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
For decades, any resistance to the Reaganomics has been suppressed using the false dichotomy: it is either “capitalism” (= which meant Reaganomics) or socialism, and socialism doesn’t work
Now, as there is the growing feeling that Reaganomics don’t work, the full rehabilitation of socialism looks pretty much inevitable
I find it oddly similar to how it worked in the USSR. For decades, the whole propaganda apparatus had been advancing the false dichotomy: it is either socialism, or capitalism (= meaning robber barons)
Now, as there is a growing feeling that the current model does not work, we must try out capitalism instead. And, as capitalism means robber barons, we must create robber barons
We have to distribute all the large enterprises between the organized crime members. This is the way
Truth is: the words like Rus/Russian had many and many ambiguous and often mutually exclusive meanings, and not only throughout history, but, like, simultaneously.
For example, in the middle ages, the word "Rus" could mean:
1. All the lands that use Church Slavonic in liturgy. That is pretty much everything from what is now Central Russia, to what is now Romania. Wallachians, being the speakers of a Romance language were Orthodox, and used Slavonic in church -> they're a part of Rus, too
2. Some ambiguous, undefined region that encompasses what is now northwest Russia & Ukraine, but does not include lands further east. So, Kiev & Novgorod are a part of Rus, but Vladimir (-> region of Moscow) isn't
These two mutually exclusive notions exist simultaneously
The greatest Western delusion about China is, and always has been, greatly exaggerating the importance of plan. Like, in this case, for example. It sounds as if there is some kind of continuous industrial policy, for decades
1. Mao Zedong dies. His successors be like, wow, he is dead. Now we can build a normal, sane economy. That means, like in the Soviet Union
2. Fuck, we run out of oil. And the entire development plan was based upon an assumption that we have huge deposits of it
3. All the prior plans of development, and all the prior industrial policies go into the trashbin. Because again, they were based upon an assumption that we will be soon exporting more oil than Saudi Arabia, and without that revenue we cannot fund our mega-projects
Yes. Behind all the breaking news about the capture of small villages, we are missing the bigger pattern which is:
The Soviet American war was supposed to be fought to somewhere to the west of Rhine. What you got instead is a Soviet Civil War happening to the east of Dnieper
If you said that the battles of the great European war will not be fought in Dunkirk and La Rochelle, but somewhere in Kupyansk (that is here) and Rabotino, you would have been once put into a psych ward, or, at least, not taken as a serious person
The behemoth military machine had been built, once, for a thunderbolt strike towards the English Channel. Whatever remained from it, is now decimating itself in the useless battles over the useless coal towns of the Donetsk Oblast
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