Originally Posted by 1990

Just a little touch of, just a little touch of, just a little touch of bad policy.

"What a pity that they had to win elections for their cause....."

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

"What a pity that they had to win elections for their cause....."

Continuing this way off-topic side discussion: Tim Rice's cleverest work in that show is in the song "Peron's Latest Flame", portraying how loathed Evita is by both the wealthy and the armed forces. I'd reproduce some of it here, but the best lines aren't particularly family-friendly. Good stuff, and I personally think that, even if the show is a little self-important at times (well, what Andrew Lloyd Webber piece isn't?), Evita's one of his most brilliant scores (very rich, covers a lot of ground; parts of it recall Superstar's driving motifs, other parts the recitatives of Song & Dance, others the sweeping balladry of Phantom or the uptempo synth of Cats -- it's probably the clearest synthesis of his various compositional trademarks...showcases all his best tricks before he began using them as musical crutches). That, and I find both Patti LuPone and Mandy Patinkin fantastic; Madonna, not so much.

Back on-topic: I'm curious why '58 Flat thinks nationalism à la Peron or de Gaulle is the right course for irretrievably globalized great powers like Russia and the United States (especially since Peronism's impact on Argentina is controversial at best, and France has devoted more lip service than actual policy action to its prevailing nationalist sentiment).

Originally Posted by 1990

Back on-topic: I'm curious why '58 Flat thinks nationalism à la Peron or de Gaulle is the right course for irretrievably globalized great powers like Russia and the United States (especially since Peronism's impact on Argentina is controversial at best, and France has devoted more lip service than actual policy action to its prevailing nationalist sentiment).

Maybe he hopes that the 'irretrievably' part can yet be proven wrong, and thus something salvaged from the (current or impending) wreck of both nations, and the respective civilizations they each represent. (Orthodox and Western)

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Maybe he hopes that the 'irretrievably' part can yet be proven wrong, and thus something salvaged from the (current or impending) wreck of both nations, and the respective civilizations they each represent. (Orthodox and Western)

He can quit worrying for Russia. They've already weathered their major hump, and they've been through 1Ts a lot worse than this one.

Well if wasn't for Clinton's and Bush The Younger's - mostly Clinton's - faulty policy moves toward Russia, "we" wouldn't have to worry about Russia.

At least the homicide bombers running amok in Xinjiang has given us a second chance with China.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

At least the homicide bombers running amok in Xinjiang has given us a second chance with China.

You do realize that when you use idiotic phrases like "homicide bomber" (or any similar you might invent like murder-killer or steal-robber or so forth) you make immediately clear to everyone just exactly what kind of a partisan hack you are. Like a guy with a tattoo on his face coming to a job interview.

So... I guess...

Thanks for saving us all the time and effort.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Yeah. Because Russians -- like everyone else in the world -- are really, deep-down in the core of their souls, exactly the same as Americans...

And Americans already know the best way...

Sometimes I wonder if each is subconsciously trying to replay its own revolution in foreign countries. The Americans have to tear down the statue of the local tyrant and elect an elite body of businessmen favorable to their influence to implement Hamiltonian policies. The Russians have to sow disorder and chaos so that a chosen strong man favorable to their influence can emerge from the rubble and lead the country forward. Once in power, said chosen leader can find a way to stay in power for as long as possible while looking semi legitimate.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You do realize that when you use idiotic phrases like "homicide bomber" (or any similar you might invent like murder-killer or steal-robber or so forth) you make immediately clear to everyone just exactly what kind of a partisan hack you are. Like a guy with a tattoo on his face coming to a job interview.

So... I guess...

Thanks for saving us all the time and effort.

Yet another attempt at humor of mine has failed.

But at least it's better than calling it a "deadly homicide bombing," as Fox News did (how can a homicide bombing not be "deadly"?).

Pardon our grammar but ...

... Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.

I would like to ask several questions. I just don't know where to write them, so I wrote them here in this thread.

In Russia, during the Soviet Era, there was a propaganda that tsarist Russia was a backward country before the Revolution. The Soviet propaganda claimed that Russia in 1916 was a pre-industrial society, mostly relying on agriculture. It was said that pre-Revolutionary Russia was an agrarian and imperialist aristocracy. It was said that the majority of its population was peasants from rural areas and most Russians were illiterate.

Between 1917 and approximately 1934, early Soviet Union went through most of the industrialization. In rural areas, horse-drawn plows were replaced by tractors, and electricity and running water were connected. Roads, railroads, factories, and dams were built. By about 1934, Soviet Union had a very strong industrial base and a military-industrial complex ready for any war. Cities had grown as more former peasants moved to cities to become workers. Illiteracy was almost eliminated.

Now comes my question.
Was America in 1929 similar to tsarist, pre-revolutionary Russia?
When did industrialization take place in US?

From many history books, including those by S&H, it seems to me that US went through similar changes during the last 4T and early 1T. From what I had read, in 1929, US was a backward, agrarian, illiterate, pre-industrial aristocracy. American capitalism was not yet as clearly defined as it is today. In 1929, there were only beginnings of capitalism, and it was wild and laissez-faire. According to many history books and TFT, America was building railroads, factories, dams, and military-industrail complex between about 1930 and 1955. It seems like it was then when tractors, running water, and electricity appeared and illiteracy was eliminated. So this would mean that US was behind USSR in its industrialization?

In the early Soviet years, there was a political slogan "Call to catch up with America and get ahead of it." But it seems like the Soviets were ahead?

What approximate percent of US population was rural in 1929?
What approximate percent of US population were farmers in 1929?

Was it FDR who industrialized America?
Was it he who created what we know as American capitalism?

By the way, I used to post on this forum about six to eight yers ago under the name bg115.

Originally Posted by Chemicalbaritone

I would like to ask several questions. I just don't know where to write them, so I wrote them here in this thread.

In Russia, during the Soviet Era, there was a propaganda that tsarist Russia was a backward country before the Revolution. The Soviet propaganda claimed that Russia in 1916 was a pre-industrial society, mostly relying on agriculture. It was said that pre-Revolutionary Russia was an agrarian and imperialist aristocracy. It was said that the majority of its population was peasants from rural areas and most Russians were illiterate.

Between 1917 and approximately 1934, early Soviet Union went through most of the industrialization. In rural areas, horse-drawn plows were replaced by tractors, and electricity and running water were connected. Roads, railroads, factories, and dams were built. By about 1934, Soviet Union had a very strong industrial base and a military-industrial complex ready for any war. Cities had grown as more former peasants moved to cities to become workers. Illiteracy was almost eliminated.

As one who has some familiarity with Russian history, I will say that this sounds about like what I understand to have been true of the late tsarist period.

Originally Posted by CB

Now comes my question.
Was America in 1929 similar to tsarist, pre-revolutionary Russia?
When did industrialization take place in US?

From many history books, including those by S&H, it seems to me that US went through similar changes during the last 4T and early 1T.

The American 1T that in terms of industrialization and economic modernization most closely resembles the Soviet 1T of the 1920's and 30's was the one that we Americans often refer to as "the guilded age" which was roughly from 1869 to at least 1886.

Originally Posted by CB

From what I had read, in 1929, US was a backward, agrarian, illiterate, pre-industrial aristocracy.

The American south, especially its rural parts, was at least partly like this in the period before FDR's new deal brought it into the 20th century.

Originally Posted by CB

American capitalism was not yet as clearly defined as it is today. In 1929, there were only beginnings of capitalism, and it was wild and laissez-faire. According to many history books and TFT, America was building railroads, factories, dams, and military-industrail complex between about 1930 and 1955. It seems like it was then when tractors, running water, and electricity appeared and illiteracy was eliminated. So this would mean that US was behind USSR in its industrialization?

As noted above, excepting the rural south, that is incorrect.

Originally Posted by CB

What approximate percent of US population was rural in 1929?
What approximate percent of US population were farmers in 1929?

Look in here. Note the difference between the southern states and the others in 1930. You will understand better what I am saying above.

Originally Posted by CB

Was it he who created what we know as American capitalism?

Being a president who qualifies as a grey champion, FDR and his administration developed through trial and error the social contract that America operated under for the last saeculium. Today almost everyone who has adult memories of that period in American history has died and many of the mistakes that led to the 4T that began in 1929 have been basically repeated, resulting in the new crises that America is in. Such is the nature of the cycle. It is open to question just how much the solutions to this 4T, or even if they will be found, will resemble the solutions of the last 4T. But FDR was largely responsible for what American capitalism was thought of as being after 1945.

Over the years that I read posts on this forum, I have heard debates about Russian generations. Some people wrote that Russians are on the same timeline as Americans. That would mean that WWI and Revolution were 3T, stalinist Purges and WWII (Great Patriotic War) were 4T, Brezhnev era was 2T, and perestroika and Yeltsin era were 3T. This is actually how I always thought about it. Other people wrote that Russia is about one turning ahead of US. Why is that? This would mean that WWI and Revolution were 4T, and WWII was either a late 1T war or an early 2T war, perhaps along the lines of a Soviet Vietnam. This would mean that perestroika was the next 4T. Actually, having come to think of it, both models make sense to me.

I always thought that Russia and US were following a very similar generational pattern. I actually thought that US was several years ahead of Russia for a long time. My view of things was the following for many years. General Alexander Suvorov (1729-1801) was Russian George Washington. Tsar Alexander II was Russia's Abraham Lincoln, as Alexander II freed the serfs, while Lincoln freed the slaves. Both events happened in early 1860s and led to industrialization of each country. I had always thought of Lenin and Theodore Roosevelt to be similar, because Lenin possessed some of a Rough Rider spirit. Similarly, FDR and stalin were counterparts, as each man had industrialized his own country, built the military, and led the country through the most troublesome times, through WWII. I thought of the Women's Suffrage and Labor movements in US as the American equivalent of the Russian Revolution. Soviet NEP is the equivalent of the Jazz Age and the Roaring Twenties. Theodore Roosevelt started the Progressive reforms, he scratched the surface, but paved the way for FDR to implement his New Deal. Likewise, Lenin had overthrown the tsar, but it was stalin who built the Soviet system. Then, I thought that Russia had to rebuild damaged and destroyed cities after WWII, so I thought that their 4T ended several years later than American 4T. Brezhnev is Russian LBJ or Russian Reagan, Gorbachev is Russian Carter. I thought that Russia's Millennial Generation starts around 1986 or 1987, with those young people too young to remember USSR. Then, in early 2000s, George W. Bush promised to be tough to fight against terrorists and Putin promised the same. At that point, I had this kind of a view on Russian and American generations and turnings. But then, in mid-2000s, I realized that Bush almost completely failed in US and became very unpopular, while Putin was a success with Russians.

The view that Russia is 20 years ahead of US also makes perfect sense just the same. Then, it would go like this. Theodore Roosevelt would be the American Alexander III, a tough, resolute guy who bossed neighboring nation to submission. Spanish-American War (1898) is equivalent ot Russo-Tukish War (1877), as both wars were based on extreme patriotism and nationalism. Then, WWI for US is what Russo-Japanese War is for the Russians. Now, FDR is the American Lenin, not stalin, and the New Deal is now the American version of the Russian Revolution. WWII for US is like WWI for Russia. Vietnam War for US is the American Great Patriotic War. Joe McCarthy and/or Richard Nixon then become the American stalin, as both were extremely authoritarian. Jimmy Carter then become American Khruschev, a simple man from a farm who rose to the ranks of a national leader to fight against abuse of power by the government. Then, it follows that the 1990s and early 2000s are equivalent to the stagnation era in USSR. People enjoy good times and prosperity, while new problems arise. Presidents Clinton and Bush are then equivalent to Brezhnev, and the current wars in Afganistan and Iraq are equivalent to Soviet Afghan War of 1980s. Then, Obama is the American Gorbachev and the change that he proposed so much is in essence the American perestroika.

This makes sense too. Both of these comparisons make sense, depending on how you look at it.

Also, I sometimes think that Russia was in constant 4T almost non-stop between 1904 and 1954! There was such a cascade of events...
Russo-Japanese War, bread riots, Russian Revolution of 1905, formation of Duma, constitutional crisis, Stolypin's reforms, WWI, February Revolution of 1917, October Revolution of 1917, Revolutionary War (aka Russian Civil War), military communism, Red Terror, collectivization, de-kulakization, starvations and mass famines, stalin's rise to power, struggle between Party factions, mass purges, wars against Japan in Far East, Russo-Finnish War, WWII, completely destroyed fields and cities, rebuilding of the nation, more mass purges, anti-cosmopolitan campaign, stalin's death...
Really, there was a short break from hardships only during the Soviet NEP, in mid 1920s. NEP had very 3T characteristics, as there were Soviet female flappers, known as "Emancipated Women". There was a lot of jazz and a many new avant-garde directions in music, theater, abstract art, and poetry. Marriage had been annulled as an outdated relic of the past! Young people shared many lovers randomly! Also, the kulak class could enjoy a very lavish decadent lifestyle in mid 1920s. Then, with stalin's rise to power, by late 1920s and early 1930s, the kulak class came to an end and puritanical mores were enforced.

What if Russia does not follow the theory? What if Russia has its own archetypes and turnings? Those turnings could be similar to the West, but perhaps in a different order or with different archetypes.

If you look at it from a purely wars-footing, the question of Russia's saeculum is confusing. However, generational theory is primarily social, and not war-based. And when one looks at the internal ebbs and flows, the Russian rhythm is quite clear. Socially, the cycle lines right up, and one can see very close russian analogues to the western Hero-Artist-Prophet-Nomad archetypes.

What's particularly interesting is that Russia, being a country just about one turning ahead of its immediate neighbors, has the annoying habit of having to fight pretty major wars on its own territory during what should be its stable 1T periods -- that's what comes of all your neighbors going apeshit right when you've come down. I've argued that the severe deficit of a truly largely unambiguously good High periods in Russian history is a significant contributor to the meta-saecular fatalism in the Russian character.

(by the way, there was no such thing as the 'kulak class' -- that was a fiction dreamed up by Lenin to justify the massive arrests and executions of the more productive members of Russian society to make collectivization go down more smoothly. A 'kulak' could have been someone who owned two cows instead of one, or who was able to grow and sell enough surplus vegetables to be able to paint their hut.)

I am not entirely convinced that the post-Soviet settlement has been nailed down yet. In the Baltics, you see pretty big institutional changes -- they went from being Soviet republics to NATO and EU members in 13 years. These countries were somewhat different though. They were only Soviet countries for little over 45 years -- they were occupied and annexed in 1940, then occupied and annexed by the Germans from '41 to '44, then reoccupied by the Soviets again in '44. They had living generations who experienced independence as adults in 1991. The other former Soviet states did not.

A lot of the old guard still runs the other former republics -- Lukashenka in Belarus, Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan, Karimov in Uzbekistan. They have all been in power for almost 20 years. How long will that arrangement work? It's easy to see it degenerating into ethnic conflicts like those that raged in the early 1990s. Then there are all these territorial questions about the Caucuses and the Crimea. The Russians basically possess Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but nobody, save Nicaragua, recognizes the independence of those statelets. So I don't know how long that will last. Will these countries just be ruled by neo-Stalinist leaders for life for eternity? It could get ugly.

Had to laugh at a Fox News graphic stating that Russia is currently occupying the "Georgian regions" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Isn't that rather like talking about the "British region" of Ireland say, a century ago?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Had to laugh at a Fox News graphic stating that Russia is currently occupying the "Georgian regions" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Isn't that rather like talking about the "British region" of Ireland say, a century ago?

Almost. Except that part of Ireland really is British. It'd be more like talking about the "British Region" of India...

(strictly speaking, if you want to be an ass and not recognize their independence, you should really call them the Ossetian and Abkazian, respectively, regions of Georgia.)

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Had to laugh at a Fox News graphic stating that Russia is currently occupying the "Georgian regions" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Isn't that rather like talking about the "British region" of Ireland say, a century ago?

W00t! Up the Ulstermen! (Waves the Orange flag.)

Well actually my point is/was that Ossetia and Abkhazia should be free and independent - and I find this mutual admiration society of the neoconartists and the country that gave the world Joe Stalin both bizarre and sickening.

Between this and the Serbian question, we really blew it with the Russians.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Well actually my point is/was that Ossetia and Abkhazia should be free and independent - and I find this mutual admiration society of the neoconartists and the country that gave the world Joe Stalin both bizarre and sickening.

Between this and the Serbian question, we really blew it with the Russians.

I actually think we've done great. We used to bicker about Berlin. Now we bicker about friggin' South Ossetia! In a generation, we'll be bickering about the borders of the Fergana Valley.

As for the Russians, they'll always be unhappy, and it will always be somebody else's fault (usually real foreigners or homegrown 'foreigners' with names like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky ...) You can't please someone who suffers from chronic dissatisfaction.

Kosovo will never be independent until Belgrade accepts it. According to my trusty Google Maps, it is surrounded by a nice, ambiguous, dotted line, rather than the full lines that demarcate actual countries. According to my trusty Wikipedia article, it's a "disputed republic in the Balkans."

South Ossetia and Abkhazia don't even have dotted lines on Google Maps. Must be some kind of neocon conspiracy.

But the point is - or was, anyway - aren't we supposed to be fighting our 21st-Century battle against The Global Islamic Conspiracy, rather than a 20th-Century battle against an "Evil Empire" that no longer exists? And as such, shouldn't both Russia - see Chechnya, Dagestan etc. - and China - see Xinjiang - be natural allies of ours?

Although truth be told, I'm beginning to wonder about the whole War on Islam thing: The more I see what is going on (or perhaps more accurately, what is not going on), the closer I'm coming to regarding 9/11 as one big temper tantrum - a monstrously evil temper tantrum, I suppose, but a temper tantrum nonetheless.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But the point is - or was, anyway - aren't we supposed to be fighting our 21st-Century battle against The Global Islamic Conspiracy, rather than a 20th-Century battle against an "Evil Empire" that no longer exists?

Here's an interesting poll. 54 percent of Russians polled in 2007 saw the US as the primary threat to their security. "Minorities" -- I would guess Islamic minorities - were second, at 30 percent. And this is after multiple wars in the Caucuses!

In May 2009, Russians polled listed the "least friendly" countries to Russia: Georgia (62 percent), USA (45 percent), Ukraine (41 percent), Latvia (35 percent), Lithuania (35 percent), and Estonia -- where I live -- (30 percent).

Russia's best friends, by the way, are Belarus (50 percent), Kazakhstan, China, Germany, Armenia, and India. Germany is of course because of business-related friendly PR. If any country is responsible for the breakup of Russia's "MiniMe" (Yugoslavia), it was Berlin, who recognized Slovenia and Croatia's independence weeks ahead of other European countries and Washington.

If Germany was to become an enemy of Russia again, I am sure their media would revive this fact. That's something you should bear in mind, any random historical fact or, in many cases myth, can be used to justify a policy. Russia's narrative now is of how Gorbachev was told in 1990 that NATO wouldn't expand, except it did. But most articles I have read by officials involved in those negotiations said the "promise" was one of several proposals floating around and that it was never actually put in writing and signed. They could be twisting their words, or Gorbachev could just be trying to cover his ass (probably both). The truth here doesn't really matter. What matters is that it is a convenient "stab in the back" myth for Moscow. Almost all former Eastern Bloc countries have pursued national narratives of victimization after 1991. Russia here is no different.

But, as for now, Georgia and the US are Russia's greatest enemies in the mind of "voters" in that country. But what about the US? Do we really fear the "Evil Empire"?

No. The Americans polled this month listed North Korea (38 percent) as the greatest threat, followed by China (18 percent), Iran (17 percent), and Pakistan (8 percent). 3 percent of Americans listed Russia as their greatest security threat.

And as such, shouldn't both Russia - see Chechnya, Dagestan etc. - and China - see Xinjiang - be natural allies of ours?

From our perspective, yes. From their perspective, obviously not, especially when the Russians consider us to be their main security threat.

Although truth be told, I'm beginning to wonder about the whole War on Islam thing: The more I see what is going on (or perhaps more accurately, what is not going on), the closer I'm coming to regarding 9/11 as one big temper tantrum - a monstrously evil temper tantrum, I suppose, but a temper tantrum nonetheless.

It was a well-planned attack by a terrorist group on high-impact targets. But it wasn't some invitation to an end-of-days war between Judeo-Christianity and Islam, like some people probably wanted it to be. That's a whole other issue to itself, things I have barely read on, like the establishment of the current state system in the Middle East, the responsibilities of former colonial powers, radical Islam, etc. I could read 100 books (Iõve only read a handful) about it, and still not give you an informed opinion.

I am getting a whiff of "We have always been at war with East Asia" about your description of Russian opinion of who their friends and enemies are. Still feeling their way, are they?

Originally Posted by Uzi

Russia's best friends, by the way, are Belarus (50 percent), Kazakhstan, China, Germany, Armenia, and India. Germany is of course because of business-related friendly PR. If any country is responsible for the breakup of Russia's "MiniMe" (Yugoslavia), it was Berlin, who recognized Slovenia and Croatia's independence weeks ahead of other European countries and Washington.

If Germany was to become an enemy of Russia again, I am sure their media would revive this fact.

Not only that, but considering who has an excess of population sitting right next to Siberia (and according to some reports, their nationals now outnumber, or at least match, the number of ethnic Russians in the region), I'm not sure I would be so trusting of China were I sitting in Moskva. After all, it wouldn't be too difficult for a new Chinese government, sometime down the road, to decide that their current agreements with Russia resolving the outstanding border disputes between them are nothing more that 'ink on a page'.

That's something you should bear in mind, any random historical fact or, in many cases myth, can be used to justify a policy.

HOW TRUE!!!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I am getting a whiff of "We have always been at war with East Asia" about your description of Russian opinion of who their friends and enemies are. Still feeling their way, are they?

I don't know that that's quite the case. What you have to keep in mind is the way those various places have interacted with Russia over the past decade-half.

China, Kazakhstan, India, are all places that have made major efforts in the past decade or so to deepen and strengthen cross-cultural and economic connections with Russia and the Russian people. I'm not exactly sure why Armenia and Belorussia made the list, except maybe that so very many Russians like to vacation there, so possibly have come to know them as "nice places to go, with hospitable people".

And also keep in mind, the question wasn't 'friends' versus 'enemies', but 'friendly' versus 'unfriendly'. By that metric, the USA, Georgia, and the Baltics (though I'm surprised to see Latvia on that list...) for the last couple years certainly would rank somewhere at the bottom. It's not that Russians dislike them, it's that they have been seeing a dislike coming from them.

Being unfriendly to Russia has its advantages. Most Russian nationalists within whom I have conversed (that is, those that don't remind one of Goebbels, which is a healthy portion of them) now see Estonia as being so foreign, that it's no longer on their "rebuild the empire" agenda. Great success!

Originally Posted by Uzi

Being unfriendly to Russia has its advantages. Most Russian nationalists within whom I have conversed (that is, those that don't remind one of Goebbels, which is a healthy portion of them) now see Estonia as being so foreign, that it's no longer on their "rebuild the empire" agenda. Great success!

See, so you can understand why a survey of Russians might identify Estonia as being one of the less-friendly countries. It's not that they're an enemy or anything -- far from it; at worst they would rate 'asshole neighbor' (a feeling I'm sure is mutual). It's just that they've made the conscious decision to... be unfriendly to Russia.

It all sort of makes sense...