The inaction of China reportedly deeply disappointed the Russian elites. That's understandable. Many expected that China would exploit the chaos in Europe seeing it as a chance to conquer Taiwan. Still, they didn't invade. Why?🧵
Throughout its history China suffered from the uncountable number of civil wars and inner conflicts. Naturally, some of them could trigger the Chinese expansion rather than hamper it, transition from Ming to Qing being probably one of the most vivid examples
With the victorious Qing army marching south, the last Ming loyalists had little choice but to escape. A fraction led by a Ming loyalist and a pirate admiral Koxinga chose to evacuate their base from the mainland. The Dutch-controlled Taiwan (Formosa) looked as an obvious choice
Koxinga's troops smashed the Dutch and took control of the island. Tonio Andrade whom I highly recommend framed this as the victory of China over the West. But it was not the central government in Beijing that captured Taiwan for China, it was a defeated fraction in the civil war
Civil strife being a trigger of the territorial expansion is a well-known pattern in the history of the British Isles. Stuarts are imposing the High Church (yeah, it's ahistorical term, but it conveys the idea) conformity so the Puritans have to escape to what is now New England
Civil War brings the fall of the Stuarts and the Low Church triumphs over the High . Most English overseas possessions were reluctant to accept the defeated Cavaliers. Except for Virginia, whose governor welcomed them warmly. Soon they comprised the bulk of the local ruling class
Considering that the American North and the South were built by the political emigres who represented the two opposing fractions in the English Civil War, and hold the opposite views on nearly everything, it's striking how they managed to live in relative peace for so long
At least this is the impression I had when reading this book. You may disagree with its conclusions, but they're certainly interesting. Its argument is way more nuanced than what I just outlined, I just don't want to go any further for now
Thinking in higher orders, the story of the British civil wars and the emigration waves they triggered reminded me of the following idea. "It was probably the inability to live in peace with each other rather than thirst for food or resources that triggered the human expansion"
The Transition from Ming to Qing that triggered the destruction of European colonies on Taiwan and the true incorporation of the island into China may be a good example of this pattern. It was not the government who conquered it, it were the evacuating rebels
Being located far enough from the mainland to grant a certain security but close enough to allow for a mass evacuation, Taiwan was an obvious choice of a safe haven for a losing fraction in the civil war. In the 17th c it would be Ming, in the 20th c it was the Kuomintang
The civil war between the KMT and the Communists with the numerous warlord fractions clinging to this or that side, had been going for decades. During the WWII the KMT was too busy fighting the Japanese. WIth the KMT attention deflected, the Communists grew very much stronger
Upon the end of the WWII, Communists were ready to crystallise their new influence by effectively dividing the country with the KMT. In 1945 Mao Zedong offered Chiang Kai-shek to keep the south, living a few northern provinces (including Beiping) to Mao. Chiang refused. See p. 55
Back in 1945 Communists wanted to divide China into two zones of influence because they still perceived themselves as a weaker side in the civil war. But by 1949 they were winning. With victorious Communists marching south, the KMT had little choice but to evacuate to Taiwan
Let me summarise:
- It's not necessarily the unity that triggers the territorial expansion. It's quite often the division
- It was the division of China that triggered the incorporation of Taiwan into its structure. Taiwan was an obvious refuge for the losers in a civil war
- Communists didn't always stand for the unity of China. They wanted to divide it while being weaker
- In 1945-1949 the balance of power between the CPC and KMT reversed
- Taiwan was the only foothold the KMT could evacuate to and realistically hope to keep from the CPC onslaught
That's enough for today, I'll continue next time. End of 🧵
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The great delusion about popular revolts is that they are provoked by bad conditions of life, and burst out when they exacerbate. Nothing can be further from truth. For the most part, popular revolts do not happen when things get worse. They occur when things turn for the better
This may sound paradoxical and yet, may be easy to explain. When the things had been really, really, really bad, the masses were too weak, to scared and too depressed to even think of raising their head. If they beared any grudges and grievances, they beared them in silence.
When things turn for the better, that is when the people see a chance to restore their pride and agency, and to take revenge for all the past grudges, and all the past fear. As a result, a turn for the better not so much pacifies the population as emboldens and radicalises it.
The first thing to understand about the Russian-Ukrainian war is that Russia did not plan a war. And it, most certainly, did not plan the protracted hostilities of the kind we are seeing today
This entire war is the regime change gone wrong.
Russia did not want a protracted war (no one does). It wanted to replace the government in Kyiv, put Ukraine under control and closely integrate it with Russia
(Operation Danube style)
One thing to understand is that Russia viewed Ukraine as a considerable asset. From the Russian perspective, it was a large and populous country populated by what was (again, from the Russian perspective) effectively the same people. Assimilatable, integratable, recruitable
In 1991, Moscow faced two disobedient ethnic republics: Chechnya and Tatarstan. Both were the Muslim majority autonomies that refused to sign the Federation Treaty (1992), insisting on full sovereignty. In both cases, Moscow was determined to quell them.
Still, the final outcome could not be more different. Chechnya was invaded, its towns razed to the ground, its leader assassinated. Tatarstan, on the other hand, managed to sign a favourable agreement with Moscow that lasted until Putin’s era.
The question is - why.
Retrospectively, this course of events (obliterate Chechnya, negotiate with Tatarstan) may seem predetermined. But it was not considered as such back then. For many, including many of Yeltsin’s own partisans it came as a surprise, or perhaps even as a betrayal.
The single most important thing to understand regarding the background of Napoleon Bonaparte, is that he was born in the Mediterranean. And the Mediterranean, in the words of Braudel, is a sea ringed round by mountains
We like to slice the space horizontally, in our imagination. But what we also need to do is to slice it vertically. Until very recently, projection of power (of culture, of institutions) up had been incomparably more difficult than in literally any horizontal direction.
Mountains were harsh, impenetrable. They formed a sort of “internal Siberia” in this mild region. Just a few miles away, in the coastal lowland, you had olives and vineyards. Up in the highland, you could have blizzards, and many feet of snow blocking connections with the world.
Slavonic = "Russian" religious space used to be really weird until the 16-17th cc. I mean, weird from the Western, Latin standpoint. It was not until second half of the 16th c., when the Jesuit-educated Orthodox monks from Poland-Lithuania started to rationalise & systematise it based on the Latin (Jesuit, mostly) model
One could frame the modern, rationalised Orthodoxy as a response to the Counterreformation. Because it was. The Latin world advanced, Slavonic world retreated. So, in a fuzzy borderland zone roughly encompassing what is now Ukraine-Belarus-Lithuania, the Catholic-educated Orthodox monks re-worked Orthodox institutions modeling them after the Catholic ones
By the mid-17th c. this new, Latin modeled Orthodox culture had already trickled to Muscovy. And, after the annexation of the Left Bank Ukraine in 1654, it all turned into a flood. Eventually, the Muscovite state accepted the new, Latinised Orthodoxy as the established creed, and extirpated the previous faith & the previous culture
1. This book (“What is to be done?”) has been wildly, influential in late 19-20th century Russia. It was a Gospel of the Russian revolutionary left. 2. Chinese Communists succeeded the tradition of the Russian revolutionary left, or at the very least were strongly affected by it.
3. As a red prince, Xi Jinping has apparently been well instructed in the underlying tradition of the revolutionary left and, very plausibly, studied its seminal works. 4. In this context, him having read and studied the revolutionary left gospel makes perfect sense
5. Now the thing is. The central, seminal work of the Russian revolutionary left, the book highly valued by Chairman Xi *does* count as unreadable in modern Russia, having lost its appeal and popularity long, long, long ago. 6. In modern Russia, it is seen as old fashioned and irrelevant. Something out of museum