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
Russia Renames Its Airports
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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

As of May 31, all of Russia’s civil airports have been renamed in line with a national Internet poll on the topic.

Here are the changes (via Google Translate):

Sheremetyevo Airport – poet Alexander Pushkin;
“Domodedovo” airport – scientist Mikhail Lomonosov;
airport “Vnukovo” – aircraft designer Andrei Tupolev;
the airport of Anadyr “Ugolny” – by the writer Yuri Rytheu;
Anapa Vityazevo Airport – test pilot Vladimir Kokkinaki;
Arkhangelsk Airport – writer Fyodor Abramov;
the airport of Astrakhan – artist Boris Kustodiev;
Belgorod Airport – engineer, inventor Vladimir Shukhov;
Blagoveshchensk Airport – Count Nikolai Muravyov-Amursky;
Vladivostok airport – a scientist Vladimir Arsenyev;
the airport of Volgograd – the fighter pilot Alexei Maresyev;
Voronezh Airport – Emperor Peter I;
Ekaterinburg airport “Koltsovo” – businessman Akinfiy Demidov;
Kaliningrad Khrabrovo Airport – Empress Elizabeth Petrovna;
Kaluga Airport – scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky;
Kazan airport – poet Gabdulla Tukai;
Krasnodar Airport – Empress Catherine II;
Krasnoyarsk Airport – singer Dmitry Khvorostovsky;
Magadan Airport “Falcon” – the singer and actor Vladimir Vysotsky;
the airport of Mineralnye Vody – the poet Mikhail Lermontov;
the airport of Murmansk – Emperor Nicholas II;
Airport Nizhnevartovsk – an oil engineer Viktor Muravlenko;
Nizhnekamsk Airport – Hero of Socialist Labor Nikolai Lemaev;
Strigino’s Nizhny Novgorod airport – test pilot Valery Chkalov;
Novy Urengoy Airport – geologist Ivan Gubkin;
Novosibirsk airport “Tolmachevo” – the commander Alexander Pokryshkin;
the airport of Norilsk – geologist Nikolai Urvantsev;
Omsk Airport – General Dmitry Karbyshev;
Penza airport – literary critic Vissarion Belinsky;
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky airport “Yelizovo” – navigator Vitus Bering;
Pskovavia Airport – Princess Olga;
Samara airport “Kurumoch” – a scientist and designer Sergey Korolev;
Simferopol Airport – artist Ivan Aivazovsky;
Sochi airport – cosmonaut Vitaly Sevastyanov;
Syktyvkar airport – pilot Peter Istomin;
Stavropol Airport – commander Alexander Suvorov;
Surgut airport – geologist Farman Salmanov;
Tomsk “Bogashevo” airport – aircraft designer Nikolai Kamov;
the Tyumen “Roshchino” airport – a scientist Dmitry Mendeleev;
Ufa airport – poet Mustay Karim;
Khabarovsk Airport – Admiral Gennady Nevelsky;
Cheboksary airport – cosmonaut Andriyan Nikolayev;
Chelyabinsk Airport – Physics Igor Kurchatov;
the airport of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk – writer Anton Chekhov;
Yakutsk airport – writer Platon Oiunsky.

The most “ideological” contest took place over the naming of Murmansk Airport. Should it be named after Nicholas II, the founder of Murmansk – the last city to be founded in the Russian Empire; or after Ivan Papain, a Soviet Arctic explorer – and head of the Crimean Cheka during the Civil War?

Fortunately, Nicky won with 49% to Papanin’s 41%.

Kaluga Airtport is now named after Tsiolkovsky. Good to Russian Cosmists (the first transhumanists) getting their due.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Airports, Russia 
Hide 92 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. he airport of Murmansk – Emperor Nicholas II;

    To name the airport after the main organizer of the revolution, the man who destroyed the Empire with his heinous behavior? A rare example of the idiocy (to be honest, the whole idea with the renaming of airports was completely stupid).

    • Agree: Dmitry
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    You might not be interested in culture war, but culture war is interested in you.
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    He loved his children.....
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    "Heinous"?

    LOL
  2. The most “ideological” contest took place over the naming of Murmansk Airport. Should it be named after Nicholas II, the founder of Murmansk – the last city to be founded in the Russian Empire; or after Ivan Papain, a Soviet Arctic explorer – and head of the Crimean Cheka during the Civil War?

    We can make it a part of Greater Finland so that you don’t have to debate this.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  3. About one of the airports of this list: no-one had wanted the name of the airport of Koltsovo to be changed, and there is a great majority of local people who oppose a name change (surveys show between 80%-90% of people oppose a name change to this airport).

    As for its choice – Pavel Bazhov was winning by 4% until the last day, when the results mysteriously reversed to Demidov (who was only in 3rd position before), and who has no relationship to the city itself.

    Koltsovo is owned by an oligarch – Vekselberg, who wanted Demidov to win the competition, because he wants to focus on metal mining and metallurgy (which is his business as well). And the sudden change in the last day, seems a little suspicious, as it matches the earlier expressed desires of airport owner Vekselberg.

    As the vast majority of people do not want this airport to have the name changed, so the new name will hopefully only be in the end, some small writing under the real name.

  4. Interesting. Few are named after politicians. Many are cultural or scientific pioneers.

    Here in America many are renamed after politicians or dead presidents (Bush, Kennedy) and sometimes military heroes, often local and dead.

    I can’t think of any American airport authorities that would honor a poll (or conduct one) via the Internet. Too much democratic input. Instead local bureaucrats and politicos get to choose.

    Now which nation is “authoritarian” again?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    The American tendency to name things after politicians has always annoyed me. We should give more representation to cultural and scientific figures:

    1 dollar bill: Edgar Allan Poe

    5 dollar bill: Wright Brothers

    10 dollar bill: John Ford

    20 dollar bill: Willa Cather (gotta have a gal these days)

    50 dollar bill: Mark Twain

    100 dollar bill: Courtesy of his literary and scientific work, Franklin gets to stay.
    , @Republic
    One of those US airports was actually named after a living Ex President. I think that is in very poor taste.

    Only countries that are dictatorships do things like that.
  5. @melanf

    he airport of Murmansk – Emperor Nicholas II;
     
    To name the airport after the main organizer of the revolution, the man who destroyed the Empire with his heinous behavior? A rare example of the idiocy (to be honest, the whole idea with the renaming of airports was completely stupid).

    You might not be interested in culture war, but culture war is interested in you.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Cultural war equivalent more recently - a century in the future: Boris Yeltsin airport (but he was a thousand times less damaging).

    Or in America, that if some years a random city's airport (with no connection to Obama), will be changed to Barack Obama airport - their most weak and incompetent president.

    (Perhaps Michelle Obama will also be promoted to be named for another random airport, as some activists wanted Koltsovo to be named for Elizaveta Fedorovna.)

    But then, that would be surely many times less stupid, as Obama was ten times stronger and more competent, and his leadership had negative consequences a hundred times less terrible for his country.

    There is historical evidence and really basic biographic knowledge, where it's only acceptable to say it's not a bad choice it if you don't have this knowledge.

  6. : Is this an attack from The Saker against you? “Some of them will join the Alt-Right movement and pretend that the racist categories and ideology used by this movement have some traction in Russia (they don’t).” Why does this idiot keep taking shots at the Alt-Right?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    LOL, no, it's not. If you noticed, I don't generally comment on (or even read) the Saker these days. The only reason for the recent exception is that a friend sent me a link to it, together with the "Some of them will join the Alt-Right movement and pretend that the racist categories and ideology used by this movement have some traction in Russia (they don’t)" quote.
    , @Dmitry
    Saker is too strange to waste time reading.

    He's old Swiss (unemployed) man, who lives in America.
    https://thesaker.is/what-happened-to-the-west-i-was-born-in

    His theories include that - Russians don't care about money, that Russia is suited for Islam, and there is a war between Putin and "Anglo-Zionism".
  7. @Bartolo
    @Anatoly Karlin: Is this an attack from The Saker against you? "Some of them will join the Alt-Right movement and pretend that the racist categories and ideology used by this movement have some traction in Russia (they don’t)." Why does this idiot keep taking shots at the Alt-Right?

    LOL, no, it’s not. If you noticed, I don’t generally comment on (or even read) the Saker these days. The only reason for the recent exception is that a friend sent me a link to it, together with the “Some of them will join the Alt-Right movement and pretend that the racist categories and ideology used by this movement have some traction in Russia (they don’t)” quote.

  8. As you know, Putin assigned the name of Nicholas II to the airport of the hero-city of Murmansk. This photo from Murmansk embodies all the idiocy of Putin’s Russia. Insane postmodern Soviet authorities meeting Orthodoxy and tradition.

    If Navalny is against something, most likely it’s a good thing.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Navalny is e.g. against open borders immigration. So now you support open borders immigration? And he might say other obvious things like "sky is blue" and "a minute has 60 seconds", which would then have to be false? How does this reasoning work, and why is celebrities' opinion (or people's opinion in general), relevant to truth or falsity of an issue.
  9. @melanf

    he airport of Murmansk – Emperor Nicholas II;
     
    To name the airport after the main organizer of the revolution, the man who destroyed the Empire with his heinous behavior? A rare example of the idiocy (to be honest, the whole idea with the renaming of airports was completely stupid).

    He loved his children…..

  10. Just a cursory look- engineers & heroes of Socialist Labor won over writers & eggheads.

  11. Russia under Putin has developed a very syncretic form of patriotism. I like that.

  12. @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1135092941788241920

    As you know, Putin assigned the name of Nicholas II to the airport of the hero-city of Murmansk. This photo from Murmansk embodies all the idiocy of Putin’s Russia. Insane postmodern Soviet authorities meeting Orthodoxy and tradition.
     
    If Navalny is against something, most likely it's a good thing.

    Navalny is e.g. against open borders immigration. So now you support open borders immigration? And he might say other obvious things like “sky is blue” and “a minute has 60 seconds”, which would then have to be false? How does this reasoning work, and why is celebrities’ opinion (or people’s opinion in general), relevant to truth or falsity of an issue.

    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    You identified the one issue on which Navalny is apparently less GloboHomo than Putin.

    And yet:

    1. Navalny is anti-open borders only in the sense that he is a cognitive elitist, not out of any respect for the national character. As he clarified in recent posts, he is fully on board with inviting in all the Uzbek or Ghanan college grads. Granted, this Canadian/Australian approach is much better than the default one of giving every Third World bum asylum. But still, nationalist it is not.

    2. Conversely, Putin is himself adopting both a more cognitively elitist *and* racially particularist (e.g. privileging Slavs) immigration policy.
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/russianness/

    3. Navalny's trajectory is towards more GloboHomo. Putin's trajectory is towards less GloboHomo.
    And it can't be otherwise, because having lost all nationalist support, Navalny's support group is boiling down to a very narrow stratum of old-school liberal Russophobes and neo-Soviet SJWs. E.g., this lady:

    https://i.imgur.com/h9UuQTG.png
    , @Denis
    Your question has an obvious answer. If Navalny were to make a statement that is self-evident or take a position that is broadly popular, one would not disagree with him on that particular matter, even if he is generally a doofus. Thus, it still makes sense to joke about Navalny's silliness without feeling compelled to disagree with him about that which is clearly true. After all, virtually everyone would agree that the sky is blue.
  13. @Anatoly Karlin
    You might not be interested in culture war, but culture war is interested in you.

    Cultural war equivalent more recently – a century in the future: Boris Yeltsin airport (but he was a thousand times less damaging).

    Or in America, that if some years a random city’s airport (with no connection to Obama), will be changed to Barack Obama airport – their most weak and incompetent president.

    (Perhaps Michelle Obama will also be promoted to be named for another random airport, as some activists wanted Koltsovo to be named for Elizaveta Fedorovna.)

    But then, that would be surely many times less stupid, as Obama was ten times stronger and more competent, and his leadership had negative consequences a hundred times less terrible for his country.

    There is historical evidence and really basic biographic knowledge, where it’s only acceptable to say it’s not a bad choice it if you don’t have this knowledge.

  14. @Muggles
    Interesting. Few are named after politicians. Many are cultural or scientific pioneers.

    Here in America many are renamed after politicians or dead presidents (Bush, Kennedy) and sometimes military heroes, often local and dead.

    I can't think of any American airport authorities that would honor a poll (or conduct one) via the Internet. Too much democratic input. Instead local bureaucrats and politicos get to choose.

    Now which nation is "authoritarian" again?

    The American tendency to name things after politicians has always annoyed me. We should give more representation to cultural and scientific figures:

    1 dollar bill: Edgar Allan Poe

    5 dollar bill: Wright Brothers

    10 dollar bill: John Ford

    20 dollar bill: Willa Cather (gotta have a gal these days)

    50 dollar bill: Mark Twain

    100 dollar bill: Courtesy of his literary and scientific work, Franklin gets to stay.

    • Replies: @songbird

    10 dollar bill: John Ford
     
    I should like Henry Ford to be on it. Mostly because I know it would annoy certain people.

    I am also partial to legendary figures, like Johny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, and Pecos Bill. I wonder, if Russia has any good mythological figures.

    BTW, nothing after Sikorsky? I mean, I know he left, but still - cool name. And highly appropriate.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    I'd be fine with all of these except changing the 20

    Andrew Jackson killed the bank and took a British officer's sword rather than clean his boots

    God bless him for that

    He is the embodiment of American popular resistance to elitist tyranny, an example of a virtuous self-made aristocrat

    I wouldn't mind finding room for Patrick Henry somewhere. Henry was my favorite founding father.

    I also agree with songbird RE: Henry rather than John Ford. And I'd be partial to making room for Charles Lindbergh.

    I'd probably put Washington on the hundred.

  15. @Bartolo
    @Anatoly Karlin: Is this an attack from The Saker against you? "Some of them will join the Alt-Right movement and pretend that the racist categories and ideology used by this movement have some traction in Russia (they don’t)." Why does this idiot keep taking shots at the Alt-Right?

    Saker is too strange to waste time reading.

    He’s old Swiss (unemployed) man, who lives in America.
    https://thesaker.is/what-happened-to-the-west-i-was-born-in

    His theories include that – Russians don’t care about money, that Russia is suited for Islam, and there is a war between Putin and “Anglo-Zionism”.

  16. @Dmitry
    Navalny is e.g. against open borders immigration. So now you support open borders immigration? And he might say other obvious things like "sky is blue" and "a minute has 60 seconds", which would then have to be false? How does this reasoning work, and why is celebrities' opinion (or people's opinion in general), relevant to truth or falsity of an issue.

    You identified the one issue on which Navalny is apparently less GloboHomo than Putin.

    And yet:

    1. Navalny is anti-open borders only in the sense that he is a cognitive elitist, not out of any respect for the national character. As he clarified in recent posts, he is fully on board with inviting in all the Uzbek or Ghanan college grads. Granted, this Canadian/Australian approach is much better than the default one of giving every Third World bum asylum. But still, nationalist it is not.

    2. Conversely, Putin is himself adopting both a more cognitively elitist *and* racially particularist (e.g. privileging Slavs) immigration policy.
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/russianness/

    3. Navalny’s trajectory is towards more GloboHomo. Putin’s trajectory is towards less GloboHomo.
    And it can’t be otherwise, because having lost all nationalist support, Navalny’s support group is boiling down to a very narrow stratum of old-school liberal Russophobes and neo-Soviet SJWs. E.g., this lady:

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I'm not a fan of Navalny either. (I am politically apathetic, and caring less about politics each year, but would overall hope Putin can become as president again in 2024)

    My point is that whether Navalny agrees with a view, is not an indication of whether the view is good or bad.

    If Navalny says the sky is blue, then whether you have a positive or negative view of him, does not effect the truth or falsity of the view.

    Indeed, Navalny's comment from the airport is histrionic and unbalanced, but a general attitude that this was a stupid name airport, after a negative historical leader, is true.

    To be Panglossian, I can see there is one advantage, that it might attract confused Western tourists, interested in royal families, to Murmansk?


    Navalny is anti-open borders only in the sense that he is a cognitive elitist, not out of any respect for the national character.

     

    I don't think this is true - at least, when I used to read his blog. He is anti-open borders for ordinary mix of reasons. Examples - https://navalny.com/p/4547

    Personally, I am anti-open borders more from "elitist view", not "national view". (A secular Ghanan intelligentsia of 150 IQ above only, sounds like good people.)

    But these motivations (national character, or elitist), are not the mutually exclusive ones, and the important thing is to design a more intelligent system of immigration, not to argue about motives with people whose proposals converge with yours.

    Navalny was originally nationalist, but creepily disguising his views. Maybe his views liberalize each year incrementally, because of his sponsors, friends or wife and daughter - it's all irrelevant, since he has no power, and is simply in the position of YouTuber, where his videos are quite entertaining.


    Putin is himself adopting both a more cognitively elitist *and* racially particularist

     

    Why try to imagine Putin is not completely open borders policy, when there are many years of policy direction. For example, principles of Eurasian Economic Union implies not even work permits to live and work in another member country, you just can walk across , and live and work (not even needing an international passport).

    Then recall, Tajikistan only is not part of the union, because they are angry with Kyrgyzstan. And that Uzbekistan only does not join, because they say they want to be independent from Russia.

    In other words, Uzbekistan leadership want to be more separate country from Russia, than vice-versa.

    Schengen area with Uzbekistan instead of Luxembourg and Monaco, only does not exist, because Uzbekistan leadership does not want it. And if they did, and if Russia had a welfare system equivalent to Sweden or UK, there would be nobody living in Uzbekistan.

    Policy direction from Russia was elimination of the main features of borders with these countries, and the policy was not realized because of the choices of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

    Russia's immigration situation is of course far better than Western Europe, but not because of authorities's plans, but more because circumstances defy those plans in multiple ways.


    Navalny’s trajectory is towards more GloboHomo. Putin’s trajectory is towards less GloboHomo.
    And it can’t be otherwise, because having lost all nationalist support, Navalny’s support group is boiling down to a very narrow stratum of old-school liberal Russophobes and neo-Soviet SJWs. E.g., this lady:
     
    Navalny has no power and will never have power - is just celebrity and YouTuber, so if he has pro-immigration supporting women fans, this is indeed amusing, but it has no consequences, beyond that a mix of different freaks will be a useful addition to his clown protests.

    As for his views on homos, we know this whole topic is almost irrelevant to normal life, except for some kind of symbolic marketing.

  17. wasn’t ” the commander Alexander Pokryshkin” the Soviet fighter pilot with the most downed German aircraft?
    and Alexei Maresyev the prototype for Boris Polevoy’s novel “Повесть о настоящем человеке was another fighter ace?

    • Replies: @Carlo
    Pokryshkin was the second highest scoring Allied ace, after Ivan Kozhedub.
  18. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:

    mr.Karlin could you translate that text conversation you had with that lady Ms.Popova. Thnx

    Also what makes the Popova lady neo-soviet SJW. what does that term mean.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    She's an extreme SJW. Nothing interesting in what she wrote, usual stuff (we're all humans, Islam cool & adaptable...)
  19. OT: What is happening? Ivanka cried alot again, or does the Armageddon finally begins?

  20. @Anatoly Karlin
    You identified the one issue on which Navalny is apparently less GloboHomo than Putin.

    And yet:

    1. Navalny is anti-open borders only in the sense that he is a cognitive elitist, not out of any respect for the national character. As he clarified in recent posts, he is fully on board with inviting in all the Uzbek or Ghanan college grads. Granted, this Canadian/Australian approach is much better than the default one of giving every Third World bum asylum. But still, nationalist it is not.

    2. Conversely, Putin is himself adopting both a more cognitively elitist *and* racially particularist (e.g. privileging Slavs) immigration policy.
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/russianness/

    3. Navalny's trajectory is towards more GloboHomo. Putin's trajectory is towards less GloboHomo.
    And it can't be otherwise, because having lost all nationalist support, Navalny's support group is boiling down to a very narrow stratum of old-school liberal Russophobes and neo-Soviet SJWs. E.g., this lady:

    https://i.imgur.com/h9UuQTG.png

    I’m not a fan of Navalny either. (I am politically apathetic, and caring less about politics each year, but would overall hope Putin can become as president again in 2024)

    My point is that whether Navalny agrees with a view, is not an indication of whether the view is good or bad.

    If Navalny says the sky is blue, then whether you have a positive or negative view of him, does not effect the truth or falsity of the view.

    Indeed, Navalny’s comment from the airport is histrionic and unbalanced, but a general attitude that this was a stupid name airport, after a negative historical leader, is true.

    To be Panglossian, I can see there is one advantage, that it might attract confused Western tourists, interested in royal families, to Murmansk?

    Navalny is anti-open borders only in the sense that he is a cognitive elitist, not out of any respect for the national character.

    I don’t think this is true – at least, when I used to read his blog. He is anti-open borders for ordinary mix of reasons. Examples – https://navalny.com/p/4547

    Personally, I am anti-open borders more from “elitist view”, not “national view”. (A secular Ghanan intelligentsia of 150 IQ above only, sounds like good people.)

    But these motivations (national character, or elitist), are not the mutually exclusive ones, and the important thing is to design a more intelligent system of immigration, not to argue about motives with people whose proposals converge with yours.

    Navalny was originally nationalist, but creepily disguising his views. Maybe his views liberalize each year incrementally, because of his sponsors, friends or wife and daughter – it’s all irrelevant, since he has no power, and is simply in the position of YouTuber, where his videos are quite entertaining.

    Putin is himself adopting both a more cognitively elitist *and* racially particularist

    Why try to imagine Putin is not completely open borders policy, when there are many years of policy direction. For example, principles of Eurasian Economic Union implies not even work permits to live and work in another member country, you just can walk across , and live and work (not even needing an international passport).

    Then recall, Tajikistan only is not part of the union, because they are angry with Kyrgyzstan. And that Uzbekistan only does not join, because they say they want to be independent from Russia.

    In other words, Uzbekistan leadership want to be more separate country from Russia, than vice-versa.

    Schengen area with Uzbekistan instead of Luxembourg and Monaco, only does not exist, because Uzbekistan leadership does not want it. And if they did, and if Russia had a welfare system equivalent to Sweden or UK, there would be nobody living in Uzbekistan.

    Policy direction from Russia was elimination of the main features of borders with these countries, and the policy was not realized because of the choices of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

    Russia’s immigration situation is of course far better than Western Europe, but not because of authorities’s plans, but more because circumstances defy those plans in multiple ways.

    Navalny’s trajectory is towards more GloboHomo. Putin’s trajectory is towards less GloboHomo.
    And it can’t be otherwise, because having lost all nationalist support, Navalny’s support group is boiling down to a very narrow stratum of old-school liberal Russophobes and neo-Soviet SJWs. E.g., this lady:

    Navalny has no power and will never have power – is just celebrity and YouTuber, so if he has pro-immigration supporting women fans, this is indeed amusing, but it has no consequences, beyond that a mix of different freaks will be a useful addition to his clown protests.

    As for his views on homos, we know this whole topic is almost irrelevant to normal life, except for some kind of symbolic marketing.

    • Replies: @Mitleser

    but would overall hope Putin can become as president again in 2024
     
    WTF is wrong with you?
  21. @Old Jew
    wasn't " the commander Alexander Pokryshkin" the Soviet fighter pilot with the most downed German aircraft?
    and Alexei Maresyev the prototype for Boris Polevoy's novel "Повесть о настоящем человеке was another fighter ace?

    Pokryshkin was the second highest scoring Allied ace, after Ivan Kozhedub.

  22. @syonredux
    The American tendency to name things after politicians has always annoyed me. We should give more representation to cultural and scientific figures:

    1 dollar bill: Edgar Allan Poe

    5 dollar bill: Wright Brothers

    10 dollar bill: John Ford

    20 dollar bill: Willa Cather (gotta have a gal these days)

    50 dollar bill: Mark Twain

    100 dollar bill: Courtesy of his literary and scientific work, Franklin gets to stay.

    10 dollar bill: John Ford

    I should like Henry Ford to be on it. Mostly because I know it would annoy certain people.

    I am also partial to legendary figures, like Johny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, and Pecos Bill. I wonder, if Russia has any good mythological figures.

    BTW, nothing after Sikorsky? I mean, I know he left, but still – cool name. And highly appropriate.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Don't forget John Henry (for the blacks) and Joe Magarac (for the Rust Belt)

    Also, why not find a bill for ball players from the good old days, like Babe Ruth or Swingin' Stan Musial?
  23. The women are all royalty. None accomplished anything, I assume, independently of their titles.

    • Replies: @Matra
    I guess that means there are few Russian women of the superstar quality of, say, a Harriet Tubman.
    , @melanf

    The women are all royalty. None accomplished anything, I assume, independently of their titles.
     
    Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Empress Catherine II both took the throne by force, not inherited it.
    , @anonymous coward
    Catherine II was the most ruthless and hardcore of all Russian rulers.

    If you visit some random Russian town, you'd notice that her legacy is even more predominant than Soviet legacy. (Soviet artifacts are quickly disappearing in Russia. Well, except for commieblocks, that is.)

    Her social engineering projects succeeded where other rulers have failed.
  24. @Matra
    The women are all royalty. None accomplished anything, I assume, independently of their titles.

    I guess that means there are few Russian women of the superstar quality of, say, a Harriet Tubman.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Closest one I can think of is Valentina Tereshkova, first woman in space. I think most Russians appreciate it was affirmative-action.

    But funnily enough she remains the only woman to complete a solo space mission. Though, I guess that makes sense anyway, due to cost constraints. But it is still funny.
  25. @Matra
    The women are all royalty. None accomplished anything, I assume, independently of their titles.

    The women are all royalty. None accomplished anything, I assume, independently of their titles.

    Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Empress Catherine II both took the throne by force, not inherited it.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Figureheads probably spending their time picking dresses and jewellery, enjoying dances and banquets and fucking around, while real power was wielded behind the scenes and by their advisors and ministers.

    Can you imagine any of them planning the economy, outlining reforms, drawing up military plans and developing geostrategy of Russian Empire? Imperial authority ultimately rests on men willing to die in service or to protect the ruler - somehow I fail to see any possibility of women climbing to power and achieving this.

  26. I am also partial to legendary figures, like Johny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, and Pecos Bill. I wonder, if Russia has any good mythological figures.

    Such figures a lot. For example Vasilisa Mikulishna, the giant’s daughter, Amazon :

    She married the famous singer Stavr Godinovich (Novgorod aristocrat). Stavr was sent as an Ambassador to the Prince of Kiev, and Vasilisa explained to him for a long time that he should not boast of the beauty of his wife before the Prince. Stavr naturally forgotten, and in a Banquet at began to boast how his wife the fairest beauty in the world.
    The Prince heard this and immediately shackled Stavr in chains, threw into the pit and say – “give me your wife, or you will sit in the pit forever”.

    When Vasilisa learned about the incident she disguised as a man galloped on horseback and in armor to the court of the Prince of Kiev,
    posing himself as a Lithuanian Prince, and consistently:
    1)beat all the local knight in the course of the joust with spear,
    2)won a competition of archers,
    3)won the chess tournament,
    and in the end she (as an award) was declared the groom of the Prince’s niece. At the wedding feast were the singers. Of course Vasilisa began to criticize one singer after another – this singing bad, this even worse, all singer in my country better. In the end, the Prince was offended (for the level of music), and ordered to release Stavr from the pit to sing at the feast. When Stavr was brought into the hall Vasilisa grabbed him by the collar, threw on horseback (she was the daughter of a giant and have the giant power), and rode.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Sounds like an interesting character. Reminds me of Brunhild.
  27. Russia’s civil airports have been renamed in line with a national Internet poll

    Boaty McBoatface

    • Replies: @crawly
    Airporty McAirportface
  28. Some of the names a foreigner might expect are absent.

    Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoyevksy, Stravinsky, Mussgorsky, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Kandinsky, Chagall, Rublev…

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @jimmyriddle
    Donetsk airport is named after Prokofiev.
    , @jimmyriddle
    And as for Dosteyevsky:

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=MtMC9Gd4sK4


    (predictably, the BBC actually censored this joke)
    , @melanf
    Then the list should look like Turgenev, Alexey Konstantinovich Tolstoy, Alexey Nikolaevich Tolstoy, Dostoyevksy, Stravinsky, Mussgorsky, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich

    Kandinsky, Chagall, and Leo Tolstoy is a disgrace of the country. Rublev is interesting only as an example of an ultra-low level of medieval painting
    , @Dmitry
    This idea of writers, composers and artists, for airports, is cool, but it would only be suitable if they are very specific to the region of the airport. If only the famous artists are local to the region, then it's cool for both tourists and local pride.

    This is why the writer Bazhov was perfect for Koltsovo.
    -

    Recall, Bazhov was winning by 4% for Koltsovo. Then in the last day, results mysteriously reversed to Demidov (who was only in 3rd position before), and who has no relationship to the city.

    The owner of the airport, Vekselberg, wanted Demidov to win the competition, probably because he wants to focus on metal mining and metallurgy (which is his business as well). And the sudden change in the last day, seems suspicious, as it matches the earlier expressed desires of airport owner Vekselberg.

    Bazhov's writing even relates to mining and metallurgy , so he should match all criteria.

    I only imagine the problem was a prejudice against folk story writers, or some desire to celebrate historical equivalents of modern oligarchs (Demidov).

    Anyway, at least it's not Nicholas II.

  29. Did Gorbachev get any votes for Mineralnye Vody?

  30. @PiltdownMan
    Some of the names a foreigner might expect are absent.


    Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoyevksy, Stravinsky, Mussgorsky, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Kandinsky, Chagall, Rublev...

    Donetsk airport is named after Prokofiev.

    • Agree: PiltdownMan
  31. @PiltdownMan
    Some of the names a foreigner might expect are absent.


    Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoyevksy, Stravinsky, Mussgorsky, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Kandinsky, Chagall, Rublev...

    And as for Dosteyevsky:

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=MtMC9Gd4sK4

    (predictably, the BBC actually censored this joke)

  32. Nicholas II is judged far too harshly.

    Never has a monarch been subjected to such an insidious, foreign orchestrated and sponsored simmering rebellion.

    Never has an Empire had several traitorous minorities each numbering several million.

    The nobility of Russian Empire was altogether a weakness – many of foreign descent, generally of lower education and value than their foreign analogues.
    You can’t blame Nicholas II for stupid, woefully incompetent naval designers and boards, horrible naval and army officers and general backwardness of the country.

    You are forgetting the fact that Russia was destabilised and actively opposed by other Great Powers for a long time (except France in the late 19th century), that Russo-Japanese War was part of the Big Game, and that often looked over 1904-1906 revolution saw several thousand dead Russian officials.
    Hindisight is everything, but back in 1900s no one could predict the sadism and bloodlust of various (((scum))) and scum.
    And it wasn’t Russian internal issue – someone was funding the “Russian” exiles and revolutionaries, providing funds for their “work” and subversion, travels – the same groups which took care of Trotsky in his post-Lenin exile and enabled him to have bodyguards at disposal.

    Lets compare Nicholas II to Russian rulers who failed to capitalize on any Russian success in wars – 7 year war 1763, end of Napoleonic wars 1813-1815, stupidity of Holy Alliance, 1848-1849 aid to Habsburgs, 1878 congress of Berlin, or the genius who dragged Russia into disastrous Crimean War.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Lets compare Nicholas II to Russian rulers
     
    There's nothing to compare. Nicholas was the worst ruler of Russia in its history
    , @reiner Tor

    1848-1849 aid to Habsburgs... or the genius who dragged Russia into disastrous Crimean War
     
    That's the same person, Nicholas I.
    , @reiner Tor

    failed to capitalize on any Russian success in wars
     
    It was often very difficult to capitalize on those successes, for example after Napoleon no European power wanted Russia to become any stronger than it did. Besides, we now know that having ethnic minorities is a net cost, not a net asset.

    If I had to rerun Russian history as some kind of strategy game, I'd probably have chosen Galicia instead of the Grand Duchy of Poland, and then somehow try to Russify the Ukrainian population. (Starting a huge mass literacy program in Russian only? Or something like that.) I'd probably have tried to ethnically cleanse the Northern Caucasus region from the local Muslim tribes. (In fairness, they did a great deal of this.) Same thing with Crimean Tatars. (Ditto.) Otherwise I'd have thought twice about conquering areas beyond the Caucasus mountains (or in Central Asia south of present day Kazakhstan). Basically conquering uninhabited or barely inhabited regions was a huge asset (Russia still benefits enormously from having Siberia or the Kuban), but acquiring unassimilable minorities dragged Russia down.

    Similarly, I'd be wary of trying to conquer Korea and Manchuria. These regions dragged Russia into war with Japan, so avoiding them completely would've saved Russia both the humiliation of the Russo-Japanese war and the revolution of 1905-7.

    Of course, being harsh on revolutionaries in the early 20th century would've been good, but hindsight is always 20/20.
  33. @melanf

    The women are all royalty. None accomplished anything, I assume, independently of their titles.
     
    Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Empress Catherine II both took the throne by force, not inherited it.

    Figureheads probably spending their time picking dresses and jewellery, enjoying dances and banquets and fucking around, while real power was wielded behind the scenes and by their advisors and ministers.

    Can you imagine any of them planning the economy, outlining reforms, drawing up military plans and developing geostrategy of Russian Empire? Imperial authority ultimately rests on men willing to die in service or to protect the ruler – somehow I fail to see any possibility of women climbing to power and achieving this.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Figureheads (Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Empress Catherine II) probably spending their time picking dresses and jewellery, enjoying dances and banquets and fucking around, while real power was wielded behind the scenes and by their advisors and ministers.
     
    In this case, this statement is complete nonsense

    Can you imagine any of them planning the economy, outlining reforms, drawing up military plans and developing geostrategy of Russian Empire?
     
    Both of Empress were doing it (which you can see by reading any scientific work on the relevant era)
  34. @PiltdownMan
    Some of the names a foreigner might expect are absent.


    Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoyevksy, Stravinsky, Mussgorsky, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Kandinsky, Chagall, Rublev...

    Then the list should look like Turgenev, Alexey Konstantinovich Tolstoy, Alexey Nikolaevich Tolstoy, Dostoyevksy, Stravinsky, Mussgorsky, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich

    Kandinsky, Chagall, and Leo Tolstoy is a disgrace of the country. Rublev is interesting only as an example of an ultra-low level of medieval painting

    • Replies: @hgv
    Why is Tolstoy a disgrace?
  35. @Epigon
    Nicholas II is judged far too harshly.

    Never has a monarch been subjected to such an insidious, foreign orchestrated and sponsored simmering rebellion.

    Never has an Empire had several traitorous minorities each numbering several million.

    The nobility of Russian Empire was altogether a weakness - many of foreign descent, generally of lower education and value than their foreign analogues.
    You can't blame Nicholas II for stupid, woefully incompetent naval designers and boards, horrible naval and army officers and general backwardness of the country.

    You are forgetting the fact that Russia was destabilised and actively opposed by other Great Powers for a long time (except France in the late 19th century), that Russo-Japanese War was part of the Big Game, and that often looked over 1904-1906 revolution saw several thousand dead Russian officials.
    Hindisight is everything, but back in 1900s no one could predict the sadism and bloodlust of various (((scum))) and scum.
    And it wasn't Russian internal issue - someone was funding the "Russian" exiles and revolutionaries, providing funds for their "work" and subversion, travels - the same groups which took care of Trotsky in his post-Lenin exile and enabled him to have bodyguards at disposal.


    Lets compare Nicholas II to Russian rulers who failed to capitalize on any Russian success in wars - 7 year war 1763, end of Napoleonic wars 1813-1815, stupidity of Holy Alliance, 1848-1849 aid to Habsburgs, 1878 congress of Berlin, or the genius who dragged Russia into disastrous Crimean War.

    Lets compare Nicholas II to Russian rulers

    There’s nothing to compare. Nicholas was the worst ruler of Russia in its history

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    If WW1 hadn't happened, Nicky would be viewed moderately well. If February 1917 hadn't happened, and Russia was amongst the winners of WW1, then he'd be viewed as one of Russia's Greats. Obviously February and then October did happen, so Nicky has a horrific reputation. But there are plenty of parallel universes - the vast majority of them - where neither happened.
  36. @Epigon
    Figureheads probably spending their time picking dresses and jewellery, enjoying dances and banquets and fucking around, while real power was wielded behind the scenes and by their advisors and ministers.

    Can you imagine any of them planning the economy, outlining reforms, drawing up military plans and developing geostrategy of Russian Empire? Imperial authority ultimately rests on men willing to die in service or to protect the ruler - somehow I fail to see any possibility of women climbing to power and achieving this.

    Figureheads (Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Empress Catherine II) probably spending their time picking dresses and jewellery, enjoying dances and banquets and fucking around, while real power was wielded behind the scenes and by their advisors and ministers.

    In this case, this statement is complete nonsense

    Can you imagine any of them planning the economy, outlining reforms, drawing up military plans and developing geostrategy of Russian Empire?

    Both of Empress were doing it (which you can see by reading any scientific work on the relevant era)

    • Replies: @Epigon

    In this case, this statement is complete nonsense
    Both of Empress were doing it (which you can see by reading any scientific work on the relevant era)
     
    The "scientific work" you quote is based on ruler hagiography, not primary sources or evidence.

    The absolutist monarchs are vastly overrated and overstated in the actual influence and practical decisions they made.

    Uncritically absorbing written material and appealing to authority doesn't work in case of biological (even the empress' day has 24 hours), technological (Imperial decisions and governing over how many time zones and square kilometres?) and intellectual/educational - which practical knowledge and skills did the empresses posses that would allow them to decide on crucial issues?


    Nicholas was the worst ruler of Russia in its history
     
    Not even close. You are judging him mostly by the outcome and results, and not factoring in the initial position, difficulties and challenges he was faced with in comparison to his predecessors.
  37. @Matra
    I guess that means there are few Russian women of the superstar quality of, say, a Harriet Tubman.

    Closest one I can think of is Valentina Tereshkova, first woman in space. I think most Russians appreciate it was affirmative-action.

    But funnily enough she remains the only woman to complete a solo space mission. Though, I guess that makes sense anyway, due to cost constraints. But it is still funny.

  38. @melanf

    I am also partial to legendary figures, like Johny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, and Pecos Bill. I wonder, if Russia has any good mythological figures.
     
    Such figures a lot. For example Vasilisa Mikulishna, the giant's daughter, Amazon :

    https://allpainters.ru/wp-content/uploads/paintings/vasilisa-mikulishna.jpg

    She married the famous singer Stavr Godinovich (Novgorod aristocrat). Stavr was sent as an Ambassador to the Prince of Kiev, and Vasilisa explained to him for a long time that he should not boast of the beauty of his wife before the Prince. Stavr naturally forgotten, and in a Banquet at began to boast how his wife the fairest beauty in the world.
    The Prince heard this and immediately shackled Stavr in chains, threw into the pit and say - "give me your wife, or you will sit in the pit forever".

    When Vasilisa learned about the incident she disguised as a man galloped on horseback and in armor to the court of the Prince of Kiev,
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QlurPCspZHY/W7asEkBzXII/AAAAAAAAF8A/bgLDIuveno8Uw2Z7qBWnIjOnPYo_s5qAgCLcBGAs/s1600/A.%2BKoszkin.jpg

    posing himself as a Lithuanian Prince, and consistently:
    1)beat all the local knight in the course of the joust with spear,
    2)won a competition of archers,
    3)won the chess tournament,
    and in the end she (as an award) was declared the groom of the Prince's niece. At the wedding feast were the singers. Of course Vasilisa began to criticize one singer after another - this singing bad, this even worse, all singer in my country better. In the end, the Prince was offended (for the level of music), and ordered to release Stavr from the pit to sing at the feast. When Stavr was brought into the hall Vasilisa grabbed him by the collar, threw on horseback (she was the daughter of a giant and have the giant power), and rode.

    Sounds like an interesting character. Reminds me of Brunhild.

  39. @Epigon
    Nicholas II is judged far too harshly.

    Never has a monarch been subjected to such an insidious, foreign orchestrated and sponsored simmering rebellion.

    Never has an Empire had several traitorous minorities each numbering several million.

    The nobility of Russian Empire was altogether a weakness - many of foreign descent, generally of lower education and value than their foreign analogues.
    You can't blame Nicholas II for stupid, woefully incompetent naval designers and boards, horrible naval and army officers and general backwardness of the country.

    You are forgetting the fact that Russia was destabilised and actively opposed by other Great Powers for a long time (except France in the late 19th century), that Russo-Japanese War was part of the Big Game, and that often looked over 1904-1906 revolution saw several thousand dead Russian officials.
    Hindisight is everything, but back in 1900s no one could predict the sadism and bloodlust of various (((scum))) and scum.
    And it wasn't Russian internal issue - someone was funding the "Russian" exiles and revolutionaries, providing funds for their "work" and subversion, travels - the same groups which took care of Trotsky in his post-Lenin exile and enabled him to have bodyguards at disposal.


    Lets compare Nicholas II to Russian rulers who failed to capitalize on any Russian success in wars - 7 year war 1763, end of Napoleonic wars 1813-1815, stupidity of Holy Alliance, 1848-1849 aid to Habsburgs, 1878 congress of Berlin, or the genius who dragged Russia into disastrous Crimean War.

    1848-1849 aid to Habsburgs… or the genius who dragged Russia into disastrous Crimean War

    That’s the same person, Nicholas I.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    I was making a distinction between fools who squandered Russian lives for no apparent gain on one side, and Nicholas I who managed to simultaneously fight Brits, French, Italians and Turks.
  40. @Dmitry
    I'm not a fan of Navalny either. (I am politically apathetic, and caring less about politics each year, but would overall hope Putin can become as president again in 2024)

    My point is that whether Navalny agrees with a view, is not an indication of whether the view is good or bad.

    If Navalny says the sky is blue, then whether you have a positive or negative view of him, does not effect the truth or falsity of the view.

    Indeed, Navalny's comment from the airport is histrionic and unbalanced, but a general attitude that this was a stupid name airport, after a negative historical leader, is true.

    To be Panglossian, I can see there is one advantage, that it might attract confused Western tourists, interested in royal families, to Murmansk?


    Navalny is anti-open borders only in the sense that he is a cognitive elitist, not out of any respect for the national character.

     

    I don't think this is true - at least, when I used to read his blog. He is anti-open borders for ordinary mix of reasons. Examples - https://navalny.com/p/4547

    Personally, I am anti-open borders more from "elitist view", not "national view". (A secular Ghanan intelligentsia of 150 IQ above only, sounds like good people.)

    But these motivations (national character, or elitist), are not the mutually exclusive ones, and the important thing is to design a more intelligent system of immigration, not to argue about motives with people whose proposals converge with yours.

    Navalny was originally nationalist, but creepily disguising his views. Maybe his views liberalize each year incrementally, because of his sponsors, friends or wife and daughter - it's all irrelevant, since he has no power, and is simply in the position of YouTuber, where his videos are quite entertaining.


    Putin is himself adopting both a more cognitively elitist *and* racially particularist

     

    Why try to imagine Putin is not completely open borders policy, when there are many years of policy direction. For example, principles of Eurasian Economic Union implies not even work permits to live and work in another member country, you just can walk across , and live and work (not even needing an international passport).

    Then recall, Tajikistan only is not part of the union, because they are angry with Kyrgyzstan. And that Uzbekistan only does not join, because they say they want to be independent from Russia.

    In other words, Uzbekistan leadership want to be more separate country from Russia, than vice-versa.

    Schengen area with Uzbekistan instead of Luxembourg and Monaco, only does not exist, because Uzbekistan leadership does not want it. And if they did, and if Russia had a welfare system equivalent to Sweden or UK, there would be nobody living in Uzbekistan.

    Policy direction from Russia was elimination of the main features of borders with these countries, and the policy was not realized because of the choices of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

    Russia's immigration situation is of course far better than Western Europe, but not because of authorities's plans, but more because circumstances defy those plans in multiple ways.


    Navalny’s trajectory is towards more GloboHomo. Putin’s trajectory is towards less GloboHomo.
    And it can’t be otherwise, because having lost all nationalist support, Navalny’s support group is boiling down to a very narrow stratum of old-school liberal Russophobes and neo-Soviet SJWs. E.g., this lady:
     
    Navalny has no power and will never have power - is just celebrity and YouTuber, so if he has pro-immigration supporting women fans, this is indeed amusing, but it has no consequences, beyond that a mix of different freaks will be a useful addition to his clown protests.

    As for his views on homos, we know this whole topic is almost irrelevant to normal life, except for some kind of symbolic marketing.

    but would overall hope Putin can become as president again in 2024

    WTF is wrong with you?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Whatever problem you think there is with Putin, the alternative option will probably be much worse.

    Risk aversion - we don't know how competent Putin is, because we cannot test alternatives (you cannot try them on before you purchase them). It's possible, that Putin's job (particularly of managing different interests) is quite difficult, and he is much more competent in various skills for managing the government, than alternatives even comprehend.

    For example, Prokhorov had better economic policy proposals in 2012 - but it's possible, that he could have been completely incompetent in other areas of management of government and different groups, whereas with Putin it is already known that he is at least slightly competent in this area.

    Exposure to unnecessary risk can be understood as a cost, even if you hope you will be lucky. Moreover, continuity of political leadership is a virtue for itself, which allows for longer term planning.

    Also Putin has personal/social skills, which are not very evident in the alternative options.

  41. @Dmitry
    Navalny is e.g. against open borders immigration. So now you support open borders immigration? And he might say other obvious things like "sky is blue" and "a minute has 60 seconds", which would then have to be false? How does this reasoning work, and why is celebrities' opinion (or people's opinion in general), relevant to truth or falsity of an issue.

    Your question has an obvious answer. If Navalny were to make a statement that is self-evident or take a position that is broadly popular, one would not disagree with him on that particular matter, even if he is generally a doofus. Thus, it still makes sense to joke about Navalny’s silliness without feeling compelled to disagree with him about that which is clearly true. After all, virtually everyone would agree that the sky is blue.

  42. Had Putin intervened in the naming process, at least one airport would have been named after one of Putler’s favorite historical figures (I.e: Yuri Andropov, Alexander III, Solzhenitsyn).
    Still disappointed to see that Kaliningrad’s airport wasn’t named after Kant, or that figures like Euler, Suvorov,Bagration or Soviet Marshals (Vassilevsky,Zhukov) did not appear.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Soviet Marshals (Vassilevsky,Zhukov)
     
    I'm not a big fan of Zhukov. (He was a good commander, but I find his total disregard for human life distasteful.) My random short list would include General Vatutin and Marshals Vasilevsky and Rokossovsky. (I guess Vatutin would've become a Marshal, had he not died in April 1944.) Of the Marshals, Konev would come after this three.
    , @melanf

    Still disappointed to see that Kaliningrad’s airport wasn’t named after Kant,
     
    The University in Kaliningrad (and a number of other objects) is named after Kant.

    or that figures like Euler, Suvorov,Bagration
     
    Suvorov and Bagration already have enough glory (in honor of Bagration - the whole town). Euler really undeservedly stayed in the shadows
  43. @Epigon
    Nicholas II is judged far too harshly.

    Never has a monarch been subjected to such an insidious, foreign orchestrated and sponsored simmering rebellion.

    Never has an Empire had several traitorous minorities each numbering several million.

    The nobility of Russian Empire was altogether a weakness - many of foreign descent, generally of lower education and value than their foreign analogues.
    You can't blame Nicholas II for stupid, woefully incompetent naval designers and boards, horrible naval and army officers and general backwardness of the country.

    You are forgetting the fact that Russia was destabilised and actively opposed by other Great Powers for a long time (except France in the late 19th century), that Russo-Japanese War was part of the Big Game, and that often looked over 1904-1906 revolution saw several thousand dead Russian officials.
    Hindisight is everything, but back in 1900s no one could predict the sadism and bloodlust of various (((scum))) and scum.
    And it wasn't Russian internal issue - someone was funding the "Russian" exiles and revolutionaries, providing funds for their "work" and subversion, travels - the same groups which took care of Trotsky in his post-Lenin exile and enabled him to have bodyguards at disposal.


    Lets compare Nicholas II to Russian rulers who failed to capitalize on any Russian success in wars - 7 year war 1763, end of Napoleonic wars 1813-1815, stupidity of Holy Alliance, 1848-1849 aid to Habsburgs, 1878 congress of Berlin, or the genius who dragged Russia into disastrous Crimean War.

    failed to capitalize on any Russian success in wars

    It was often very difficult to capitalize on those successes, for example after Napoleon no European power wanted Russia to become any stronger than it did. Besides, we now know that having ethnic minorities is a net cost, not a net asset.

    If I had to rerun Russian history as some kind of strategy game, I’d probably have chosen Galicia instead of the Grand Duchy of Poland, and then somehow try to Russify the Ukrainian population. (Starting a huge mass literacy program in Russian only? Or something like that.) I’d probably have tried to ethnically cleanse the Northern Caucasus region from the local Muslim tribes. (In fairness, they did a great deal of this.) Same thing with Crimean Tatars. (Ditto.) Otherwise I’d have thought twice about conquering areas beyond the Caucasus mountains (or in Central Asia south of present day Kazakhstan). Basically conquering uninhabited or barely inhabited regions was a huge asset (Russia still benefits enormously from having Siberia or the Kuban), but acquiring unassimilable minorities dragged Russia down.

    Similarly, I’d be wary of trying to conquer Korea and Manchuria. These regions dragged Russia into war with Japan, so avoiding them completely would’ve saved Russia both the humiliation of the Russo-Japanese war and the revolution of 1905-7.

    Of course, being harsh on revolutionaries in the early 20th century would’ve been good, but hindsight is always 20/20.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Epigon
    1. Deliver a coup de grace to Habsburgs at first opportunity

    2. Prevent unified Germany at all costs

    3. Dismantle the foreign descent dominated "Russian" nobility, their stranglehold on Army and Navy (seriously, look up the admiral and general ranks, surnames)- this is GSG talking, Nicky was like 1% Russian by descent - total cancer.

    4. A very important issue - return Patriarch to Kiev, give privileges to Ukrainians and Belarusians, with Russian being lingua franca of Empire

    5. Central Asia to be ignored once south Siberia is secured, Caucasus Christians supported against Muslims in the region at all cost

    6. Manchuria is actually needed to plug the "gap" and secure Vladivostok - not too bad resource-wise as well.

    7. Optional - support Poles, Czechs and Slovaks against their non-Slav rivals and enforce their claims in the long run. Likewise, aim to split key areas of Ottoman Balkans between Serbs and Bulgarians.


    Economy-vise - small and medium farmer empowerement an absolute must, literacy and school programmes - goes in well with curbing of heredetary nobility.

  44. @reiner Tor

    1848-1849 aid to Habsburgs... or the genius who dragged Russia into disastrous Crimean War
     
    That's the same person, Nicholas I.

    I was making a distinction between fools who squandered Russian lives for no apparent gain on one side, and Nicholas I who managed to simultaneously fight Brits, French, Italians and Turks.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    squandered Russian lives for no apparent gain on one side
     
    Such wars are twelve a dozen. Most greater powers waged several such wars. Even many wars resulting in conquest (Scramble for Africa) were actually useless wastes of lives and resources. So Russian rulers who fought wars without any apparent gains were like other rulers of other countries. I guess it's unavoidable.
  45. @Swarthy Greek
    Had Putin intervened in the naming process, at least one airport would have been named after one of Putler’s favorite historical figures (I.e: Yuri Andropov, Alexander III, Solzhenitsyn).
    Still disappointed to see that Kaliningrad’s airport wasn’t named after Kant, or that figures like Euler, Suvorov,Bagration or Soviet Marshals (Vassilevsky,Zhukov) did not appear.

    Soviet Marshals (Vassilevsky,Zhukov)

    I’m not a big fan of Zhukov. (He was a good commander, but I find his total disregard for human life distasteful.) My random short list would include General Vatutin and Marshals Vasilevsky and Rokossovsky. (I guess Vatutin would’ve become a Marshal, had he not died in April 1944.) Of the Marshals, Konev would come after this three.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    General Antonov, perhaps, too?

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

    , @melanf

    I’m not a big fan of Zhukov. (He was a good commander, but I find his total disregard for human life distasteful.)
     
    This is exactly a false statement that has been repeatedly shown by historians. Troops under the command Zhukov constantly had smaller losses, than under the command other generals (under similar conditions). The commander whose reputation sorely suffered from the opening of the archives is Rokossovsky
    , @Epigon
    Zhukov had high casualty peaks, but his decisive actions shortened the campaigns and by exploiting the costly breakthroughs, the final result was achieved with lower total losses than would be in case of a steadier, longer periods of attrition during offensives.

    Of course, this is not true for Rzhev, which was a costly fiasco.

  46. @melanf

    Figureheads (Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Empress Catherine II) probably spending their time picking dresses and jewellery, enjoying dances and banquets and fucking around, while real power was wielded behind the scenes and by their advisors and ministers.
     
    In this case, this statement is complete nonsense

    Can you imagine any of them planning the economy, outlining reforms, drawing up military plans and developing geostrategy of Russian Empire?
     
    Both of Empress were doing it (which you can see by reading any scientific work on the relevant era)

    In this case, this statement is complete nonsense
    Both of Empress were doing it (which you can see by reading any scientific work on the relevant era)

    The “scientific work” you quote is based on ruler hagiography, not primary sources or evidence.

    The absolutist monarchs are vastly overrated and overstated in the actual influence and practical decisions they made.

    Uncritically absorbing written material and appealing to authority doesn’t work in case of biological (even the empress’ day has 24 hours), technological (Imperial decisions and governing over how many time zones and square kilometres?) and intellectual/educational – which practical knowledge and skills did the empresses posses that would allow them to decide on crucial issues?

    Nicholas was the worst ruler of Russia in its history

    Not even close. You are judging him mostly by the outcome and results, and not factoring in the initial position, difficulties and challenges he was faced with in comparison to his predecessors.

  47. @Epigon
    I was making a distinction between fools who squandered Russian lives for no apparent gain on one side, and Nicholas I who managed to simultaneously fight Brits, French, Italians and Turks.

    squandered Russian lives for no apparent gain on one side

    Such wars are twelve a dozen. Most greater powers waged several such wars. Even many wars resulting in conquest (Scramble for Africa) were actually useless wastes of lives and resources. So Russian rulers who fought wars without any apparent gains were like other rulers of other countries. I guess it’s unavoidable.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Compare that to GOAT Bismarck - every single war was purposeful, just a tool to attain political goals.

    Blundering into a costly war for no apparent gain is the definition of foolish government.
  48. @reiner Tor

    Soviet Marshals (Vassilevsky,Zhukov)
     
    I'm not a big fan of Zhukov. (He was a good commander, but I find his total disregard for human life distasteful.) My random short list would include General Vatutin and Marshals Vasilevsky and Rokossovsky. (I guess Vatutin would've become a Marshal, had he not died in April 1944.) Of the Marshals, Konev would come after this three.

    General Antonov, perhaps, too?

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

  49. @reiner Tor

    failed to capitalize on any Russian success in wars
     
    It was often very difficult to capitalize on those successes, for example after Napoleon no European power wanted Russia to become any stronger than it did. Besides, we now know that having ethnic minorities is a net cost, not a net asset.

    If I had to rerun Russian history as some kind of strategy game, I'd probably have chosen Galicia instead of the Grand Duchy of Poland, and then somehow try to Russify the Ukrainian population. (Starting a huge mass literacy program in Russian only? Or something like that.) I'd probably have tried to ethnically cleanse the Northern Caucasus region from the local Muslim tribes. (In fairness, they did a great deal of this.) Same thing with Crimean Tatars. (Ditto.) Otherwise I'd have thought twice about conquering areas beyond the Caucasus mountains (or in Central Asia south of present day Kazakhstan). Basically conquering uninhabited or barely inhabited regions was a huge asset (Russia still benefits enormously from having Siberia or the Kuban), but acquiring unassimilable minorities dragged Russia down.

    Similarly, I'd be wary of trying to conquer Korea and Manchuria. These regions dragged Russia into war with Japan, so avoiding them completely would've saved Russia both the humiliation of the Russo-Japanese war and the revolution of 1905-7.

    Of course, being harsh on revolutionaries in the early 20th century would've been good, but hindsight is always 20/20.

    1. Deliver a coup de grace to Habsburgs at first opportunity

    2. Prevent unified Germany at all costs

    3. Dismantle the foreign descent dominated “Russian” nobility, their stranglehold on Army and Navy (seriously, look up the admiral and general ranks, surnames)- this is GSG talking, Nicky was like 1% Russian by descent – total cancer.

    4. A very important issue – return Patriarch to Kiev, give privileges to Ukrainians and Belarusians, with Russian being lingua franca of Empire

    5. Central Asia to be ignored once south Siberia is secured, Caucasus Christians supported against Muslims in the region at all cost

    6. Manchuria is actually needed to plug the “gap” and secure Vladivostok – not too bad resource-wise as well.

    7. Optional – support Poles, Czechs and Slovaks against their non-Slav rivals and enforce their claims in the long run. Likewise, aim to split key areas of Ottoman Balkans between Serbs and Bulgarians.

    Economy-vise – small and medium farmer empowerement an absolute must, literacy and school programmes – goes in well with curbing of heredetary nobility.

    • Agree: Adam
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    1. Deliver a coup de grace to Habsburgs at first opportunity

    2. Prevent unified Germany at all costs

    7. Optional – support Poles, Czechs and Slovaks against their non-Slav rivals and enforce their claims in the long run. Likewise, aim to split key areas of Ottoman Balkans between Serbs and Bulgarians.
     
    But it's questionable how beneficial this would've been. Russian support for pan-Slavism was considered to be a sign of Russian imperialist designs on these territories. Basically you need to avoid the impression that you want to expand indefinitely, or else you'll get into conflict with others.

    Also, in the absence of a unified Germany, France was free not to support Russia against anyone - this was one partial explanation for the Crimean War. France was stronger than a unified Germany would've been until probably the 1850s or even 1860s.

    So overall, it might turn out the way US Middle Eastern wars turned out for Israel. After taking out Iraq, Iran emerged as a threat, no Syria and Turkey might be threatening, etc.

    I also didn't want to just change all things with hindsight - yes, a unified Germany turned out badly, but Bismarck was friendly during the Polish uprising (and it wasn't predetermined that German rulers would turn against Russia longer term, see Wilhelm II's vacillation in the 1900s for example), and it was questionable what stabbing him in the back would've brought Russia - perhaps another war with France?

    4. A very important issue – return Patriarch to Kiev, give privileges to Ukrainians and Belarusians, with Russian being lingua franca of Empire
     
    That's probably a good idea.

    5. Central Asia to be ignored once south Siberia is secured, Caucasus Christians supported against Muslims in the region at all cost
     
    Yeah, that was my advice, too.

    6. Manchuria is actually needed to plug the “gap” and secure Vladivostok – not too bad resource-wise as well.
     
    Northern Manchuria only. And even that is difficult and costly to keep, because it has a relatively large population of ethnic Chinese (and other non-Russians). The Japanese wouldn't care much for Northern Manchuria anyway.

    3. Dismantle the foreign descent dominated “Russian” nobility, their stranglehold on Army and Navy (seriously, look up the admiral and general ranks, surnames)- this is GSG talking, Nicky was like 1% Russian by descent – total cancer.
     
    That's akin to some permanent revolution instigated by the emperor, pretty much out of character, both for the person and the institution. Probably crushing or avoiding the 1905 and 1917 revolutions would've been more likely without the extra powers of hindsight.
  50. @reiner Tor

    squandered Russian lives for no apparent gain on one side
     
    Such wars are twelve a dozen. Most greater powers waged several such wars. Even many wars resulting in conquest (Scramble for Africa) were actually useless wastes of lives and resources. So Russian rulers who fought wars without any apparent gains were like other rulers of other countries. I guess it's unavoidable.

    Compare that to GOAT Bismarck – every single war was purposeful, just a tool to attain political goals.

    Blundering into a costly war for no apparent gain is the definition of foolish government.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Blundering into a costly war for no apparent gain is the definition of foolish government.
     
    I agree, but most human governments in all of history were foolish. At least with hindsight.

    And I'd say dismantling Napoleon's empire was good for Russia, and perhaps some of the other wars had net positive impact, too.
  51. @Epigon
    Compare that to GOAT Bismarck - every single war was purposeful, just a tool to attain political goals.

    Blundering into a costly war for no apparent gain is the definition of foolish government.

    Blundering into a costly war for no apparent gain is the definition of foolish government.

    I agree, but most human governments in all of history were foolish. At least with hindsight.

    And I’d say dismantling Napoleon’s empire was good for Russia, and perhaps some of the other wars had net positive impact, too.

  52. @melanf

    he airport of Murmansk – Emperor Nicholas II;
     
    To name the airport after the main organizer of the revolution, the man who destroyed the Empire with his heinous behavior? A rare example of the idiocy (to be honest, the whole idea with the renaming of airports was completely stupid).

    “Heinous”?

    LOL

  53. @syonredux
    The American tendency to name things after politicians has always annoyed me. We should give more representation to cultural and scientific figures:

    1 dollar bill: Edgar Allan Poe

    5 dollar bill: Wright Brothers

    10 dollar bill: John Ford

    20 dollar bill: Willa Cather (gotta have a gal these days)

    50 dollar bill: Mark Twain

    100 dollar bill: Courtesy of his literary and scientific work, Franklin gets to stay.

    I’d be fine with all of these except changing the 20

    Andrew Jackson killed the bank and took a British officer’s sword rather than clean his boots

    God bless him for that

    He is the embodiment of American popular resistance to elitist tyranny, an example of a virtuous self-made aristocrat

    I wouldn’t mind finding room for Patrick Henry somewhere. Henry was my favorite founding father.

    I also agree with songbird RE: Henry rather than John Ford. And I’d be partial to making room for Charles Lindbergh.

    I’d probably put Washington on the hundred.

  54. @reiner Tor

    Soviet Marshals (Vassilevsky,Zhukov)
     
    I'm not a big fan of Zhukov. (He was a good commander, but I find his total disregard for human life distasteful.) My random short list would include General Vatutin and Marshals Vasilevsky and Rokossovsky. (I guess Vatutin would've become a Marshal, had he not died in April 1944.) Of the Marshals, Konev would come after this three.

    I’m not a big fan of Zhukov. (He was a good commander, but I find his total disregard for human life distasteful.)

    This is exactly a false statement that has been repeatedly shown by historians. Troops under the command Zhukov constantly had smaller losses, than under the command other generals (under similar conditions). The commander whose reputation sorely suffered from the opening of the archives is Rokossovsky

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    reiner Tor's statement is that Zhukov had a total disregard for human life

    Your statement is that Zhukov's forces had smaller losses

    Your statement does not do anything to disprove reiner Tor's statement. It may be that Zhukov was more effective as a commander than other Soviet generals, for various reasons. But this does not mean he had a regard for human life.

    I, being fairly ignorant of these matters, make no judgment as to whether reiner Tor is right or not. But in pure argumentative terms, you've done nothing to prove him wrong.

    , @reiner Tor

    The commander whose reputation sorely suffered from the opening of the archives is Rokossovsky
     
    At least a decade ago it wasn't known among Western authors, for example Glantz praised him.
  55. @songbird

    10 dollar bill: John Ford
     
    I should like Henry Ford to be on it. Mostly because I know it would annoy certain people.

    I am also partial to legendary figures, like Johny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, and Pecos Bill. I wonder, if Russia has any good mythological figures.

    BTW, nothing after Sikorsky? I mean, I know he left, but still - cool name. And highly appropriate.

    Don’t forget John Henry (for the blacks) and Joe Magarac (for the Rust Belt)

    Also, why not find a bill for ball players from the good old days, like Babe Ruth or Swingin’ Stan Musial?

    • Replies: @songbird

    Also, why not find a bill for ball players from the good old days, like Babe Ruth or Swingin’ Stan Musial?
     
    I always thought the Ted Williams Tunnel had a good ring to it, compared to the countless infrastructure projects named after pols. Too bad they gypped the taxpayer when the put it up, having heavy ceiling panels held up by only one bolt. Although curiously it seemed to have killed an illegal.
  56. @reiner Tor

    Soviet Marshals (Vassilevsky,Zhukov)
     
    I'm not a big fan of Zhukov. (He was a good commander, but I find his total disregard for human life distasteful.) My random short list would include General Vatutin and Marshals Vasilevsky and Rokossovsky. (I guess Vatutin would've become a Marshal, had he not died in April 1944.) Of the Marshals, Konev would come after this three.

    Zhukov had high casualty peaks, but his decisive actions shortened the campaigns and by exploiting the costly breakthroughs, the final result was achieved with lower total losses than would be in case of a steadier, longer periods of attrition during offensives.

    Of course, this is not true for Rzhev, which was a costly fiasco.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Of course, this is not true for Rzhev, which was a costly fiasco.
     
    Which he kept pushing even after it became clearly a failure. Of course, there could be a big picture explanation for this - to tie up German troops in the area and avoid reinforcements to Stalingrad.
  57. @Epigon
    1. Deliver a coup de grace to Habsburgs at first opportunity

    2. Prevent unified Germany at all costs

    3. Dismantle the foreign descent dominated "Russian" nobility, their stranglehold on Army and Navy (seriously, look up the admiral and general ranks, surnames)- this is GSG talking, Nicky was like 1% Russian by descent - total cancer.

    4. A very important issue - return Patriarch to Kiev, give privileges to Ukrainians and Belarusians, with Russian being lingua franca of Empire

    5. Central Asia to be ignored once south Siberia is secured, Caucasus Christians supported against Muslims in the region at all cost

    6. Manchuria is actually needed to plug the "gap" and secure Vladivostok - not too bad resource-wise as well.

    7. Optional - support Poles, Czechs and Slovaks against their non-Slav rivals and enforce their claims in the long run. Likewise, aim to split key areas of Ottoman Balkans between Serbs and Bulgarians.


    Economy-vise - small and medium farmer empowerement an absolute must, literacy and school programmes - goes in well with curbing of heredetary nobility.

    1. Deliver a coup de grace to Habsburgs at first opportunity

    2. Prevent unified Germany at all costs

    7. Optional – support Poles, Czechs and Slovaks against their non-Slav rivals and enforce their claims in the long run. Likewise, aim to split key areas of Ottoman Balkans between Serbs and Bulgarians.

    But it’s questionable how beneficial this would’ve been. Russian support for pan-Slavism was considered to be a sign of Russian imperialist designs on these territories. Basically you need to avoid the impression that you want to expand indefinitely, or else you’ll get into conflict with others.

    Also, in the absence of a unified Germany, France was free not to support Russia against anyone – this was one partial explanation for the Crimean War. France was stronger than a unified Germany would’ve been until probably the 1850s or even 1860s.

    So overall, it might turn out the way US Middle Eastern wars turned out for Israel. After taking out Iraq, Iran emerged as a threat, no Syria and Turkey might be threatening, etc.

    I also didn’t want to just change all things with hindsight – yes, a unified Germany turned out badly, but Bismarck was friendly during the Polish uprising (and it wasn’t predetermined that German rulers would turn against Russia longer term, see Wilhelm II’s vacillation in the 1900s for example), and it was questionable what stabbing him in the back would’ve brought Russia – perhaps another war with France?

    4. A very important issue – return Patriarch to Kiev, give privileges to Ukrainians and Belarusians, with Russian being lingua franca of Empire

    That’s probably a good idea.

    5. Central Asia to be ignored once south Siberia is secured, Caucasus Christians supported against Muslims in the region at all cost

    Yeah, that was my advice, too.

    6. Manchuria is actually needed to plug the “gap” and secure Vladivostok – not too bad resource-wise as well.

    Northern Manchuria only. And even that is difficult and costly to keep, because it has a relatively large population of ethnic Chinese (and other non-Russians). The Japanese wouldn’t care much for Northern Manchuria anyway.

    3. Dismantle the foreign descent dominated “Russian” nobility, their stranglehold on Army and Navy (seriously, look up the admiral and general ranks, surnames)- this is GSG talking, Nicky was like 1% Russian by descent – total cancer.

    That’s akin to some permanent revolution instigated by the emperor, pretty much out of character, both for the person and the institution. Probably crushing or avoiding the 1905 and 1917 revolutions would’ve been more likely without the extra powers of hindsight.

    • Replies: @Epigon

    But it’s questionable how beneficial this would’ve been. Russian support for pan-Slavism was considered to be a sign of Russian imperialist designs on these territories. Basically you need to avoid the impression that you want to expand indefinitely, or else you’ll get into conflict with others.
     
    Not Pan-Slavism and territorial expansion - quite the opposite - Polish areas not annexed, ethnic principle in determining borders. The question of Finland and Baltic provinces is a tricky one - St. Peterburg's location dictates control of both.

    I also didn’t want to just change all things with hindsight – yes, a unified Germany turned out badly, but Bismarck was friendly during the Polish uprising
     
    Bismarck absolutely loathed Slavs and Poles in particular, it was in German Imperial interest to see Poles defeated. Back then, the Germanisation of Pomerania, Sorbia was still not complete and total, and hypothetical Polish state could exploit that.

    Northern Manchuria only. And even that is difficult and costly to keep, because it has a relatively large population of ethnic Chinese (and other non-Russians). The Japanese wouldn’t care much for Northern Manchuria anyway.
     
    No ethnic Chinese there - Manchus are not Chinese. Not even many of them - look up Harbin history.

    That’s akin to some permanent revolution instigated by the emperor, pretty much out of character, both for the person and the institution. Probably crushing or avoiding the 1905 and 1917 revolutions would’ve been more likely without the extra powers of hindsight.
     
    Not revolution, but instituting professionalism and abolishing the favoured status of nobility in naval and military service and opening both to merit-based promotions would serve two purposes - it would both break the shitty nobility parasyting on Russian society and vastly improve the armed forces. Doing the same in state administration would work wonders.
    They were overall a drain on the society and hampered the modernisation and economic advancement. If Japan could pull it off, so could Russia. There were genuine grievances and issues among ethnic Russians that fueled the fires set by non-Russian revolutionaries - many of them can be blamed on nobility.

    Building a stable empire requires harmony between lower and higher classes, and a nationalist ideology to a degree. Germans and Brits really did an exemplary job in their cases.

  58. Wow, somehow Robert Byrd didn’t get his name on the list.

  59. @Epigon
    Zhukov had high casualty peaks, but his decisive actions shortened the campaigns and by exploiting the costly breakthroughs, the final result was achieved with lower total losses than would be in case of a steadier, longer periods of attrition during offensives.

    Of course, this is not true for Rzhev, which was a costly fiasco.

    Of course, this is not true for Rzhev, which was a costly fiasco.

    Which he kept pushing even after it became clearly a failure. Of course, there could be a big picture explanation for this – to tie up German troops in the area and avoid reinforcements to Stalingrad.

  60. @reiner Tor

    1. Deliver a coup de grace to Habsburgs at first opportunity

    2. Prevent unified Germany at all costs

    7. Optional – support Poles, Czechs and Slovaks against their non-Slav rivals and enforce their claims in the long run. Likewise, aim to split key areas of Ottoman Balkans between Serbs and Bulgarians.
     
    But it's questionable how beneficial this would've been. Russian support for pan-Slavism was considered to be a sign of Russian imperialist designs on these territories. Basically you need to avoid the impression that you want to expand indefinitely, or else you'll get into conflict with others.

    Also, in the absence of a unified Germany, France was free not to support Russia against anyone - this was one partial explanation for the Crimean War. France was stronger than a unified Germany would've been until probably the 1850s or even 1860s.

    So overall, it might turn out the way US Middle Eastern wars turned out for Israel. After taking out Iraq, Iran emerged as a threat, no Syria and Turkey might be threatening, etc.

    I also didn't want to just change all things with hindsight - yes, a unified Germany turned out badly, but Bismarck was friendly during the Polish uprising (and it wasn't predetermined that German rulers would turn against Russia longer term, see Wilhelm II's vacillation in the 1900s for example), and it was questionable what stabbing him in the back would've brought Russia - perhaps another war with France?

    4. A very important issue – return Patriarch to Kiev, give privileges to Ukrainians and Belarusians, with Russian being lingua franca of Empire
     
    That's probably a good idea.

    5. Central Asia to be ignored once south Siberia is secured, Caucasus Christians supported against Muslims in the region at all cost
     
    Yeah, that was my advice, too.

    6. Manchuria is actually needed to plug the “gap” and secure Vladivostok – not too bad resource-wise as well.
     
    Northern Manchuria only. And even that is difficult and costly to keep, because it has a relatively large population of ethnic Chinese (and other non-Russians). The Japanese wouldn't care much for Northern Manchuria anyway.

    3. Dismantle the foreign descent dominated “Russian” nobility, their stranglehold on Army and Navy (seriously, look up the admiral and general ranks, surnames)- this is GSG talking, Nicky was like 1% Russian by descent – total cancer.
     
    That's akin to some permanent revolution instigated by the emperor, pretty much out of character, both for the person and the institution. Probably crushing or avoiding the 1905 and 1917 revolutions would've been more likely without the extra powers of hindsight.

    But it’s questionable how beneficial this would’ve been. Russian support for pan-Slavism was considered to be a sign of Russian imperialist designs on these territories. Basically you need to avoid the impression that you want to expand indefinitely, or else you’ll get into conflict with others.

    Not Pan-Slavism and territorial expansion – quite the opposite – Polish areas not annexed, ethnic principle in determining borders. The question of Finland and Baltic provinces is a tricky one – St. Peterburg’s location dictates control of both.

    I also didn’t want to just change all things with hindsight – yes, a unified Germany turned out badly, but Bismarck was friendly during the Polish uprising

    Bismarck absolutely loathed Slavs and Poles in particular, it was in German Imperial interest to see Poles defeated. Back then, the Germanisation of Pomerania, Sorbia was still not complete and total, and hypothetical Polish state could exploit that.

    Northern Manchuria only. And even that is difficult and costly to keep, because it has a relatively large population of ethnic Chinese (and other non-Russians). The Japanese wouldn’t care much for Northern Manchuria anyway.

    No ethnic Chinese there – Manchus are not Chinese. Not even many of them – look up Harbin history.

    That’s akin to some permanent revolution instigated by the emperor, pretty much out of character, both for the person and the institution. Probably crushing or avoiding the 1905 and 1917 revolutions would’ve been more likely without the extra powers of hindsight.

    Not revolution, but instituting professionalism and abolishing the favoured status of nobility in naval and military service and opening both to merit-based promotions would serve two purposes – it would both break the shitty nobility parasyting on Russian society and vastly improve the armed forces. Doing the same in state administration would work wonders.
    They were overall a drain on the society and hampered the modernisation and economic advancement. If Japan could pull it off, so could Russia. There were genuine grievances and issues among ethnic Russians that fueled the fires set by non-Russian revolutionaries – many of them can be blamed on nobility.

    Building a stable empire requires harmony between lower and higher classes, and a nationalist ideology to a degree. Germans and Brits really did an exemplary job in their cases.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Not Pan-Slavism and territorial expansion – quite the opposite – Polish areas not annexed, ethnic principle in determining borders.
     
    Territorial expansion always started out as meddling and support for certain states against certain others. But perhaps in the Age of Nationalism it would've been more successful than the Holy Alliance.

    The question of Finland and Baltic provinces is a tricky one – St. Peterburg’s location dictates control of both.
     
    No question, with some degree of autonomy.

    instituting professionalism and abolishing the favoured status of nobility in naval and military service and opening both to merit-based promotions
     
    I agree.
  61. @melanf

    I’m not a big fan of Zhukov. (He was a good commander, but I find his total disregard for human life distasteful.)
     
    This is exactly a false statement that has been repeatedly shown by historians. Troops under the command Zhukov constantly had smaller losses, than under the command other generals (under similar conditions). The commander whose reputation sorely suffered from the opening of the archives is Rokossovsky

    reiner Tor’s statement is that Zhukov had a total disregard for human life

    Your statement is that Zhukov’s forces had smaller losses

    Your statement does not do anything to disprove reiner Tor’s statement. It may be that Zhukov was more effective as a commander than other Soviet generals, for various reasons. But this does not mean he had a regard for human life.

    I, being fairly ignorant of these matters, make no judgment as to whether reiner Tor is right or not. But in pure argumentative terms, you’ve done nothing to prove him wrong.

  62. @melanf

    I’m not a big fan of Zhukov. (He was a good commander, but I find his total disregard for human life distasteful.)
     
    This is exactly a false statement that has been repeatedly shown by historians. Troops under the command Zhukov constantly had smaller losses, than under the command other generals (under similar conditions). The commander whose reputation sorely suffered from the opening of the archives is Rokossovsky

    The commander whose reputation sorely suffered from the opening of the archives is Rokossovsky

    At least a decade ago it wasn’t known among Western authors, for example Glantz praised him.

  63. @Anonymous
    mr.Karlin could you translate that text conversation you had with that lady Ms.Popova. Thnx

    Also what makes the Popova lady neo-soviet SJW. what does that term mean.

    She’s an extreme SJW. Nothing interesting in what she wrote, usual stuff (we’re all humans, Islam cool & adaptable…)

  64. Check this out
    https://www.rt.com/news/460958-chernobyl-hbo-racial-diversity-actors/

    I very seriously predict that within 10 years there will be sanctions against Russia because they don’t have a diverse government.

    • Replies: @songbird
    I favor turning the exclusion zone into a "refugee" holding camp. I think it would work wonders, when it comes to discouraging further invasion.
  65. @Hippopotamusdrome


    Russia’s civil airports have been renamed in line with a national Internet poll

     

    Boaty McBoatface

    Airporty McAirportface

  66. Where is Yakovlev, Ilushin, Beriev, Myasishev, and even Antonov(he was born in Moscow, I think)?

  67. @melanf
    Then the list should look like Turgenev, Alexey Konstantinovich Tolstoy, Alexey Nikolaevich Tolstoy, Dostoyevksy, Stravinsky, Mussgorsky, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich

    Kandinsky, Chagall, and Leo Tolstoy is a disgrace of the country. Rublev is interesting only as an example of an ultra-low level of medieval painting

    Why is Tolstoy a disgrace?

    • Replies: @melanf

    Why is (Leo) Tolstoy a disgrace?
     
    A dangerous madman and the author of the incredibly boring novelsi
  68. @Muggles
    Interesting. Few are named after politicians. Many are cultural or scientific pioneers.

    Here in America many are renamed after politicians or dead presidents (Bush, Kennedy) and sometimes military heroes, often local and dead.

    I can't think of any American airport authorities that would honor a poll (or conduct one) via the Internet. Too much democratic input. Instead local bureaucrats and politicos get to choose.

    Now which nation is "authoritarian" again?

    One of those US airports was actually named after a living Ex President. I think that is in very poor taste.

    Only countries that are dictatorships do things like that.

  69. @Mitleser

    but would overall hope Putin can become as president again in 2024
     
    WTF is wrong with you?

    Whatever problem you think there is with Putin, the alternative option will probably be much worse.

    Risk aversion – we don’t know how competent Putin is, because we cannot test alternatives (you cannot try them on before you purchase them). It’s possible, that Putin’s job (particularly of managing different interests) is quite difficult, and he is much more competent in various skills for managing the government, than alternatives even comprehend.

    For example, Prokhorov had better economic policy proposals in 2012 – but it’s possible, that he could have been completely incompetent in other areas of management of government and different groups, whereas with Putin it is already known that he is at least slightly competent in this area.

    Exposure to unnecessary risk can be understood as a cost, even if you hope you will be lucky. Moreover, continuity of political leadership is a virtue for itself, which allows for longer term planning.

    Also Putin has personal/social skills, which are not very evident in the alternative options.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Based Dmitry.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    It's pretty clear even now that the successor will be a small fish (one journalist close to the elite Moscow rumor mill insists its the Younger Patrushev; if not, some reasonably capable guy from the provinces in his 40s that none of us have heard of) while Putin will stay on as a "father of the nation" figure, delegating day to day manual management while continuing to exercise great (possibly predominant) control over Russia's general direction.
    , @Mitleser

    Whatever problem you think there is with Putin, the alternative option will probably be much worse.
     
    The problem ist he is getting old and less capable.
    He is getting worse by default, his alternatives do not.

    Risk aversion – we don’t know how competent Putin is, because we cannot test alternatives (you cannot try them on before you purchase them).
     
    You can. Putin himself was tested first as head of the FSB and then head of the government (and de-facto vice-president). He was good enough and became president.

    Moreover, continuity of political leadership is a virtue for itself, which allows for longer term planning.
     
    Except that it means breaking constitutional continuity in order to make it legal and it shows you are not capable of handling succession.
    How can you think of longer term planning if you do not have established a tested mechanism for the inevitable replacement of personnel?
  70. @Dmitry
    Whatever problem you think there is with Putin, the alternative option will probably be much worse.

    Risk aversion - we don't know how competent Putin is, because we cannot test alternatives (you cannot try them on before you purchase them). It's possible, that Putin's job (particularly of managing different interests) is quite difficult, and he is much more competent in various skills for managing the government, than alternatives even comprehend.

    For example, Prokhorov had better economic policy proposals in 2012 - but it's possible, that he could have been completely incompetent in other areas of management of government and different groups, whereas with Putin it is already known that he is at least slightly competent in this area.

    Exposure to unnecessary risk can be understood as a cost, even if you hope you will be lucky. Moreover, continuity of political leadership is a virtue for itself, which allows for longer term planning.

    Also Putin has personal/social skills, which are not very evident in the alternative options.

    Based Dmitry.

  71. @melanf

    Lets compare Nicholas II to Russian rulers
     
    There's nothing to compare. Nicholas was the worst ruler of Russia in its history

    If WW1 hadn’t happened, Nicky would be viewed moderately well. If February 1917 hadn’t happened, and Russia was amongst the winners of WW1, then he’d be viewed as one of Russia’s Greats. Obviously February and then October did happen, so Nicky has a horrific reputation. But there are plenty of parallel universes – the vast majority of them – where neither happened.

    • Replies: @melanf

    If WW1 hadn’t happened, Nicky would be viewed moderately well
     
    After Tsushima? Funny joke
    , @Swarthy Greek
    Nicky almost single handedly caused the collapse of the Russian monarchy during the revolution of 1905. His management of the crisis was inept and brutal. If not for the personal intervention of Witte and Grand Duke Michael the whole affair would have led to an even bigger bloodbath and the monarchy would have been overthrown earlier. Not to mention the fact that he also played a huge role in starting the Russo Japanese war through his personal inputin the negotiations over Korea and almost single handedly destroyed the Franco Russian alliance (which was Russia's financial lifeline) by trying to sign a treaty of non agression with his cousin Whilelm. The man was a cretin who brought the Romanov dynasty and Russia down with him due to his weak character. Although i do have to mention that he was not a misanthrope or a psychopath like his red "successors", and seemed to genuinely care after his family.
  72. @PiltdownMan
    Some of the names a foreigner might expect are absent.


    Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoyevksy, Stravinsky, Mussgorsky, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Kandinsky, Chagall, Rublev...

    This idea of writers, composers and artists, for airports, is cool, but it would only be suitable if they are very specific to the region of the airport. If only the famous artists are local to the region, then it’s cool for both tourists and local pride.

    This is why the writer Bazhov was perfect for Koltsovo.

    Recall, Bazhov was winning by 4% for Koltsovo. Then in the last day, results mysteriously reversed to Demidov (who was only in 3rd position before), and who has no relationship to the city.

    The owner of the airport, Vekselberg, wanted Demidov to win the competition, probably because he wants to focus on metal mining and metallurgy (which is his business as well). And the sudden change in the last day, seems suspicious, as it matches the earlier expressed desires of airport owner Vekselberg.

    Bazhov’s writing even relates to mining and metallurgy , so he should match all criteria.

    I only imagine the problem was a prejudice against folk story writers, or some desire to celebrate historical equivalents of modern oligarchs (Demidov).

    Anyway, at least it’s not Nicholas II.

  73. @Dmitry
    Whatever problem you think there is with Putin, the alternative option will probably be much worse.

    Risk aversion - we don't know how competent Putin is, because we cannot test alternatives (you cannot try them on before you purchase them). It's possible, that Putin's job (particularly of managing different interests) is quite difficult, and he is much more competent in various skills for managing the government, than alternatives even comprehend.

    For example, Prokhorov had better economic policy proposals in 2012 - but it's possible, that he could have been completely incompetent in other areas of management of government and different groups, whereas with Putin it is already known that he is at least slightly competent in this area.

    Exposure to unnecessary risk can be understood as a cost, even if you hope you will be lucky. Moreover, continuity of political leadership is a virtue for itself, which allows for longer term planning.

    Also Putin has personal/social skills, which are not very evident in the alternative options.

    It’s pretty clear even now that the successor will be a small fish (one journalist close to the elite Moscow rumor mill insists its the Younger Patrushev; if not, some reasonably capable guy from the provinces in his 40s that none of us have heard of) while Putin will stay on as a “father of the nation” figure, delegating day to day manual management while continuing to exercise great (possibly predominant) control over Russia’s general direction.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    To be honest, the problem of succession is not really resolved even in the Chinese or American systems.
    , @DreadIlk
    That might be preferable.
  74. @Anatoly Karlin
    It's pretty clear even now that the successor will be a small fish (one journalist close to the elite Moscow rumor mill insists its the Younger Patrushev; if not, some reasonably capable guy from the provinces in his 40s that none of us have heard of) while Putin will stay on as a "father of the nation" figure, delegating day to day manual management while continuing to exercise great (possibly predominant) control over Russia's general direction.

    To be honest, the problem of succession is not really resolved even in the Chinese or American systems.

  75. @Anatoly Karlin
    It's pretty clear even now that the successor will be a small fish (one journalist close to the elite Moscow rumor mill insists its the Younger Patrushev; if not, some reasonably capable guy from the provinces in his 40s that none of us have heard of) while Putin will stay on as a "father of the nation" figure, delegating day to day manual management while continuing to exercise great (possibly predominant) control over Russia's general direction.

    That might be preferable.

  76. @hgv
    Why is Tolstoy a disgrace?

    Why is (Leo) Tolstoy a disgrace?

    A dangerous madman and the author of the incredibly boring novelsi

    • Agree: Adam
  77. @Anatoly Karlin
    If WW1 hadn't happened, Nicky would be viewed moderately well. If February 1917 hadn't happened, and Russia was amongst the winners of WW1, then he'd be viewed as one of Russia's Greats. Obviously February and then October did happen, so Nicky has a horrific reputation. But there are plenty of parallel universes - the vast majority of them - where neither happened.

    If WW1 hadn’t happened, Nicky would be viewed moderately well

    After Tsushima? Funny joke

    • Replies: @Epigon
    What does Tsushima have to do with Emperor Nicholas II?

    Russian battleships in that period were useless, the only design competitive with the foreign ones was American-built Retvizan. The design process was a total mess, with incompetent officers and engineers absolving themselves of any responsibility through "design comitees" and continuous "design improvements" while continuously producing overweight ships of little practical combat value which entered service years after the designs they were designed to counter, being de facto obsolescent from the start.

    French tumblehome, narrow-belt piles of junk negatively influenced Russians, who had bought Tsesarevich from the French, and based the following Borodino-class on it, which was arguably the worst battleship ever.
    At the time when the world was moving to Dreadnoughts, the Russian Navy was still bickering over the terrible Andrei Pervozvanny and "improving" Evstafi design. Britain would launch first Orions of 10x343 mm armament before Russia would complete their last tin cans.


    Similarily, what does Nicholas II personally have to do with idiocy of admirals and captains in the Navy? During the Russo-Japanese war, the Vladivostok Independent cruiser squadron could have gutted Japan through guerre du course - there were several notable successes, but instead of doubling down their efforts, they took away the only advantage of cruiser - long operating range and independent movement outside of fleet constraints - and arranged for their Vladivostok and Port Arthur squadrons to rendezvous, dooming them. With Makarov an early casualty, the command of the Navy fell on (mostly non-Russian) far inferior officers.

    The Japanese fleet that won at Tsushima had better ships, better officers, better crews, experience from previous battles and fleet actions, better fire control, and better shells - it was also fresh from ports, not having crossed half the world to get to the site of battle, with all the associated bottom fouling and boiler and engine wear. So the result couldn't have been any different.


    Blaming a single individual for systematic failings, nepotism, corruption, incompetence in army and navy ranks; engineering, design and construction defects in shipbuilding industry; inferior shell and fuse quality is completely misplaced. From the 1905 Black Sea mutiny events, it is evident the whole society was rotten.
  78. @Swarthy Greek
    Had Putin intervened in the naming process, at least one airport would have been named after one of Putler’s favorite historical figures (I.e: Yuri Andropov, Alexander III, Solzhenitsyn).
    Still disappointed to see that Kaliningrad’s airport wasn’t named after Kant, or that figures like Euler, Suvorov,Bagration or Soviet Marshals (Vassilevsky,Zhukov) did not appear.

    Still disappointed to see that Kaliningrad’s airport wasn’t named after Kant,

    The University in Kaliningrad (and a number of other objects) is named after Kant.

    or that figures like Euler, Suvorov,Bagration

    Suvorov and Bagration already have enough glory (in honor of Bagration – the whole town). Euler really undeservedly stayed in the shadows

    • Replies: @SwarthyGreek
    Euler was a genius. The amount of research that he published and his contributon to Mathematics would be considered astounding even for a modern scientist today. I remember looking at his geometric explanation of the Koenigsberg bridge problem and being astounded by its revolutionary simplicity.
    Why does someone like Einstein get so much recognition while Euler gets so little?
  79. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Don't forget John Henry (for the blacks) and Joe Magarac (for the Rust Belt)

    Also, why not find a bill for ball players from the good old days, like Babe Ruth or Swingin' Stan Musial?

    Also, why not find a bill for ball players from the good old days, like Babe Ruth or Swingin’ Stan Musial?

    I always thought the Ted Williams Tunnel had a good ring to it, compared to the countless infrastructure projects named after pols. Too bad they gypped the taxpayer when the put it up, having heavy ceiling panels held up by only one bolt. Although curiously it seemed to have killed an illegal.

  80. @neutral
    Check this out
    https://www.rt.com/news/460958-chernobyl-hbo-racial-diversity-actors/

    I very seriously predict that within 10 years there will be sanctions against Russia because they don't have a diverse government.

    I favor turning the exclusion zone into a “refugee” holding camp. I think it would work wonders, when it comes to discouraging further invasion.

  81. @Anatoly Karlin
    If WW1 hadn't happened, Nicky would be viewed moderately well. If February 1917 hadn't happened, and Russia was amongst the winners of WW1, then he'd be viewed as one of Russia's Greats. Obviously February and then October did happen, so Nicky has a horrific reputation. But there are plenty of parallel universes - the vast majority of them - where neither happened.

    Nicky almost single handedly caused the collapse of the Russian monarchy during the revolution of 1905. His management of the crisis was inept and brutal. If not for the personal intervention of Witte and Grand Duke Michael the whole affair would have led to an even bigger bloodbath and the monarchy would have been overthrown earlier. Not to mention the fact that he also played a huge role in starting the Russo Japanese war through his personal inputin the negotiations over Korea and almost single handedly destroyed the Franco Russian alliance (which was Russia’s financial lifeline) by trying to sign a treaty of non agression with his cousin Whilelm. The man was a cretin who brought the Romanov dynasty and Russia down with him due to his weak character. Although i do have to mention that he was not a misanthrope or a psychopath like his red “successors”, and seemed to genuinely care after his family.

    • Replies: @Pharmakon
    Agree about the rest but this..

    "almost single handedly destroyed the Franco Russian alliance (which was Russia’s financial lifeline) by trying to sign a treaty of non agression with his cousin Whilelm."

    Hello, the re-negotiation of the non-aggression pact would have spared the RE its needless participation in the European War - far more significant than the Witte-negotiated French loans. It would, obviously, have extended the autocratic rule for, at least, another decade. Jeez!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance_Treaty

  82. @Dmitry
    Whatever problem you think there is with Putin, the alternative option will probably be much worse.

    Risk aversion - we don't know how competent Putin is, because we cannot test alternatives (you cannot try them on before you purchase them). It's possible, that Putin's job (particularly of managing different interests) is quite difficult, and he is much more competent in various skills for managing the government, than alternatives even comprehend.

    For example, Prokhorov had better economic policy proposals in 2012 - but it's possible, that he could have been completely incompetent in other areas of management of government and different groups, whereas with Putin it is already known that he is at least slightly competent in this area.

    Exposure to unnecessary risk can be understood as a cost, even if you hope you will be lucky. Moreover, continuity of political leadership is a virtue for itself, which allows for longer term planning.

    Also Putin has personal/social skills, which are not very evident in the alternative options.

    Whatever problem you think there is with Putin, the alternative option will probably be much worse.

    The problem ist he is getting old and less capable.
    He is getting worse by default, his alternatives do not.

    Risk aversion – we don’t know how competent Putin is, because we cannot test alternatives (you cannot try them on before you purchase them).

    You can. Putin himself was tested first as head of the FSB and then head of the government (and de-facto vice-president). He was good enough and became president.

    Moreover, continuity of political leadership is a virtue for itself, which allows for longer term planning.

    Except that it means breaking constitutional continuity in order to make it legal and it shows you are not capable of handling succession.
    How can you think of longer term planning if you do not have established a tested mechanism for the inevitable replacement of personnel?

    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    The problem ist he is getting old and less capable.
    He is getting worse by default, his alternatives do not.
     
    In some ways he's improved - for example, his personal skills are better now than in the early 2000s.

    I would say deterioration is more in policy proposals and possible policy options available to him.

    -

    For example, one of the main benefits of Putin, was the financial management of Kudrin and his team.

    These principles of responsible financial management, relatively low inflation, balanced budget, have continued today. But they are now default.

    On the other hand, there is a deterioration in recent years, when failed concepts, like the inflationary “import substitution", became fashionable because of a partly unavoidable geopolitical situation, but also with some secondary self-interest reasons.


    How can you think of longer term planning if you do not have established a tested mechanism for the inevitable replacement of personnel?
     
    I would say it is more a problem of human resources, than of the mechanism for replacement. There is a problem, that there are not talented and responsible enough people to be a replacement of Putin.

    Part of it is because Putin's skill involves balancing many different interests and points of view. Can you think of anyone could will be able to?
  83. No airport named after Lenin? Not even Ulyanovsk/Simbirsk?

  84. @Matra
    The women are all royalty. None accomplished anything, I assume, independently of their titles.

    Catherine II was the most ruthless and hardcore of all Russian rulers.

    If you visit some random Russian town, you’d notice that her legacy is even more predominant than Soviet legacy. (Soviet artifacts are quickly disappearing in Russia. Well, except for commieblocks, that is.)

    Her social engineering projects succeeded where other rulers have failed.

    • Agree: Matra
  85. @melanf

    If WW1 hadn’t happened, Nicky would be viewed moderately well
     
    After Tsushima? Funny joke

    What does Tsushima have to do with Emperor Nicholas II?

    Russian battleships in that period were useless, the only design competitive with the foreign ones was American-built Retvizan. The design process was a total mess, with incompetent officers and engineers absolving themselves of any responsibility through “design comitees” and continuous “design improvements” while continuously producing overweight ships of little practical combat value which entered service years after the designs they were designed to counter, being de facto obsolescent from the start.

    French tumblehome, narrow-belt piles of junk negatively influenced Russians, who had bought Tsesarevich from the French, and based the following Borodino-class on it, which was arguably the worst battleship ever.
    At the time when the world was moving to Dreadnoughts, the Russian Navy was still bickering over the terrible Andrei Pervozvanny and “improving” Evstafi design. Britain would launch first Orions of 10×343 mm armament before Russia would complete their last tin cans.

    Similarily, what does Nicholas II personally have to do with idiocy of admirals and captains in the Navy? During the Russo-Japanese war, the Vladivostok Independent cruiser squadron could have gutted Japan through guerre du course – there were several notable successes, but instead of doubling down their efforts, they took away the only advantage of cruiser – long operating range and independent movement outside of fleet constraints – and arranged for their Vladivostok and Port Arthur squadrons to rendezvous, dooming them. With Makarov an early casualty, the command of the Navy fell on (mostly non-Russian) far inferior officers.

    The Japanese fleet that won at Tsushima had better ships, better officers, better crews, experience from previous battles and fleet actions, better fire control, and better shells – it was also fresh from ports, not having crossed half the world to get to the site of battle, with all the associated bottom fouling and boiler and engine wear. So the result couldn’t have been any different.

    Blaming a single individual for systematic failings, nepotism, corruption, incompetence in army and navy ranks; engineering, design and construction defects in shipbuilding industry; inferior shell and fuse quality is completely misplaced. From the 1905 Black Sea mutiny events, it is evident the whole society was rotten.

  86. @Epigon

    But it’s questionable how beneficial this would’ve been. Russian support for pan-Slavism was considered to be a sign of Russian imperialist designs on these territories. Basically you need to avoid the impression that you want to expand indefinitely, or else you’ll get into conflict with others.
     
    Not Pan-Slavism and territorial expansion - quite the opposite - Polish areas not annexed, ethnic principle in determining borders. The question of Finland and Baltic provinces is a tricky one - St. Peterburg's location dictates control of both.

    I also didn’t want to just change all things with hindsight – yes, a unified Germany turned out badly, but Bismarck was friendly during the Polish uprising
     
    Bismarck absolutely loathed Slavs and Poles in particular, it was in German Imperial interest to see Poles defeated. Back then, the Germanisation of Pomerania, Sorbia was still not complete and total, and hypothetical Polish state could exploit that.

    Northern Manchuria only. And even that is difficult and costly to keep, because it has a relatively large population of ethnic Chinese (and other non-Russians). The Japanese wouldn’t care much for Northern Manchuria anyway.
     
    No ethnic Chinese there - Manchus are not Chinese. Not even many of them - look up Harbin history.

    That’s akin to some permanent revolution instigated by the emperor, pretty much out of character, both for the person and the institution. Probably crushing or avoiding the 1905 and 1917 revolutions would’ve been more likely without the extra powers of hindsight.
     
    Not revolution, but instituting professionalism and abolishing the favoured status of nobility in naval and military service and opening both to merit-based promotions would serve two purposes - it would both break the shitty nobility parasyting on Russian society and vastly improve the armed forces. Doing the same in state administration would work wonders.
    They were overall a drain on the society and hampered the modernisation and economic advancement. If Japan could pull it off, so could Russia. There were genuine grievances and issues among ethnic Russians that fueled the fires set by non-Russian revolutionaries - many of them can be blamed on nobility.

    Building a stable empire requires harmony between lower and higher classes, and a nationalist ideology to a degree. Germans and Brits really did an exemplary job in their cases.

    Not Pan-Slavism and territorial expansion – quite the opposite – Polish areas not annexed, ethnic principle in determining borders.

    Territorial expansion always started out as meddling and support for certain states against certain others. But perhaps in the Age of Nationalism it would’ve been more successful than the Holy Alliance.

    The question of Finland and Baltic provinces is a tricky one – St. Peterburg’s location dictates control of both.

    No question, with some degree of autonomy.

    instituting professionalism and abolishing the favoured status of nobility in naval and military service and opening both to merit-based promotions

    I agree.

  87. @melanf

    Still disappointed to see that Kaliningrad’s airport wasn’t named after Kant,
     
    The University in Kaliningrad (and a number of other objects) is named after Kant.

    or that figures like Euler, Suvorov,Bagration
     
    Suvorov and Bagration already have enough glory (in honor of Bagration - the whole town). Euler really undeservedly stayed in the shadows

    Euler was a genius. The amount of research that he published and his contributon to Mathematics would be considered astounding even for a modern scientist today. I remember looking at his geometric explanation of the Koenigsberg bridge problem and being astounded by its revolutionary simplicity.
    Why does someone like Einstein get so much recognition while Euler gets so little?

    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Why does someone like Einstein get so much recognition while Euler gets so little?
     
    I'm aware of an anti-Semitic explanation here...
  88. @SwarthyGreek
    Euler was a genius. The amount of research that he published and his contributon to Mathematics would be considered astounding even for a modern scientist today. I remember looking at his geometric explanation of the Koenigsberg bridge problem and being astounded by its revolutionary simplicity.
    Why does someone like Einstein get so much recognition while Euler gets so little?

    Why does someone like Einstein get so much recognition while Euler gets so little?

    I’m aware of an anti-Semitic explanation here…

  89. @Mitleser

    Whatever problem you think there is with Putin, the alternative option will probably be much worse.
     
    The problem ist he is getting old and less capable.
    He is getting worse by default, his alternatives do not.

    Risk aversion – we don’t know how competent Putin is, because we cannot test alternatives (you cannot try them on before you purchase them).
     
    You can. Putin himself was tested first as head of the FSB and then head of the government (and de-facto vice-president). He was good enough and became president.

    Moreover, continuity of political leadership is a virtue for itself, which allows for longer term planning.
     
    Except that it means breaking constitutional continuity in order to make it legal and it shows you are not capable of handling succession.
    How can you think of longer term planning if you do not have established a tested mechanism for the inevitable replacement of personnel?

    The problem ist he is getting old and less capable.
    He is getting worse by default, his alternatives do not.

    In some ways he’s improved – for example, his personal skills are better now than in the early 2000s.

    I would say deterioration is more in policy proposals and possible policy options available to him.

    For example, one of the main benefits of Putin, was the financial management of Kudrin and his team.

    These principles of responsible financial management, relatively low inflation, balanced budget, have continued today. But they are now default.

    On the other hand, there is a deterioration in recent years, when failed concepts, like the inflationary “import substitution”, became fashionable because of a partly unavoidable geopolitical situation, but also with some secondary self-interest reasons.

    How can you think of longer term planning if you do not have established a tested mechanism for the inevitable replacement of personnel?

    I would say it is more a problem of human resources, than of the mechanism for replacement. There is a problem, that there are not talented and responsible enough people to be a replacement of Putin.

    Part of it is because Putin’s skill involves balancing many different interests and points of view. Can you think of anyone could will be able to?

    • Replies: @Mitleser

    In some ways he’s improved – for example, his personal skills are better now than in the early 2000s.
     
    That was a middle-aged guy getting better at his job by getting more experienced.
    Now he is an experienced old guy whose health won't get better, but worse.
    He will become less capable and that is inevitable in our times.

    Part of it is because Putin’s skill involves balancing many different interests and points of view. Can you think of anyone could will be able to?
     
    You could have asked the same question in 1997 and most likely would not get the "right" answer.

    As you said, Putin used to be worse.
    The replacement does not need to be as competent as current Putin.

    The Russian leadership needs a change of generations sooner than later.
    Postponing will only make it worse.
  90. @Swarthy Greek
    Nicky almost single handedly caused the collapse of the Russian monarchy during the revolution of 1905. His management of the crisis was inept and brutal. If not for the personal intervention of Witte and Grand Duke Michael the whole affair would have led to an even bigger bloodbath and the monarchy would have been overthrown earlier. Not to mention the fact that he also played a huge role in starting the Russo Japanese war through his personal inputin the negotiations over Korea and almost single handedly destroyed the Franco Russian alliance (which was Russia's financial lifeline) by trying to sign a treaty of non agression with his cousin Whilelm. The man was a cretin who brought the Romanov dynasty and Russia down with him due to his weak character. Although i do have to mention that he was not a misanthrope or a psychopath like his red "successors", and seemed to genuinely care after his family.

    Agree about the rest but this..

    “almost single handedly destroyed the Franco Russian alliance (which was Russia’s financial lifeline) by trying to sign a treaty of non agression with his cousin Whilelm.”

    Hello, the re-negotiation of the non-aggression pact would have spared the RE its needless participation in the European War – far more significant than the Witte-negotiated French loans. It would, obviously, have extended the autocratic rule for, at least, another decade. Jeez!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance_Treaty

  91. @Dmitry

    The problem ist he is getting old and less capable.
    He is getting worse by default, his alternatives do not.
     
    In some ways he's improved - for example, his personal skills are better now than in the early 2000s.

    I would say deterioration is more in policy proposals and possible policy options available to him.

    -

    For example, one of the main benefits of Putin, was the financial management of Kudrin and his team.

    These principles of responsible financial management, relatively low inflation, balanced budget, have continued today. But they are now default.

    On the other hand, there is a deterioration in recent years, when failed concepts, like the inflationary “import substitution", became fashionable because of a partly unavoidable geopolitical situation, but also with some secondary self-interest reasons.


    How can you think of longer term planning if you do not have established a tested mechanism for the inevitable replacement of personnel?
     
    I would say it is more a problem of human resources, than of the mechanism for replacement. There is a problem, that there are not talented and responsible enough people to be a replacement of Putin.

    Part of it is because Putin's skill involves balancing many different interests and points of view. Can you think of anyone could will be able to?

    In some ways he’s improved – for example, his personal skills are better now than in the early 2000s.

    That was a middle-aged guy getting better at his job by getting more experienced.
    Now he is an experienced old guy whose health won’t get better, but worse.
    He will become less capable and that is inevitable in our times.

    Part of it is because Putin’s skill involves balancing many different interests and points of view. Can you think of anyone could will be able to?

    You could have asked the same question in 1997 and most likely would not get the “right” answer.

    As you said, Putin used to be worse.
    The replacement does not need to be as competent as current Putin.

    The Russian leadership needs a change of generations sooner than later.
    Postponing will only make it worse.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS