Originally Posted by TimWalker

I have considered that Russia's recent Crisis may be a model for our own. There may be similar themes, just as the American and French Revolutions had similar themes.

Tim, don't miss Dmitry Orlav's interview here.

I enjoy reading Orlov (the accent is on the last syllable -- are-LOHV); the fact that his observations so closely track with my own is a nice confirmation that I've likely not been hallucinating all this time. Really, he puts it all very succinctly with one line:

Really the most important thing to consider is, who do you know and how will they help you even if you don’t give them any money for it.

Glad you liked it, Justin. I had a feeling you would.

It's true... we're getting to the point where we need to rely on each other for help. I've been reading all day about the growing recognition (yes, just now) about just how wide the chasm is between the rich and poor in America. And then you read blog postings like this... we HAVE to do something, if it's only taking in people who have nowhere else to go.

FSB expresses worries about Skype, Gmail... gets smacked down by Kremlin.

As with all other 'national security' agencies, everywhere, the FSB was concerned about the fact that communications could occur which they were unable to monitor (the article mentions how the American FBI and several western European agencies have expressed the exact same concerns). No sooner had they expressed this national security concern publicly, then the Russian government in uncharacteristically blunt terms told them off (the Prez is an early-wave Civic... you do not threaten those guys' Internet). His office came right out and said that "questions of internet technology are not the concern of the Special Services" and "The FSB's job is to take care of their own information security, not to go around forbidding technologies" They capped it off by suggesting that the FSB maybe spend a bit more effort working to prevent computer attacks, which actually is their job.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

FSB expresses worries about Skype, Gmail... gets smacked down by Kremlin.

As with all other 'national security' agencies, everywhere, the FSB was concerned about the fact that communications could occur which they were unable to monitor (the article mentions how the American FBI and several western European agencies have expressed the exact same concerns). No sooner had they expressed this national security concern publicly, then the Russian government in uncharacteristically blunt terms told them off (the Prez is an early-wave Civic... you do not threaten those guys' Internet). His office came right out and said that "questions of internet technology are not the concern of the Special Services" and "The FSB's job is to take care of their own information security, not to go around forbidding technologies" They capped it off by suggesting that the FSB maybe spend a bit more effort working to prevent computer attacks, which actually is their job.

Ooh, a nice Civic smackdown!

Russia, I think, could possibly be the Germany of the last cycle. Both got defeated but without it being an unconditional surrender and there being widespread nostalgia for the old regime. I see Putin as sort of a Hindenburg-like figure keeping the extreme elements of the right and left down although thankfully Putin is younger and healthier and of a firmer personality than Hindenburg.

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

Russia, I think, could possibly be the Germany of the last cycle. Both got defeated but without it being an unconditional surrender and there being widespread nostalgia for the old regime. I see Putin as sort of a Hindenburg-like figure keeping the extreme elements of the right and left down although thankfully Putin is younger and healthier and of a firmer personality than Hindenburg.

Actually, Russia pretty well tracks with Russia of the last cycle (and really, with Russia of the Napoleonic cycle, too).

Not sure when they got 'defeated', though. They've not been defeated in anything major since... geez, I can't even recollect. Granted, they've failed to win on a few occasions in the last century (Afghanistan being the most recent, Finland being the most exciting). But none of those involved anything resembling a surrender of any sort at all. So I'm not terribly sure where you are coming from.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Actually, Russia pretty well tracks with Russia of the last cycle (and really, with Russia of the Napoleonic cycle, too).

Not sure when they got 'defeated', though. They've not been defeated in anything major since... geez, I can't even recollect. Granted, they've failed to win on a few occasions in the last century (Afghanistan being the most recent, Finland being the most exciting). But none of those involved anything resembling a surrender of any sort at all. So I'm not terribly sure where you are coming from.

I believe, if I'm understanding GMB correctly, he's interpreting the "fall of the Soviet Union" and split up of the countries as being equivalent to the defeat of Germany in WWI.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I believe, if I'm understanding GMB correctly, he's interpreting the "fall of the Soviet Union" and split up of the countries as being equivalent to the defeat of Germany in WWI.

Ah. Because why? There was no war and no defeat to the breakup of the USSR, and no centrifugal breakup of the German Empire (it was stripped apart by the victors). Plus the fact that WWI was a 3T war for Germany, and the USSR fell during a 4T.

What's the parallel? They both speak with funny accents?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah. Because why? There was no war and no defeat to the breakup of the USSR, and no centrifugal breakup of the German Empire (it was stripped apart by the victors). Plus the fact that WWI was a 3T war for Germany, and the USSR fell during a 4T.

What's the parallel? They both speak with funny accents?

So World War II wasn't a crisis for the USSR?


Plus both nations have strong anti-Western, anti-democratic extremenist, revanchist forces being kept in place only by a strong President whom both liberals and fanatics can tolerate.

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

So World War II wasn't a crisis for the USSR?


Plus both nations have strong anti-Western, anti-democratic extremenist, revanchist forces being kept in place only by a strong President whom both liberals and fanatics can tolerate.

It was an interruption of a 1Ting.

The 4Ting began earlier with a little thing called the Russian Revolution--you might have heard it briefly mentioned once or twice. It produced a governing body which lasted about 74 years (1917 - 1991). However the 4Ting for Russia began 1905-ish with the first peasant uprisings against the Czar.

You want to see late 3Ting/early 4Ting Russia just see a play by Chekhov--especially The Cherry Orchard (1904). People in debt with over extended credit, people borrowing money they can't pay back, people loosing their homes, everyone in denial about it... sounds familiar doesn't it?

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

So World War II wasn't a crisis for the USSR?

Nope. I mean, it was a crisis for them, of course (getting invaded does to be sucky, regardless your social environment), but it wasn't a Crisis-in-the-sense-of-Fourth-Turning.

Russia has the misfortune of being situated right next to a bunch of neighbors who tend to get all war-happy right as it is coming into its own 1T period. It's been a lo-o-o-ong time since Russians have enjoyed an unalloyed-happy High. Several of their quintessential personality traits may be related to that.

Plus both nations have strong anti-Western, anti-democratic extremenist, revanchist forces being kept in place only by a strong President whom both liberals and fanatics can tolerate.

Har. Says the guy who knows not a damn thing about the RF today, and only what he read in books about the Germany-of-back-then. Suffice to say, as regards the first, it ain't the way you've been told.

Yup. Everytime Russia enters it's 1T it seems like it always gets SCREWED by the 4T going on to it's west. Never fails.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yup. Everytime Russia enters it's 1T it seems like it always gets SCREWED by the 4T going on to it's west. Never fails.

I wonder if this cycle might be an exception. All of Russia's typical adversaries are, due to nuclear weapons, unable to directly interfere with their affairs. Europe and China are both likely to be primarily concerned with internal matters in the near future. That would leave Russia relatively unmolested during a 1T.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I wonder if this cycle might be an exception. All of Russia's typical adversaries are, due to nuclear weapons, unable to directly interfere with their affairs. Europe and China are both likely to be primarily concerned with internal matters in the near future. That would leave Russia relatively unmolested during a 1T.

Russia won't know what to do with itself... who knows they might for once develop an optimistic viewpoint? But that might be expecting a little much of them...

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I wonder if this cycle might be an exception. All of Russia's typical adversaries are, due to nuclear weapons, unable to directly interfere with their affairs. Europe and China are both likely to be primarily concerned with internal matters in the near future. That would leave Russia relatively unmolested during a 1T.

Man, it'd be nice if that were the case. Then again, the last time, Russia got invaded after the world had already fought "the war to end all wars".

To be honest, I had sort of assumed that the world economic crash was going to be Russia's 1T kick-in-the-nuts for this cycle. But really, over there the crisis only seems to have lasted maybe a year and a half, tops. The Russian economy is well into its second year of genuine (as opposed to nominal-statistical-but-invisible-in-anything-that-actually-matters, like we've got here) recovery. Shows what I get for assuming, eh?

I agree with General Mung Beans mostly regarding russia's role in WW3. There are strong forces in russia who want revenge for the defeat in the cold war. General mung beans in other posts does underestimate the radicalism in those fringe elements within america and europe, however. WW3 will probably consisted of a war lead by a revisionist extremist regime in order to conquer europe and the mideast with the goal of "unifiying the white race". Russian forces may also invade north america to provide a distraction to keep america from reinforcing europe. The ultimate soviet plan would be the global cleansing of Jews, blacks, asians, native americans, mixed races and other nonwhites worldwide. In both Europe and north america, russian invasion force may be assisted by fifth columns of local communists and white supremacists (like the neoconfederate teabaggers and the european ultranationalists) who would attempt the cleansing of ethnic minorites with the backing of russian forces. According to numerous prophecies, the russian forces would eventually be defeated, but the war would kill about 25% of the worlds population.

Did you hear Fresh Air today?

She had on this reporter who covers national security for the LA Times Magazine and has just written a book on Area 51. The woman's source (who had been a Manhattan Project scientist and worked for the Atomic Energy Commission for decades) told her over 18 months of interviews that a dish shaped craft did crash in New Mexico in 1947 and that it had been a Soviet plane (which used Nazi-sourced technology developed by the brothers who designed the flying wing). But that's not the stunning and disturbing part. The source told this reporter that the bodies of small people (possibly as young as thirteen) who had been surgically and or otherwise altered to look like space aliens were recovered from the craft (and that there had been some kind of program in the USSR to do this kind of thing - possibly with the help of Josef Mangele). But even that isn't the stunning and disturbing part. The source told this reporter that instead of going public with the revelation that the Soviet Union was engaging in something more perverse and demented than many people would have even suspected a rogue human experimentation program was created in the US and that is the thing they've been trying to keep so secret for so long.

Originally Posted by Linus

Did you hear Fresh Air today?

She had on this reporter who covers national security for the LA Times Magazine and has just written a book on Area 51. The woman's source (who had been a Manhattan Project scientist and worked for the Atomic Energy Commission for decades) told her over 18 months of interviews that a dish shaped craft did crash in New Mexico in 1947 and that it had been a Soviet plane (which used Nazi-sourced technology developed by the brothers who designed the flying wing). But that's not the stunning and disturbing part. The source told this reporter that the bodies of small people (possibly as young as thirteen) who had been surgically and or otherwise altered to look like space aliens were recovered from the craft (and that there had been some kind of program in the USSR to do this kind of thing - possibly with the help of Josef Mangele). But even that isn't the stunning and disturbing part. The source told this reporter that instead of going public with the revelation that the Soviet Union was engaging in something more perverse and demented than many people would have even suspected a rogue human experimentation program was created in the US and that is the thing they've been trying to keep so secret for so long.

H-m-m-m. Tin foil hats all around.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Tin foil hats all around.

It doesn't take a conspiracy to make kids look like space aliens. All it takes is a wild new fashion, such as the body mods that have swept the youth fashion scene. And I have seen some doozies.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Tin foil hats all around.

No doubt. A summary of the story is here.

The interview is here.

I was unaware the Nazis were alleged (by anyone) to have been working on a "flying disc" and a quick internet search suggests much of what is out there on the subject comes from conspiracy theory types.

But I think I'd have to read more about it all before I might have an opinion about it.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Man, it'd be nice if that were the case. Then again, the last time, Russia got invaded after the world had already fought "the war to end all wars".

To be honest, I had sort of assumed that the world economic crash was going to be Russia's 1T kick-in-the-nuts for this cycle. But really, over there the crisis only seems to have lasted maybe a year and a half, tops. The Russian economy is well into its second year of genuine (as opposed to nominal-statistical-but-invisible-in-anything-that-actually-matters, like we've got here) recovery. Shows what I get for assuming, eh?

1) Russia did not exist from 1917 to 1991. There was an entity called the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic (the predecessor to today's Russian Federation), but the country that "got invaded" in 1941 was the larger, multinational, Communist super state called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was led by Comrade Stalin, a Georgian by birth, who had spent the years prior to the invasion killing off any remaining Bolshevik rivals and purging his army commanders.

The border that those Nazi troops crossed in June 1941 was not Russian -- it was former Polish territory that had been occupied by the Soviets in collusion with the Nazis. So this, "the West invaded Russia" doesn't tell the whole story. "Russia" (actually the USSR) invaded the West in 1939 and 1940 by attacking Finland, occupying and annexing Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and dismembering Poland.

The Soviet Union was never, and especially under Stalin's rule, wasn't a peace loving country that valued individual liberty or rule of law. I agree that it was in a "High" during the Second World War, but we shouldn't lie to ourselves about that high.

2) I agree with you that Russia's crisis was the transition from empire to what became the Soviet Union. It began in 1905 and it ended in the late 1920s with Stalin's consolidation of power. Let's say about 1928. This "High" -- which really wasn't so great as millions of people died from starvation, war, labor camps, and executions as political prisoners -- was over by the early 1950s. Stalin died in March 1953. Beria, his henchman (for lack of better terms) was executed in December 1953. One can date the start of the Awakening then at 1954. I'm not really sure when this Awakening ended. 1968 and the invasion of Prague is too early. 1973, though, was the year when the Soviet economy began to stagnate. One could see this period of Stagnation, the Unraveling, as lasting straight up until the end of the 1980s and the collapse of the Soviet state. When did the Soviet crisis begin? Was it in 1985 with Gorbachev? Glasnost and Perestroika in 1987? Or the reunifaction of West and East Germany in 1989? By 1991, the state had ceased to exist. Its successor, the Russian Federation, fought two very bloody wars in Chechnya that continued actually until 2009, when Russia finally pulled the bulk of its army out. One could date Russia's crisis from about 1987 to 2008/2009. The War in Georgia was also a good marker. Russia could have invaded and occupied Georgia (and wound up in a far worse situation than it had been in Chechnya) but it elected not to, because its leaders knew the country wouldn't be able to handle it.

I was just in Moscow. That country feels like it has just gotten over something really bad, not that it is going through something bad. The result of the wars in Chechnya has been something nearing total autonomy for that republic. My friends tell me that Russians don't even think of it as part of Russia anymore, and that no one goes there.

It is interesting reading this cycle when I compare them with Estonia. At the very time when Estonia was in crisis from 1933 to 1953, the Soviet Union was in a High, which gave it the advantage when it came to occupying and annexing the country. Narva, a city on Estonia's eastern border, was flattened in the war, and most of its occupants never allowed to return. The Soviets rebuilt the city and populated it with people from elsewhere in the Soviet Union, within a matter of years.

But when the Soviet state was at the end of its unraveling, in the late 1980s, the Estonians were experiencing an Awakening. This made it easier for them to restore their independence. It always interested me how the Estonians entered the 1990s feeling empowered, but the Russians entered the same decade feeling defeated. One would think the larger country would be more coherent, but apparently this was not the case. While Russia's hands were tied in Chechnya, the Baltics joined the EU and NATO in 2004, and Estonia acceded to the Eurozone in 2011 Goodbye, Lenin!

Originally Posted by Uzi

I was just in Moscow. That country feels like it has just gotten over something really bad, not that it is going through something bad. The result of the wars in Chechnya has been something nearing total autonomy for that republic. My friends tell me that Russians don't even think of it as part of Russia anymore, and that no one goes there.

What you are describing has been the case in Russia since 2000/2001,with the very brief interlude in late 08 into 2009. The end of the 4T era there pretty clearly lines up with the shaking-off of the socioeconomic situation that culminated in the '98 ruble default.

It's kind of funny -- I've got a couple friends from Pushkin who came over to Florida a year ago to start up a division of their company here. Just on the phone yesterday with one of them; he observed that the USA today (at least socially and in particular economically) feels a lot like Russia did, in the very early 90s. I've tried to get him to read T4T, but he's not terribly big on english yet, and the book isn't the most accessible for beginners.

Oh yeah, and you're totally right about Chechnya. That whole part of the world out in the Caucasus barely counts as Russia to most Russians. One of the features of a 1T consolidation might very well be the trimming-off and setting-aside of unresolvable problematic areas. The RF is being quite a bit more civil about it than the USSR was; you've got to give them that.

It's interesting that Chechnya's de facto ruler, Ramzan Kadyrov, was born in 1976. He's a year older than you and three years older than me. Then again, the incoming prime minister of Finland was born in 1971. I guess we're just getting older

Originally Posted by Uzi

It's interesting that Chechnya's de facto ruler, Ramzan Kadyrov, was born in 1976. He's a year older than you and three years older than me. Then again, the incoming prime minister of Finland was born in 1971. I guess we're just getting older

Oh hell yeah. I watched a month ago or so a movie about one of the big White leaders during the revolution. Discovered that one of the actresses in it was born on the same year and day as me.

It turned out, she was the one who played the older, former wife... not the young lead.

Dammit. I'm old.