Russia -- The Empire of Tyranny

President George W. Bush’s recent attendance in the festivities in Moscow marking the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat took place against the background of rising tensions between Washington and the Kremlin. The American leader’s decision to make historic first time visits to the former Soviet republics of Latvia and Georgia drew an odd response from the Russian foreign minister, who went as far as sending a letter of protest. However inappropriate, the protest did not transpire without reason. Mr. Sergey Lavrov understood well the symbolic importance of an American president’s visit to democratic Latvia and Georgia, the countries Russia still considers to be subjects of its so-called sphere of influence. The Americans’ message to Moscow, in essence, was that these territories were no longer the backyard Russia could abuse at will. Perhaps predictably, during his stay in Latvia, President Bush took the opportunity to remind his Russian counterpart that it is “in his country's interests that there be democracies on his borders.” Unstated yet clearly implied in this comment was the inference that Putin must attend to his democratic responsibilities, instead of nurturing still more autocratic aspirations for Russia's future.

There was a time when skeptics of Russia’s democratic potential liked to cite frequently the well-known dictum: “Scratch a Russian and you will find a Mongol.” The logic went that their Asiatic origins prevented Russians from embracing Western liberalism. Given the changes that have taken place in the Asian landscape in the past half-century, it is long due to correct this gross historical injustice against the Asians, and in particular, the Mongols. According to the latest annual report by the prestigious Freedom House, Mongolia is a “free” country, whereas Russia is still listed in the category of “not free” nations alongside Syria, North Korea and Cuba. So, left without this easy rationale which for centuries helped many Westerners to excuse Russia’s tyrannical penchant, how is one to explain what currently transpires in Russia?

Make no mistake, the Russia of Vladimir Putin is headed anywhere except toward a democratic future. If the latest actions and statements by the Russian president are any indication, his country will not join the ranks of democratic nations anytime soon. Ever since coming to power, Vladimir Putin has consistently tried and often succeeded in wiping out what seemed to be sprouting elements of democracy. Having crushed the independent media and insubordinate business class, Putin first consolidated political power by stuffing key government posts with his pals from the KGB. Then, in a startling move, the Russian president decreed the liquidation of the system that had allowed citizens to choose their own governors. In order to increase the efficiency of the system, Putin claimed, from that point on, he was to appoint all the governors throughout the eight time zones of Russia. His appetite for power was not limited to the confines of Russia alone. In the Fall of 2004, Putin actively involved himself in the Ukrainian presidential elections trying to ensure that power remained in the hands of the authoritarian clique in Kiev. But something marvelous happened. This time, Putin failed.

Fortunately for the rest of the world, Putin’s foreign policy adventures have been nowhere near as successful as those in the domestic front. However, that has not stopped him from expressing his frustration at the fact that Russia can no longer dominate its neighbors and shape them in its own autocratic image. In a recent remark, the Russian leader observed that the “collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geo-political catastrophe of the 20th Century.” Forget the World War I, multiple Soviet famines that killed millions, the Gulag, Holocaust, or Pol Pot’s massacres in Cambodia. The mostly peaceful dissolution of the Soviet empire, in Putin’s mind, was the worst of them all. Adding to the insult, in response to the demands to acknowledge the Soviet occupation of the Baltic republics, the Russian ambassador to the European Union, Sergey Yastrzhembski, argued with a straight face that the occupation of these countries took place in accordance with the wishes of the native peoples who, of course, were later to be shot, imprisoned and deported in large numbers to the death camps of Siberia.

The unwillingness to face up to its imperial past as well as its menacing behavior toward new democracies in its neighborhood has much to do with Russia’s imperial present. Unlike every other European colonial power that has apologized for the wrongdoings of the past, Russia to this day has not renounced imperialism. Russia, to be sure, remains an empire. Besides its genocidal oppression against Chechens, Russia has imposed a direct presidential rule over the Tatars, Bashkurts, and tens of other nationalities against their wishes. A handful of individuals within the walls of the Kremlin continue to decide the fate of millions of non-Russians who have very little say in their own governance.

From ferocious Romans in the late Antiquity period to benign Habsburgs in 19th Century, history demonstrates that empires and democracy have never blended well together. Empire, by nature, is the antithesis of republic. Democracy ordinarily takes root in a republic that is based on an identifiable constituency which sees itself at the center of the polity. Russia has never been a polity as such, or in any other way. As the renowned historian of Russia Richard Pipes has argued, throughout its long history, “Russia was not so much a society as an conglomeration of tens of thousands of separate rural settlements” kept together by awesome, all–powerful despots seated at the Kremlin. While all empires entail a great degree of oppression in regard to those colonized, its extreme centralization and unwillingness to relegate any sort of power to the localities made Russia exceptional even among traditional empires.

Through this method of rule, not only did the Russian state oppress the colonized but also the vast majority of its ethnic core – the Russians. The extreme atomization of the society is most evident in the fact that until 1861, nearly 80 percent of the Russians were serfs. Precisely, as a result of this deep lack of social cohesiveness among ethnic Russians, the modern Russian identity came to be formed almost solely around imperial notions of the self.

What is most disturbing about today’s Russia is not Vladimir Putin per se, but the fact that Putin represents the mindset of a great many Russians. It helps to know that unlike Peter the Great, Lenin or Stalin, Vladimir Putin has actually been elected to presidency by the majority of the Russian people. His career in KGB notwithstanding, Putin’s background contains features that are common with most ordinary Russians. In most of his actions, including the crude interference in the elections in Ukraine or strong friendship with the President of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenka, dubbed as the last dictator of Europe, Putin echoes the sentiments of large numbers of Russians who feel the need to maintain some type of barrier against the West. One could indeed argue that at the heart of this attitude stands the age-old enmity with the Teutonic folks. Still, this self-defeating course is more about Russia’s own identity that that of the West.

Russia cannot imagine itself as a democracy because, in the minds of many Russians, this would mean an end to “Great Russia.” They may even be right. In fact, every time Russia loosened up in the past, it did lose territories. During the revolutionary upheaval of 1917, Russia lost much of its empire, only to regain it later through the Bolshevik arms. Seventy years later, the reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev cost Russia almost all of Eastern Europe and the parts of what was then the Soviet Union. Even in places like Chechnya, when given a slight chance, non-Russians have revolted against the Kremlin’s rule.

The question least asked however is what this “Great Russia” gave to the Russians in the first place? Having never achieved material prosperity in its history, Russia’s current economic output is less than that of Los Angeles county alone. Most Russians are living at a subsistence level. With such great economic and scientific potential, the nation has living standards below those of 96 countries. All of this reminds me of the old German war veteran who was recently asked about his thoughts on losing the World War II. He said: “We fought with all our might to prevent that outcome. At the time that was completely unacceptable to us. But looking back, I realize that it was a good thing that we lost.” If the Russians eventually embark on this uneasy path to democracy, perhaps some day they might look back and realize that it was good for them to lose their empire. Otherwise, they will forever remain captives of the Great Russia that brought such misery to so many.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Askar Askarov is a PhD candidate in Russian/Soviet History at the University of Maryland.

Sometimes I wonder why Stalin made such a decision. Maybe he was affraid of havin Poland within Soviet Union.==

Same way for Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, even Mongolia.

It was done because in those countries like in you Poland you have your own socilait - communist cadres so your national communists-socialists.
BUT in Russia there wasn't NATIONAL commies but only international.

You don't know but I remember the time when it was no good to tell that you are russian in Soviet Union.
You had to tell "soviet" instead.

Outside of USSR they called any soviets as "russian" even continue to do this today for variety of reasons mostly because it is convinient to blame "russians" but embelish themselves (as you poles do).

But inside of USSR it wasn't good to tell about russians only "soviets". It was considered as nationalistic so it was against soviet power to emphasize that you are russian nationalist. I presume there wasn't that in Poland?

So to call yourself ukranian was OK in USSR. National mainorities was OK.
Why that?
Russians in mass fought on side of White movement in Civil war so russians was unreliable for commie power in USSR but minorities was usual commie allies during Civil war 1917-22. SO russians are unreliable almost all history of USSR.

At least he partioned Checkoslovakia BEFORE Stalin's partition.
BS - he was dead already at that time.==

OK then who was next who partitioned Checkoslovakia? I do not know polish leadership of those times but they was all followers of Pilsudskii policy. Will you disagree?

A total BS and a piece of purely stalinist propaganda.==

Then polish historians who confirmed that red army POWs parished in polish contentration camps are stalinists too. It was about 80-100 thousands POWs. They disappered in Poland.
Your source you gave me just say like this Poland send them back but "terrotorial imensity of USSR cann't help to discover where those people got".
So Poland send them there and they disappered. Polish side washes hands. Convinient isn't it?

May I interrupt you both?

RusIvan. As far as I know from the book The Eighteenth Decisive Battle in the World by Edgar Vincent D'Abernoon, there were lots of Russian prisoners (tens of thousands) who escaped to German East Prussia and were captured there by the German Army. Those prisoners who were captured by the Polish Army (estimated 50,000 or so) were usually not Russians. They had Asian features. Lord D'Abernoon depicts them as "hordes".

A few Russians, who were interrogated by the Polish, said they would never come back to the USSR because coming back from imprisonment means imminent death penalty for them. They would be treated as "imperialistic spies" and traitors by Bolsheviks and executed immediately on the spot without trials.

That was the reason why Stalin announced them dead (murdered) or so, but actually many of them stayed in Poland or returned to their homes secretly.

You must read the book! It's a real document of those times.
I read it long time ago and can't remember all the details.

As to concentration camps,there was only one in Poland but it was for Polish communists in Bereza Kartuska. In fact, it was a field prison, not an extermination camp the German way we know today. It was only a very harsh prison.

Those prisoners who were captured by the Polish Army (estimated 50,000 or so) were usually not Russians. They had Asian features. Lord D'Abernoon depicts them as "hordes". ==

I agree with that. Those bolshevick hordes wasn't russian with some russian involvement so.

As to concentration camps,there was only one in Poland but it was for Polish communists in Bereza Kartuska. In fact, it was a field prison, not an extermination camp the German way we know today. It was only a very harsh prison.==

I agree with that too.

Nevertheless it happened. POWs deathes in polish captivity then Stalin's executions of polish officers (they say in revenge).
Poland partitioned Checkoslovakia with Hitler then Poland was partitioned with Stalin and same Hitler next year. (Poles talk about it as greatest historical wrong. I don't disagree that it was wrong but it was god justise IMO for 1938.)
Poland wishes to become colonial power before WW2.
Polish prison camps like wise Stalin's prison camps happened in same time too.

I may find even more similarities.

But one difference so. Poland of Pilsudskii was national polish Poland.
Soviet Union of Stalin was international commie'. So it wasn't russian national state.
Think about it.

They attack RUSSIANS for deeds of nonrussian international commie state. Is it fair?
They put on RUSSIANs the character image of international commies. They see RUSSIANs with same stereotypes. And they think that they are right!:) Funny isn't it?

"Russia disintegrating along ethnic lines into pieces ? What are geopolitical consequences of that ? "

What were the geopolitical concequences of disintegration of British or French colonial empires? Very bad I would say. Does it mean that the Brits should have killed Gandhi and stay in India for all eternity?

"The problem was not that Russia was (and arguably somewhat still is) an empire of different people. The problem was what kind of Empire Russia Was--oppressive, brutally authocratic heavily centralized, etc"

I fully agree with that, but does it really matter for the Chechen women and children who lost their men, slaughtered by Putin's mercenaries? I honestly wish good for the Russian people, that they one day become truly free and democratic nation, but when I think about Chechnya, I'm losing hope.
You want Russia mutiethnic and democratic? OK, that would be fine. But what if Chechens don't want be a part of any Russia at all?

"what happens if North Caucasus falls into hands of the likes of Shamil Basayev"

It will fall into their hands only if Russia continues its criminal policy against Chechens. If Russians would have been willing to talk to Dudayev and establish civilized relations with independent Chechnya, it wouldn't have come to the situation we have now.

"Poland partitioned Checkoslovakia with Hitler then Poland was partitioned with Stalin and same Hitler next year."

Poland annexed a bit of Czechoslovakia (Zaolzie) in 1938. It was a very small region of mixed population, Polish and Czech, and Poles didn't strike any deal with Hitler. It was a cowardly and criminal act and every schoochild in Poland knows that. How many shoolchildren in Russia know that their country struck a deal with the Fuehrer to attack Poland and annex half of its territory?

"It was done because in those countries like in you Poland you have your own socilait - communist cadres so your national communists-socialists."

There were communists in pre-war Poland, but they were so few that they had no chance not only of gaining power, but even of arising as an important political party.

BUT in Russia there wasn't NATIONAL commies but only international."

Ha ha ha. Make it clear Ivan, who you mean exactly: Jews? Are Jews responsible for the USSR?

Wow, that much info has been posted. Concerning this article, I have several notes:
1)The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is traditionally regarded by Russian historians not as a Commonwealth like modern British ("The Commonwealth had given mutual protection to its constituent peoples against the Teutonic Order, the Mongols, the Russians, the Turks, the Swedes and other predatory neighbors until the partitions of the late 18th century"), but like a traditional Middle-Ages Empire led by Polish Kings.
As far as I understand, members of a Commonwealth keep their governments but I don't know anything about such governments on the territories of the Modern Ukraine and Belorussia. So The Rzecz Pospolita (sp?) is an Empire.
There is also an opinion that the Polish oppressed those parts of former Kievan Rus by oppressing Orthodox worshipping as an example.
Taking the above-mentioned Russian attitude into account, the plans of Marshal Pilsudski to include Ukrainian and Belorussian lands look aggressive and imperial, while taking the lands by the Red Army in 1939 look justified.

2)While reading the article one can think that Petliura was a single legitimate Ukrainian leader, what I think to be misleading and inaccurate. He wasn't at all legitimate and wasn't single. There was political chaos in Ukraine at that time and a bunch of self-proclaimed political pretenders: German-supported "Getman" in Kiev, Ukrainian Bolsheviks, Makhno. Marshal Pilsudski allied with Petliura in order to implement his agenda.

If he speaks Russian better than you speak English, his expertise is OK.==

However I speak english I don't try to expert on Britain or United State. Since I did never pretended as that so I post only in thread concerned Russia. The matter I know better.
I even don't post nothing to original threads concerning for example polish matters. I do not expert on Poland.
BUT I see many people from few countries who beleived that they may write articles "about Russia".
Those articles (like that of thread) are not about Russia accualy but about usual author's stereotypes of outsiders. No matter how good russian of such author is his stereotypes are scewed.

Most strange. That I see people from different countries who try to pretend as moral authority but in same time thier own countries was and is nothing better. Ancient russin question is: "Who are the judges?". Firstly we have to find out this before any judgements. Judges has to be exemplerary or shut up.

If AMERICANS judge Russia then I'm not against it since America IS moral authority for russians. But no Poland, Baltics and so on.

How many shoolchildren in Russia know that their country struck a deal with the Fuehrer to attack Poland and annex half of its territory? ==

They know that but they know more. That those annexed territories didn't belong to Poland. They are ukranian and bellorussian occupied by Poland 20 years before.

If you say that those terrirtories are polish then you offend those people who you claim to be friend. The best way to spoil relationship with Ukraine just to tell them that Lvov is polish town. You try it.

You Russians went through real hell. I bow my neck before your strength to save the national heritage of Russia. Those Bolshevic hordes, no matter Russian or Polish or else, were the worst scum of the humankind. Nationality for communists is a secondary question. All that matters is a class origin. So, if you are Russian, Polish, American, German, etc it means nothing to them. But if you are a son of e.g. a teacher, a doctor, etc. and your palms are smooth, you better run away. This way millions of Russians, intellectuals, teachers, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc. were murdered and other millions were forced to flee from their country.

The October Revolution was a great national tragedy for Russia, and then for other countries.
We the Polish barely defeated communists at the gates of Warsaw in 1920. It was Marshal Pilsudski’s legions who saved Poland from communism and he was loved for it by almost all Poles. He’s loved by me as well.

Do you know that it was no less than Stalin, whose stupidity and insubordination saved Poland from communism?

The commander-in-chief of the Red Army ordered Stalin’s army to come to attack Warsaw, while Stalin preferred to take Lwow first. Gen. Tukhachewski had to attack Warsaw without Stalin’s army and finally both lost.

There’s no doubt if Stalin had moved his well trained horse cavalry army toward Warsaw, Poland would have lost.

Gen. Tukhachewski couldn't’t accept his defeat and made strong rebukes to Stalin after 1920 campaign. This made them personal enemies and when Stalin rose to power, he ordered to kill Tukhachewski together with his family, first accusing him of ...spying for Germany.
Anybody who could deny Stalin’s greatness was brutally annihilated. Tens of thousands of officers of the Red Army were murdered by Stalin in 1930s, just anybody who could remember Stalin’s defeat in 1920.

Who else left? The victorious Polish Army of 1920!

The Katyn Crime was only a logical consequence of Stalin’s broken pride and madness.

To make things “funny”, the most cruel communist criminals were not Russians, Stalin was Georgian, Dzierzhynski was Polish, etc. Russia was actually conquered by Bolsheviks in 1917-1921 and (no hard feelings please) the Russian people became slaves of the brutal communist regime. Hundreds of years of Moscow-Riazan culture was murdered overnight. Thousands of poets, writers, artists - the heart and soul of Russia were shot dead.

I think you need some 300 years to rebuild what communism destroyed in you national identity.

You survived communism, so I believe you’ll survive post-communism. Good luck.

The commander-in-chief of the Red Army ordered Stalin’s army to come to attack Warsaw, while Stalin preferred to take Lwow first. Gen. Tukhachewski had to attack Warsaw without Stalin’s army and finally both lost.

There’s no doubt if Stalin had moved his well trained horse cavalry army toward Warsaw, Poland would have lost.==

I learned that history. I red book of Meltukhov "Soviet-Polish wars". http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov2/
It is on russian. I couldn't find it on english.

The 1st cavalry army of Budenii has to turn to Warsaw but was ordered to take Lvov instead.

Do you know that Tuckuchevskii was pole himself? Later another pole marshal Rokosovskii took Warsaw but from germans in end of 1944. This pole I very respect. Fine marshal.

You survived communism, so I believe you’ll survive post-communism. Good luck. ==

Russia will survive.

Accually almost everything what you say I agree. If such poles as you are majority then I presume russian-polish relations will be improved at last.

I prefer literature to history. :-)

Have you ever heard of this man?

He was my favourite Russian composer and poet. A great but humble spirit of Russia. I was at his concert in Wroclaw, Poland in April 1993.

http://www.litera.ru/stixiya/authors/okudzhava.html

http://chernomore.net/Poetry/Bulat_Okudzhava.htm

Proshchanie s Pol'shej

My svyazany, Agneshka, davno odnoj sud'boyu.
V proshchen'i i v proshchan'e, i v smehe i v slezah.
Kogda trubach nad Krakovom voznositsya s truboyu,
Hvatayus' ya za sablyu s nadezhdoyu v glazah.

Proshu u Vas proshen'ya za dolgoe molchan'e,
Za bystroe proshchan'e, za pozdnie slova...
Nam vremya podarilo pustye obeshchan'ya;
Ot nih u nas, Agneshka, kruzhitsya golova.

Potertye kostyumy sidyat na nas prilichno,
I smotryat nashi sestry, kak YAroslavna, vsled,
Kogda pod skrip garmonik uhodim my privychno
Srazhat'sya za svobodu v svoi semnadcat' let.

( Svoboda bit' posudu, ne spat' vsyu noch' svoboda.
  Svoboda vybrat' poezd i prezirat' konej.
  Nas obdelila s detstva ironiej priroda.
  Est' vysshaya svoboda, i my idem za nej.)

Nad Krakovom ubityj trubach trubit bessmenno.
Lyubov' ego bessmertna, signal trevogi chist.
My shkol'niki, Agneshka, i skoro peremena.
I ch'ya-to radiola naigryvaet tvist.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.