someone, versus the same for drug addicts or alcoholics.

    Anecdotally, Chechens are very much over-represented in the “Russian” mafia, which Anatoly discussed at some point. But to what degree? Are there any reliable statistics on this?

    And even the really crazy ones who have sworn allegiance to ISIS number in the few thousands, from the estimates that I have seen. I suspect the rest of them really just want to go about their lives and are probably damned tired of war.

    I am saying all these things not to deny that there is a problem, but to point out that it is not so easy to know how big the problem is.

  48. @gT
    @AP

    Nope, bigger is always better only applies to the Russian brown bear, not to the American bald eagle. Russia should annex Central Asia, Ukraine and BeloRussia, those areas belong to Russia since the days of the Tsars.

    Think of Russia as a hand. The palm of the hand is Russian and Orthodox, and must always remain Russian and Orthodox, some of the fingers of the hand are Asiatic or Moslem. When war comes the palm and the fingers come together to form a fist to KO whoever is stupid enough to get that close. That one baby finger on the one hand, Chechnya, has got a very useful altitude (attitude with vengeance), that's the reason why the Russian Special Forces have their training base there.

    At a much later stage Afghanistan would make a great addition to the Russian "Empire". They're self sufficient and are sitting on lots of untapped mineral resources. The Afghans have respect for the Russians, they don't respect the Americans. Pakistan is too much trouble.

    Replies: @ussr andy

    When war comes the palm and the fingers come together to form a fist

    didn’t they defect wholesale to Adolf last time?

    • Replies: @gT
    @ussr andy

    Didn't the Croats defect wholesale to Aldolf? Along with lots of Bulgarians and Romanians, lots in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. And lets not forget about the Banderites in Ukraine. And nearly all of them were Slavs, just like the Russians.

    You're thinking more about the Tartars in Crimea, who were essentially Turkish. But the Russian Muslims couldn't have loved communism too much, after all, the bulk of the original Bolsheviks were Jewish. Stalin quickly rectified that matter. But prior to Communism, the Muslims seemed to have got on with the Tsars, but only after they were defeated of course. Caucasian Muslims served with distinction in the Tsar's army and bodyguards, some even reached the rank of general.

    There is even a statue of a Muslim general in St Petersburg, who was executed by the Bolsheviks because he refused to betray Tsar Nicholas II.

    Replies: @Cyrano

  49. @ussr andy
    @gT


    When war comes the palm and the fingers come together to form a fist
     
    didn't they defect wholesale to Adolf last time?

    Replies: @gT

    Didn’t the Croats defect wholesale to Aldolf? Along with lots of Bulgarians and Romanians, lots in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. And lets not forget about the Banderites in Ukraine. And nearly all of them were Slavs, just like the Russians.

    You’re thinking more about the Tartars in Crimea, who were essentially Turkish. But the Russian Muslims couldn’t have loved communism too much, after all, the bulk of the original Bolsheviks were Jewish. Stalin quickly rectified that matter. But prior to Communism, the Muslims seemed to have got on with the Tsars, but only after they were defeated of course. Caucasian Muslims served with distinction in the Tsar’s army and bodyguards, some even reached the rank of general.

    There is even a statue of a Muslim general in St Petersburg, who was executed by the Bolsheviks because he refused to betray Tsar Nicholas II.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    @gT

    It’s good to see someone clueless on this site once in a while. It’s like a breath of fresh air among all the geniuses.

    Romanians, Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians are not Slavs. Only the Bulgarians and the Croats are, and of those 2 only Croats actually tried to fight against the Russians. I think those miserable f**ks send a brigade to Stalingrad and the Russians quickly put them out of their misery. No one made back home alive, I think.

    The Bulgarians were German allies – yes, but none of them fought alongside the Germans on the eastern front. Smart people.

    Replies: @gT

  50. @gT
    @ussr andy

    Didn't the Croats defect wholesale to Aldolf? Along with lots of Bulgarians and Romanians, lots in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. And lets not forget about the Banderites in Ukraine. And nearly all of them were Slavs, just like the Russians.

    You're thinking more about the Tartars in Crimea, who were essentially Turkish. But the Russian Muslims couldn't have loved communism too much, after all, the bulk of the original Bolsheviks were Jewish. Stalin quickly rectified that matter. But prior to Communism, the Muslims seemed to have got on with the Tsars, but only after they were defeated of course. Caucasian Muslims served with distinction in the Tsar's army and bodyguards, some even reached the rank of general.

    There is even a statue of a Muslim general in St Petersburg, who was executed by the Bolsheviks because he refused to betray Tsar Nicholas II.

    Replies: @Cyrano

    It’s good to see someone clueless on this site once in a while. It’s like a breath of fresh air among all the geniuses.

    Romanians, Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians are not Slavs. Only the Bulgarians and the Croats are, and of those 2 only Croats actually tried to fight against the Russians. I think those miserable f**ks send a brigade to Stalingrad and the Russians quickly put them out of their misery. No one made back home alive, I think.

    The Bulgarians were German allies – yes, but none of them fought alongside the Germans on the eastern front. Smart people.

    • Replies: @gT
    @Cyrano

    You're welcome. And Bulgaria always seems to support the opposite side. The Nazi's during WWII and Nato during the Serbian war. Maybe not so smart.

    Replies: @Cyrano

  51. Anonymous [AKA "Gordon Hahn"] says: • Website
    @melanf
    @German_reader


    I’m just interested in arguments for/against Russia getting rid of the Caucasus republics, or how Russia’s relationship to this volatile area could be stabilized in the future.
     
    At present, Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan relatively peaceful region, due to the fact that the Russian intelligence services a systematic exterminated the jihadists.
    http://imgur.com/a/kuxcW

    In the case of a (hypothetical) independence of these republics, they will start a civil war (accompanied by a flow of refugees to Russia), in which radical jihadists will win . After that, these areas will become ISIS-like enclaves, and "military bases" for waging Jihad against Russia. Of course, in this case, to deal with these tumors will be many times more expensive.


    I should add that subsidies for the Islamic regions of the Caucasus have one positive consequence - due to their growing standard of living the birth rate is falling (this is good because the trouble of these places - overpopulation)

    Replies: @German_reader, @Anonymous

    The likely more important reason for the stability is the exodus of jihadists and potential jihadi recruits to Syria and Iraq.

    • Agree: JL
  52. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Chinese people, Russians, and Indians need to come together to forge a new idea for nationalism. The new direction for nationalism will discard with the old idea that territorial sovereignty must be absolute and put a premium on national human capital and cohesion.

    What this practically means:

    – China should dump southwest Xinjiang (4 prefectures including Kashgar, Hotan, Aksu) and give that new entity Kashgaria the independence they want.
    – Russia should get rid of the NCFD, giving them independence, and build a wall around it
    – India should let the Kashmir Valley vote for independence (90%+ of the Vale would vote yes)

    Same kind of benefits for everyone:

    – China gets rid of almost 8 million Uighurs who can’t get along with Chinese people. That ends the insurgency and burden of paying for the loyalty of these people for generations to come. There are 2 million other Uighurs in northeast Xinjiang but this group is better assimilated and not a single insurgent attack has originated from there.
    – Russia can end its insurgency and get rid of 8 million people from the most violent ethnic groups and save a lot of state money
    – India will end its biggest and longest running internal security problem and get rid of 7 million disloyal people

    Since it’s such a break from tradition for a majority people to want to discard territory, new nationalists need to find strength and confidence by voicing the same idea together.

  53. @Cyrano
    @gT

    It’s good to see someone clueless on this site once in a while. It’s like a breath of fresh air among all the geniuses.

    Romanians, Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians are not Slavs. Only the Bulgarians and the Croats are, and of those 2 only Croats actually tried to fight against the Russians. I think those miserable f**ks send a brigade to Stalingrad and the Russians quickly put them out of their misery. No one made back home alive, I think.

    The Bulgarians were German allies – yes, but none of them fought alongside the Germans on the eastern front. Smart people.

    Replies: @gT

    You’re welcome. And Bulgaria always seems to support the opposite side. The Nazi’s during WWII and Nato during the Serbian war. Maybe not so smart.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    @gT

    Your grasp of history is fascinating. Bulgaria didn't actively participate in NATO attack on Serbia, they only allowed their territory to be used by NATO during the attack, which is bad enough, but then again Bulgaria has a long history of grievances against Serbia dating to the 2nd Balkan war when the Serbs stabbed Bulgaria in the back. So again, I can't really blame Bulgaria for being hostile to Serbia.

    Replies: @gT

  54. @gT
    @Cyrano

    You're welcome. And Bulgaria always seems to support the opposite side. The Nazi's during WWII and Nato during the Serbian war. Maybe not so smart.

    Replies: @Cyrano

    Your grasp of history is fascinating. Bulgaria didn’t actively participate in NATO attack on Serbia, they only allowed their territory to be used by NATO during the attack, which is bad enough, but then again Bulgaria has a long history of grievances against Serbia dating to the 2nd Balkan war when the Serbs stabbed Bulgaria in the back. So again, I can’t really blame Bulgaria for being hostile to Serbia.

    • Replies: @gT
    @Cyrano

    Although I never heard about the Balkan wars before, it seems like Bulgaria was the one who stabbed their former allies from the 1st Balkan war, Serbia and Greece, in the back. And then everyone in the region seems to have climbed into Bulgaria.

    Taken straight from Wikipedia "The Second Balkan War was a conflict which broke out when Bulgaria, dissatisfied with its share of the spoils of the First Balkan War, attacked its former allies, Serbia and Greece, on 16 (O.S.)/29 June 1913. Serbian and Greek armies repulsed the Bulgarian offensive and counter-attacked, entering Bulgaria. With Bulgaria also having previously engaged in territorial disputes with Romania, this war provoked Romanian intervention against Bulgaria. The Ottoman Empire also took advantage of the situation to regain some lost territories from the previous war. "

    Replies: @Cyrano

  55. @Cyrano
    @gT

    Your grasp of history is fascinating. Bulgaria didn't actively participate in NATO attack on Serbia, they only allowed their territory to be used by NATO during the attack, which is bad enough, but then again Bulgaria has a long history of grievances against Serbia dating to the 2nd Balkan war when the Serbs stabbed Bulgaria in the back. So again, I can't really blame Bulgaria for being hostile to Serbia.

    Replies: @gT

    Although I never heard about the Balkan wars before, it seems like Bulgaria was the one who stabbed their former allies from the 1st Balkan war, Serbia and Greece, in the back. And then everyone in the region seems to have climbed into Bulgaria.

    Taken straight from Wikipedia “The Second Balkan War was a conflict which broke out when Bulgaria, dissatisfied with its share of the spoils of the First Balkan War, attacked its former allies, Serbia and Greece, on 16 (O.S.)/29 June 1913. Serbian and Greek armies repulsed the Bulgarian offensive and counter-attacked, entering Bulgaria. With Bulgaria also having previously engaged in territorial disputes with Romania, this war provoked Romanian intervention against Bulgaria. The Ottoman Empire also took advantage of the situation to regain some lost territories from the previous war. ”

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    @gT

    All right, my mistake. Read then on the 1st Blakan war.

    The Bulgarians were stabbed in the back by the Serbs in the 1st Balkan war – thus resulting in the 2nd one – which wasn’t supposed to happen at all since the main objective – defeating Ottoman Turkey and chasing them out of the Balkans once and for all was achieved in the 1st Balkan war.

    I think that’s the biggest strategic mistake Serbia has ever made, ever – stabbing fellow Slavs in the back to make a third party make gains that they didn’t deserve at all (Greece). Bulgaria did the lion share of the fighting in the 1st Balkan war and was supposed to be awarded with certain territory as agreed with the Serbs – who broke the agreement.

    This has influenced Balkan politics to this day – why Bulgaria always choose to be an ally of Germany – because they always promised them that they’ll help them redress the injustice that they suffered in the 2nd Balkan war and regain the territory that they lost then and there. I personally also think that it was unforgivable the way the Serbs acted.

    Replies: @gT

  56. Hey, it’s the Balkans. Everyone is stabbing everyone else. Or, rather, everyone is stabbing their immediate neighbors while declaring love and friendship towards everyone they don’t have a common border with.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    They should send you to UN in some capacity. With your knowledge of the world affairs, you'll fix the world in one day - maybe even less.

    Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

  57. @gT
    @Cyrano

    Although I never heard about the Balkan wars before, it seems like Bulgaria was the one who stabbed their former allies from the 1st Balkan war, Serbia and Greece, in the back. And then everyone in the region seems to have climbed into Bulgaria.

    Taken straight from Wikipedia "The Second Balkan War was a conflict which broke out when Bulgaria, dissatisfied with its share of the spoils of the First Balkan War, attacked its former allies, Serbia and Greece, on 16 (O.S.)/29 June 1913. Serbian and Greek armies repulsed the Bulgarian offensive and counter-attacked, entering Bulgaria. With Bulgaria also having previously engaged in territorial disputes with Romania, this war provoked Romanian intervention against Bulgaria. The Ottoman Empire also took advantage of the situation to regain some lost territories from the previous war. "

    Replies: @Cyrano

    All right, my mistake. Read then on the 1st Blakan war.

    The Bulgarians were stabbed in the back by the Serbs in the 1st Balkan war – thus resulting in the 2nd one – which wasn’t supposed to happen at all since the main objective – defeating Ottoman Turkey and chasing them out of the Balkans once and for all was achieved in the 1st Balkan war.

    I think that’s the biggest strategic mistake Serbia has ever made, ever – stabbing fellow Slavs in the back to make a third party make gains that they didn’t deserve at all (Greece). Bulgaria did the lion share of the fighting in the 1st Balkan war and was supposed to be awarded with certain territory as agreed with the Serbs – who broke the agreement.

    This has influenced Balkan politics to this day – why Bulgaria always choose to be an ally of Germany – because they always promised them that they’ll help them redress the injustice that they suffered in the 2nd Balkan war and regain the territory that they lost then and there. I personally also think that it was unforgivable the way the Serbs acted.

    • Replies: @gT
    @Cyrano

    Nah, its Sunday and I'm too lazy to go and read up on the 1'st Balkan war. All I know is that Bulgaria always chooses the "opposite" side and the "opposite" side always loses.

    Replies: @Cyrano

  58. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Hey, it's the Balkans. Everyone is stabbing everyone else. Or, rather, everyone is stabbing their immediate neighbors while declaring love and friendship towards everyone they don't have a common border with.

    Replies: @Cyrano

    They should send you to UN in some capacity. With your knowledge of the world affairs, you’ll fix the world in one day – maybe even less.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    @Cyrano


    you’ll fix the world in one day
     
    What's to fix? The world is what it is. All we can do is observe.
  59. @Cyrano
    @gT

    All right, my mistake. Read then on the 1st Blakan war.

    The Bulgarians were stabbed in the back by the Serbs in the 1st Balkan war – thus resulting in the 2nd one – which wasn’t supposed to happen at all since the main objective – defeating Ottoman Turkey and chasing them out of the Balkans once and for all was achieved in the 1st Balkan war.

    I think that’s the biggest strategic mistake Serbia has ever made, ever – stabbing fellow Slavs in the back to make a third party make gains that they didn’t deserve at all (Greece). Bulgaria did the lion share of the fighting in the 1st Balkan war and was supposed to be awarded with certain territory as agreed with the Serbs – who broke the agreement.

    This has influenced Balkan politics to this day – why Bulgaria always choose to be an ally of Germany – because they always promised them that they’ll help them redress the injustice that they suffered in the 2nd Balkan war and regain the territory that they lost then and there. I personally also think that it was unforgivable the way the Serbs acted.

    Replies: @gT

    Nah, its Sunday and I’m too lazy to go and read up on the 1’st Balkan war. All I know is that Bulgaria always chooses the “opposite” side and the “opposite” side always loses.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    @gT

    You are right. Reading requires brain. Go take a nap.

    Replies: @gT

  60. @Cyrano
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    They should send you to UN in some capacity. With your knowledge of the world affairs, you'll fix the world in one day - maybe even less.

    Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    you’ll fix the world in one day

    What’s to fix? The world is what it is. All we can do is observe.

  61. @gT
    @Cyrano

    Nah, its Sunday and I'm too lazy to go and read up on the 1'st Balkan war. All I know is that Bulgaria always chooses the "opposite" side and the "opposite" side always loses.

    Replies: @Cyrano

    You are right. Reading requires brain. Go take a nap.

    • Replies: @gT
    @Cyrano

    Shall do loser.

    Replies: @Cyrano

  62. @Cyrano
    @gT

    You are right. Reading requires brain. Go take a nap.

    Replies: @gT

    Shall do loser.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    @gT

    Tell that to your mother. She's a loser for polluting the earth with a scumbag like you.

  63. @gT
    @Cyrano

    Shall do loser.

    Replies: @Cyrano

    Tell that to your mother. She’s a loser for polluting the earth with a scumbag like you.

  64. Stop trying to disturb my nap, loser.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    @gT

    Ask your mother to breastfeed you, so you can sleep better, you retard.

    Replies: @gT

  65. @gT
    Stop trying to disturb my nap, loser.

    Replies: @Cyrano

    Ask your mother to breastfeed you, so you can sleep better, you retard.

    • Replies: @gT
    @Cyrano

    gay loser

  66. @Cyrano
    @gT

    Ask your mother to breastfeed you, so you can sleep better, you retard.

    Replies: @gT

    gay loser

  67. Russians feed the Caucasus which is filled with Muslims. This is suicidal.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS