The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and splintered into 15
(14 + Russia) independent countries.
Putin seems determined to reassemble the Soviet Union, by force where
necessary, although some say that he’s trying to reform the empire of Peter the
Great rather than the Soviet Union. In
any event, I decided to do a quick check on the status of the erstwhile
components of the Soviet Union. The
status is described in the table below.
ü = NATO/EU/Independent
ü = Mixed leanings
ü =
Russian occupied or leaning
|
Status of Former Soviet States |
||
|
ü |
Armenia
|
Close military ties with Russia |
|
ü |
Moldova |
Russian troops occupy portions of Moldova; leaning towards the EU but 100% dependent
on Russian gas supplies |
|
ü |
Estonia |
NATO / EU 2004 |
|
ü |
Latvia |
NATO / EU 2004 |
|
ü |
Lithuania |
NATO / EU 2004 |
|
ü |
Georgia |
Invaded by Russia in 2008 and now partially occupied by
Russia |
|
ü |
Azerbaijan |
Mixed relations; Russian military ties |
|
ü |
Tajikistan |
Strong historical, cultural, military, and economic ties
with Russia |
|
ü |
Kyrgyzstan
|
Strongly pro-Russian and hosts Russian military forces |
|
ü |
Belarus |
Despite periodic spats, Belarus is a solid Russian ally
and has offered to assist in the Ukraine invasion |
|
ü |
Uzbekistan |
Seeks relations with Russia and the West |
|
ü |
Turkmenistan |
Independent while seeking Russian trade arrangements |
|
ü |
Ukraine |
Russia invaded and seized Crimea in 2014 and invaded the
rest of Ukraine in 2022 |
|
ü |
Kazakhstan |
Strong relations with Russia now strained by Russian
invasion of Ukraine |
"Solzhenitsyn urged the Soviet Union to grant independence to all the non-Slav republics, which he claimed were sapping the Russian nation and he called for the creation of a new Slavic state bringing together Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and parts of Kazakhstan that he considered to be Russified"
ReplyDeleteThe above is lifted from Wikipedia, Tsar Putin on several
occasions said he agreed with Solzhenitsyn.
I'd say belarus is occupied territory.
ReplyDeleteIt's a dictatorship being propped up by the Russians and has significant domestic guerilla activity against both the Belarusian regime and the Russians stationed there.
It's being reported the Russians just had one of their A-50 AWACS equivalents sabotaged on a Belarusian runway and been an increase in similar incidents over the past year.
It is not just Russia either. Every country in Eastern Europe once owned all or part of much of the land. Poland, Hungary, Romania, etc... (heck, even Sweden) all once had claim on land now governed by others. They all nurse bitter losses and the memories of unfair treaties which took away their ancestral homelands.
ReplyDeleteUnder the right conditions, it can become very easy for a European politician to mobilize their populations to take back their lands. Our policy of taking sides and fueling this conflict could have enormous consequences most Americans can't fathom. This all could become a free for all if we are not careful.
"Putin seems determined to reassemble the Soviet Union."
ReplyDeleteIn this short video, Professor John Mearsheimer states there is no evidence of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmqojuijtFg
No one outside, perhaps, his inner circle actually knows what he's thinking so we're left to speculate based solely on his actions and those seem to suggest that he's trying to reassemble the Soviet Union or the Empire. He's invading former Soviet states so the end result is the same regardless of his motivation.
Delete""Putin seems determined to reassemble the Soviet Union."
DeleteIn this short video, Professor John Mearsheimer states there is no evidence of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmqojuijtFg"
Just watched this video.
This guy makes some interesting points, but wathcing this and doing a quick check of some of his other stuff, he clearly believes that the Ukraine situation is primarily the fault of the west for enticing Ukraine away from the Russian orbit.
This is fundamentally unacceptable, and an example of why elites so often get things wrong.
Ukraine is its own country. They get to choose their own path. And if that path leads them somewhere that gets the Russian's panties in a bunch, so be it.
The Russians don't get to invade other countries just because they don't approve of that other country's choices.
No other country expects to get to control all of the separate countries on their borders just so they can feel secure. Bullshit on that.
Why should the world accommodate that? Why should those border countries be controlled by Russia? Why shouldn't they be able to make economic and military alliances without the approval of Moscow?
What is our answer supposed to be? Let the Russians conquer Ukraine? Let them have Moldova? Romania? Poland? The Baltics? Where does it end?
Sweden and Finland are making the logical decision to protect themselves from potential Russian expansion.
How can Russia survive with a non-subjugated states right on their border?
Is Russia going to invade them? Zoiks, NATO members just a short car ride from St. Petersburg?
Poor Russia will need to learn to get along with their neighbors, Heavens to Betsy!
Russia deserves to be defeated decisively in Ukraine and give up the territory they seized in 2014 as well.
That might not happen, but that's what they deserve.
Lutefisk
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I still buy the Peter Zeihan theory."
DeleteHis ideas seem the most logical that I have seen.
For Russia, instead of continuing to be paranoid, aggressive, and controlling of their neighbors, Russia had the chance to follow a different course.
They could have become valued partners and good neighbors in the European economic system, providing energy and other resources and participating in a collective European security alliance.
Unfortunately, the opportunity to choose that path is long past.
Lutefisk
I still buy the Peter Zeihan theory. Russia has always worried about invasion, from the west (Napoleon, Hitler) or from the east (the Mongol hordes, the Cossacks). The problem is that European Russia's location on the vast European plain provides little in the way of natural defenses.
DeleteDuring the Soviet era, the problem to the west was minimalized. The border that needed to be defended was a few hundred miles from the Carpathian Alps in Romania (because nobody in his/her right mind would try to invade through the Balkans) to the Baltic, and the Vistula River provided some barrier along a large portion of that. Plus they had the Red Army to defend the border.
Now the Carpathian anchor is gone, the western border is more like a couple of thousand miles long, and the Russian army is smaller, less powerful version of the Red Army, and growing smaller and less powerful as Russian demographics mean they are running out of 20-somethings.
So Putin is looking at a future of less and less power and security. Zeihan writes that he is most dangerous now, as he may try to get back to defensible borders before his army gets too small and weak. Ukraine may very well have been a step in that direction, and the poor result may suggest that the weakening of the Russian army is further along than anyone realized.
"In this short video, Professor John Mearsheimer states there is no evidence of this.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmqojuijtFg"
Here's the direct rebuttal of Mearsheimer's arguments, from another professor, Michael McFaul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbzf0ix2G5I
As for what Putin thinks, fortunately our man in Kremlin shared some of his thoughts, for example: "Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory".
If it looks like a duck... only Mearsheimer and Scott Ritter can still argue it's a flying pig.
Great idea on the USSR 2.0 tracker, one small amendment: Republic of Moldova *used* to be 100% dependent on Russian gas supplies, this has changed in the last couple of months, here's an article that will describe the situation better than I can: https://cepa.org/article/moldova-accepts-the-price-for-energy-independence/
Suffice to say the tenant of Kremlin is not happy and is currently trying to topple Republic of Moldova's government.
Tintin
I resist the urge to comment on politics in respect of ComNavOps wishes for this space to not devolve into that miasma.
DeleteHowever I will contribute this to the discussion because I believe this might lean more towards culture, sociology and all that.
From Asia, my perception of what Putin wants is for his country to be strong and prosperous, a worthy goal for any patriot of ANY country. When I want to watch/listen to Putin speak I tend to look for material that is unedited as much as possible (full length speeches/interviews) so that I get the full context of what he's saying. There are limits to this of course as I don't speak Russian. I have, thus far, not seen evidence that Putin wants to revive the USSR. He has spoken of the good and the bad of the Soviet times, the way any rational, pragmatic person would. You learn from LIFE, the good and the bad, and make the future better. That's not saying he's perfect, he is only human. I do believe however that perhaps it isn't evident that he is the worst leader Russia can have.
All that is to highlight that perhaps actions and thinking might be misinterpreted, especially so amongst people of different culture (for lack of a better word). It's like how the Vietnam war happened right? A country that wanted its right to self-determination was attacked because another country misunderstood their actions and did not stop long enough to think and do the human thing and talk. The ironic thing is the country that attacked espouses publicly her fervent belief of universal right to self-determination. I mention these things as a third party observer with no lean on one side or another. I simply view the entire thing as a terrible tragedy for all involved and we should learn from it to avoid a repeat.
I will address one more thing directly at Lutefisk's comment "This is fundamentally unacceptable, and an example of why elites so often get things".
I would urge caution to believe that one's fundamental belief is universal and can be applied everywhere. I have lived in a western country and have seen the benefits of freedom of expression. While I personally believe this is a good thing for me, I also understand the reality that most non western countries in the world are not ready for that kind of RESPONSIBILITY. When a government decide to curtail certain freedoms it is often automatically viewed as tyranny and dictatorship in the west when in reality most of the time it is a social contract between the populus and the government. People give up some rights so that the government can have the ABILITY to pursue certain goals in a TIMELY MANNER. In many countries that is usually giving up SOME rights to attain prosperity. Not all countries had a 300 year head start, many having been under the heels of colonial powers until fairly recently.
Thus it is not as surprising to us when a trend came out from the west recently when a woman claims she is a man, and a man claims to be a woman. That is an extreme example but it shows that when you have all that freedom but people are becoming less responsible and accountable that is the result. It is not the freedom itself that we have issues with, we all love it. It is the responsibility, or lack of it, that we are aware of.
With all due respect this is only my opinion neutrally shared in the hopes of perhaps broadening the view.
Loc
With all due to respect to Loc, leaders make and say all the speeches they want and not mean what they say heck there are lists of lies that I am sure anyone can find in speeches of all leaders (not just Putin) where they say one thing and meant another (think about the deal made over dogwhistles, codewords, etc.)
DeleteTo support that Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union there is the Soviet flag flown during the early days of the Ukraine invasion
https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220311-ukraine-ussr-soviet-flag-russia-troops
And Soviet passports (were supposedly ready to be given had the Russians been victorious instead of the long war that actually happened) from below:
"The Soviet passports supposedly were going to be forcibly exchanged for Ukrainian identification before Moscow could create new Russian passports."
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-ukraine-kyiv-passports/2022/06/10/id/1073919/
Also on the transgender issue, as Loc has mentioned it, make of it what you will but it seems it may (or may not, perhaps it depends on where you live as Loc said "All that is to highlight that perhaps actions and thinking might be misinterpreted, especially so amongst people of different culture ") and thus been grossly exaggerated. For example take the two links below, in summary, because people are no longer punished for being left-handed (or transgender as the case may be) there is an increase in their numbers:
https://twitter.com/TransActualUK/status/984336585981341696?lang=en
https://medium.com/prismnpen/catching-the-transgender-fad-b66953ac61a4
By the way, if you wish to know the true history there is the link below and it goes back more than "recent" with all due respect to Loc of course;)
https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/trans-timeline/timeline
@Loc: "perhaps it isn't evident that he is the worst leader Russia can have"
DeleteBeing the worst leader Russia can have is a pretty low bar. Putin would be hard pressed to do worse than Ivan the Terrible or Stalin.
However, he is not judged here by his domestic policy but by his foreign one: attacking a foreign independent, sovereign, country.
This is hardly misinterpreted, as Ukrainians are of fairly similar culture and they claim this is an invasion, no misinterpretation here.
Witnessing Russia attacking Ukraine and claiming a neutral stance between the perpetrator and its victim, that's moral bankruptcy right there.
Tintin
Is that a joke?
ReplyDeleteI wrote the post about fuel logistics. Seems like a few small adjustments and strategies will get us there.
ReplyDeletehttps://austinvernon.site/blog/fuellogistics.html
I read the article. Very nicely written. The overall thrust surprised me. I would have thought that fuel logistics would be quite challenging. I need to check some fuel usage trends and whatnot but it was eye-opening, regardless.
DeleteI'd like to feature the article in a post, if you don't mind. I'd introduce the article, pick a couple quotes from it as attention getters, and then link to it. The topic (and conclusion!) is important enough that I'd like to direct readers to it. Is that okay with you?
I’d love to have it featured. I think it turns out this way because the world uses so much more oil per capita today than in the past and ships are really good at moving fuel. Something like Afghanistan was probably harder.
DeletePosted! I haven't done this before so we'll see how it turns out. It's a good article so ... fingers crossed.
DeleteIt might be easy to guess at Putins actions and goals. After being a young adult, neck deep in Soviet Russia, he might have some kind of orphan complex after its collapse. The idea of rebuilding the Russian Empire, or the Soviet Union, back to its former (supposed) glory, and that being his legacy has a strong case.
ReplyDeleteBut also, I think that the Russian institutional fear is in play. Never mind that this isnt the turn of the 20th century, and Europe doesnt have leaders who are all related through an insane amount of politically-motivated marriages that barely tiptoes around inbreeding, and wars arent outgrowths of family feuds. Never mind that European nations dont invade others just to seize resources like they did 80 or more years ago. My point is, 1945 saw the end of the last expansionist power that would be a threat to, and attack Russia. Their need to create and insulate themselves with Soviet Bloc nations was unnecessasary. The West may have opposed communism, but NATO wasnt ever going to undertake an unprovoked offensive and invade. Today is no different, even with a unified Germany. Any fear of NATO nations on their border is nothing more than left over, built in paranoia that wont die, as is the need to have a buffer zone of Russian controlled nations. I dont think its a rational fear, but more like an ingrained part of their 'Patrioric War' culture. With Putin growing up in the Soviet Union, he had plenty of opportunity to absorb that culture, as well as all the indoctrination about the evil West. I cant imagine a better petri dish to grow a Putin in...
The Soviet Union was - legalities notwithstanding - an effective unitary state in which internal borders were essentially meaningless, in which the Ruble was the common currency, Russian the official language, and everything from the legal system to the educational curriculum were common across all the Union’s republics. All decisions of any consequence were made in Moscow, and all male citizens were drafted into mixed ethnic units of the the Red Army, and, as the Wehrmacht noted in 1941, generally thought of themselves as Soviet Citizens.
ReplyDeleteIt’s therefore completely ridiculous to think that Putin’s aim in his invasion of Ukraine is to re-establish or re-found the Soviet Union, as this clearly would be impossible, even if he wanted to.
The empire of Peter the Great encompassed territories stretching from Poland to China, as well as Alaska, the present day Baltic states, Finland, much of Poland, and settlements in Hawaii and California, so presumably the remark about rebuilding Peter’s empire was a facetious one. There’s perhaps an element of irony in that as Peter of course was Russia’s great Westernizer.
I’m with Occam on this one. Putin’s aim in invading his neighbour was to capture (or ‘recover’,) the territories on his eastern border that were historically, ethnically and linguistically Russian; to keep his enemies as far from his borders as possible, and give Russia the means and the geography to meddle in the affairs of his neighbors to the greatest extent possible, just like we do :)
If Putin is basing his aims on Peter the Great (the person linked to below?) then it is no wonder that the Ukrainians are resisting because from history:
Delete"After defeating the Swedes and their Cossack allies, Peter initiated a reign of terror in Ukraine and instituted administrative measures to bring the Hetman state more directly under Muscovite rule. The Zaporozhian Sich and Mazepa’s capital, Baturyn, were completely destroyed, and Baturyn’s inhabitants were massacred; captured Cossacks were executed; and most of Mazepa’s senior supporters were imprisoned in the Solovets Islands. Large tracts of land confiscated from “Mazepists” were granted to loyal Russians, most notably Peter’s favorite Aleksandr Menshikov. Thereafter the Russian military and civil authorities were brutally intrusive in all aspects of Ukrainian life. "
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CP%5CE%5CPeterI.htm
Thus, it shows Ukraine was a colony under Russia and are not Russian themselves (however, I will grant that Putin may have been taught a different history that may not fit with reality and no one wants to contradict him thus he never knew the real reasons)
Now I do not know what Putin is really thinking as I or anyone else, save Putin's inner circle, can not really tell what Putin is really thinking, even from his speeches because, well, I could use modern examples but to avoid politics I will use Hitler as Hitler lying in his speeches should avoid politics so as in example below where he asked the world for peace:
https://time.com/3461961/hitler-peace-speech/
Thus showing leaders say stuff all the time without saying or meaning what they really mean.
Ironically, Putin's only real chance at recapture of ex provinces would be areas where he is in absolute direct competition with China as others simply impossible to really assist without drawing in other area powers in conflict with his goals. Moldova is as good as gone as were the Baltics. Georgia now is in absolute hatred of them- though so corrupt in some angles they'd probably take the bribe to let them in- and Armenia may be the one hopeful to get big brother in to stem off the larger neighbors, basically Azerbijian, but the Turks and Iranians would not want the presence and could get to feeling their britches, whether Iran wants to get ugly with their new pals or not. Therein lies the Central Asian republics, resource rich, romanced by China, and the ones that Russia could roll Armies in and get less sophisticated resistance than Ukraine. Turkmenistan would be 100% fighting against it and garner support from fellow Turks in some capacity, and the Kazakhs are simply too large of a land mass to effectively be subdued. Therein lies the Uzbekhs, whom have a good geography to protect them not really touching Russian borders like the Turkmens, and just the Kyrgs and Tajiks. With the issues with those latter two countries especially have between each other, it could be a flash point that Russia could intercede, asked or not, and simply not leave. Bloody as hell yes, but it would secure a large border area and reinforce that China's influence would need to come through Russian landmass to those other nations. As is Russia needs to start worrying, at some point the Chechens will shoot their drug addict leader and probably revolt, and the Buryats have long been waiting to again declare their independence, and probably will look to China for support, whom easily could look to Amur and Primorsky and be very persuasive to Russia to let them go if they feel it is in their best interests or not.
ReplyDelete