You could add Russia to the list. Strange it may sound, its pattern of expansion was similar. Except it was potamic rather than oceanic. In this respect it kinda resembled Portugues expansion in what is now Brazil. And yes, Russia struggled to go far away from the rivers, too
Consider the map of Russian admiralties till 1680-1800s. Some of them look "logical" being located at the cost, like in St Petersburg or Arkhangelsk. But Kazan or Voronezh are deep inland. They would build ships there and then go down the river to the sea. Irkutsk is even better
Irkutsk admiralty didn't build ships. But it prepared all the equipment & components for the Okhotsk shipyard. It was a very northern Okhotsk that was the initial Russian stronghold on the Pacific. Alaska was colonised from there. What is now Vladivostok was annexed only in 1850s
That's a very sketchy map of how Russian transport routes changed over time. It reflects the general trend of Russia going south. Older centres of population and economy were situated much further north than they lie now. That happened in Siberia with the Transsiberian railway
European Russia used to be a much more northern country, too. Consider a single parameter - a number of households from provincial cities who paid the musketeers tax in 1682-1683. That doesn't reflect the population numbers but may kinda reflect the size of the middle class
Until 1700s Pomorye, literally the "land by the sea" located by the White Sea and the Arctic Ocean was by far the richest and the most commercial part of Russia. Then the St Petersburg was founded and Peter I prohibited foreign trade through Pomorye, so it gradually declined
Pomor people are the exception being the only originally seafaring culture the Russia had. They were indeed sea going and ocean going people. Russia however was super potamic and overwhelmingly relied on rivers as the means of communications. At least till the railways were built
What is important to understand is that historically since at least 1600 Russia has been going south, with its demographic and economic centre shifting closer and closer to equator. But back then it was *expanding* south, expanding not only geographically but also demographically
Now Russia is shrinking. It's ageing and depopulating. But it is depopulating unevenly. The North, Siberia and the Far East are getting empty with people leaving en masse, while Krasnodar is the fastest growing city not only in Russia but possibly in Europe. Russia's moving south
That makes total sense. First, climate. Siberia is hard to live in. Yes, it has tons of resources and industry, but with Moscow taking everything, it keeps Siberia in poverty. As a result people are voting with legs and moving to the warmer places. Like the Black Sea coast
Second, logistics. Most all of Russian trade is being done via seaports located in only three regions - St Petersburg, Vladivostok and Krasnodar. Three points of access to the relatively warm seas that Russia has. And Krasnodar is the warmest of all. It's usually not freezing
No wonder that now most of Russian internal migrants go to one of three centres. It's either Moscow, St Petersburg or Krasnodar. While Moscow and St Petersburg are old imperial centres and Moscow is super unsustainable, being a geographic anomaly, Krasnodar grows naturally
Siberia getting empty, Russia is shrinking southwest. In this context war with Ukraine makes sense. It lies too close to new Russian demographic and economic centres. Indeed, Krasnodar & Rostov interest groups are major beneficiaries and supporters of this war. They're doing well
Two conclusions. First, policy makers hoping to use Russia against China may be delusional. The war in Europe is natural with Russia shrinking southwest. Conflict with China though would be unnatural. The rule of Moscow depopulates Siberia leaving it empty. No ground for conflict
With the demographic and economic centres shifting southwest, Southwest has too powerful interest groups, which Moscow now has to negotiate with. Which is not the case with Siberia. Krasnodar has way more saying in Kremlin than any Siberian region
Second. Many presume that the disintegration of Russia should it take place, will start with some ethnic republics. I don't think so. It will probably start in one of these ones. The end of🧵
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed