Why Russia cannot become a democracy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 พ.ย. 2022
- Special thanks to War Thunder for sponsoring this video. Click the link and claim your bonuses: playwt.link/caspianreport
The story of how the #Russian #government evolved also explains why it cannot become a #democratic state in its current territorial configuration.
Support CaspianReport
✔ TH-cam membership ► / @caspianreport
✔ Patreon ► / caspianreport
✔ PayPal ► www.paypal.me/caspianreport
✔ Merchandise ►teespring.com/stores/caspianr...
Crypto endorsement
✔ Bitcoin ► 1MwRNXWWqzbmsHova7FMW11zPftVZVUfbU
✔ Ether ► 0xfE4c310ccb6f52f9D220F25Ce76Dec0493dF9aA0
✔ Bitcoin Cash ► 1BKLti4Wq4EK9fsBnYWC91caK7NZfUhNw9
Join us on Facebook or Twitter
✔ Twitter ► / caspianreport
✔ Facebook ► / caspianreport
✔ My equipment and editing software ► www.amazon.com/shop/caspianre...
Watch CaspianReport in other languages
✔ Spanish ► / historiageopol%c3%adtica
✔ Russian ► / thecuriouscat
Special thanks to War Thunder for sponsoring this video. Click the link and claim your bonuses: playwt.link/caspianreport
Ever had that quickly any Comments?
Lol ... The actual first comment, 12 h before being uploaded. Einstein is protesting.
@@thelazy0ne stop bombarding me with facts, reality and logic. My opinion is already set in stone!
Gaijin is not gonna like this video being the one sponsored by them lol
russian bias and all that
What a joke. The US is rigging elections and Russia has fair ones. This channel has to be propaganda.
Geographical determinism is one way to explain Russia. Another would be failure to set up functional social institutions. Truth is, as always, somewhere in between.
another way is world-system theory
Another theory is foreign economic sabotage and funding of separatism while "friendly" rulers are in charge and outright hostility otherwise.
It's above all a matter of mentality.
"Geographical determinism" doesn't exist, it's propaganda sigla.
That failure to set up those institutions is tied to both Russia's geographical characteristics and those of the social groups (peoples) living within and around those lands. It's an analysis, not some sort of inevitable destiny.
Failure to set up functional social institutions is coused by geography.
A Belgium a year keeps the doctor away.
*keeps the Chinese away.
Until you hit the "Belgium" that turns out to be particularly bad for your health.
@@John3.36 mongols*
@@omgitzangrygaming7904 yes, but also those two sort of became the same
Haha, that was hilarious
Yeah, Yeltsin was so democratic that he shot the parlament with tanks when they didn't obey him.
Lol
ur cringe
Agree. But Americans do not know Russian history
But this parlament wasn't democratic and it tried to recover Soviet union. It is more correct to say that to non-democratic branchs fought for the power at this moment
@@tetelmaaan they didn't try to restore Soviet Union. You confuses Black October of 1993 with GKChP of 1991. In the October of 1993 the Congress of People's Deputies impeached Yeltsin and they had constitutional right to do this. But Yeltsin didn't care about following the constitution. If they prevailed, Russia wouldn't have such president oriented organisation now.
Geographical determinism alone does not explain this. There are both big and small countries which are liberal-democracies, and there are big and small countries which are not. If a country is a democracy or not is determined by various number of factors.
Eh, it's a complex topic but I think the Mongol invasion definitely changed the geopolitics of what is now Russia forever. Ever since then, authoritarianism has been the only sole leadership path that anyone vying for power has to follow. I do think geography played a roll into Russian authoritarianism, but you are also correct in stating that geography is not sole determining factor in this regard.
I agree. Geographic may be a reason for the past. But in our digital and global time it is a lot less so.
@@TheGraemi People keep saying this, but the world is not informed or the people have made different or better choices as far as I can see. The modern world is not anymore liberal then the world of yester year. If you don't understand that geographic is still plays a part in politics then you're not listening hard enough. The US is a huge country and is arguably the most connected country in the world, yet geography still plays a major part in politics.
@@MrAkaacer I din't say anything about liberal. Just that if people seek knowledge they can find it. But of course how and what you seek makes the difference.😉
His argument was geographic is the reason why Russia can't be a democracy. My argument is that the people are not ready. Of course I didn't state that directly.
@@TheGraemi Maybe I jumped the gun but you said "But in our digital and global time it is a lot less so" which implies that knowledge is easier to obtain. I guess I took the next step to infer you meant people would become more liberal as they obtain knowledge, as you made this comment "Geographic may be a reason for the past. But in our digital and global time it is a lot less so". I guess I'm use to people defining conservative as "being ignorant and therefore stuck in the past" and defining liberals as "informed and therefore open to change". Back on topic, it has less to do with Russians not being ready and more to do with Russia's geography and the geopolitics that go with this. The US was mainly settled by Western Europeans, dominated by British settlers, so it was easier to create a new democratic nation. Russia is huge encompassing many different ethnicities each claiming 100s of years of existence. Britain, France, Germany, Spain formed democracies due to Roman and Greek empires giving them a cultural commonality that united the different tribes within those nations, but they still had many wars before they became the democracies we know of today.
One correction Shirvan. Ivan The Terrible’s initiative was called “oprichnyna”, “oprichnik” is a person that served in it.
*Oprichnina
@TDVL Production I spit my drink out 😂😂
@@Anerammos2 nope, for it to be read correctly, not as “oprichNAINA”, because an English speaker will instinctively read “i” in an open syllable as “ai”, there’s got to be the letter “y”.
More like western democracy has failed to adapt to russia, our democracy may be touted as libertarian, but it also has autocratic roots, as in monarchy and in the case of france, dictatorships, our democracy gives little in terms of communication between the highest offices and the lowest economic class, much like during the days of monarchy, it requires alot of trust, and effort on the part of the governing officials to find the pulse of the nation, among every region, state, city and borough. But as the present state of government officials indicates, its a system thats riddled with inefficiencies and flaws.
With Russia having origins with even more autocratic, corrupt and incompetent influences, in the form of Muscovy, Novgorod, and their old masters the Golden Horde, there has never been any administrative social mechanism that generates any semblance of expected competence on the administrative side, and with the population having both a stake and trust in the governing institutions, this is why Lenins revolution failed its purpose. Hell lenin probably took the ideas used to supress minorities, and subconsciously just transferred that cultural influence onto what he perceived as the bourgeoisie, even his infamously described Kulaks. Therefore any democratic system would have to be developed with the cooperation of both the society and with the governing body being conscious of its own autocratic nature, and be able to apply reforms adequately, largely this has not been successful, with the old influences of the old Novogrodian Oligarchy plaguing Russia today.
Maybe Russia could look in places like Iraq, where revolutionaries have taken a more decentralized approach to democracy, a system that is much older than our present democratic systems, with each village being able to set its own rules and customs, this however changed with the arrival of the British which forced an inefficient centralized system onto the population.
@@artbasss Nope, the correct English spelling is Oprichnina. The letter "y" is not used for what you are suggesting here, partly because "i" and "y" are normally pronounced the same way in such a position.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprichnina
One correction - not all of Moscow's expansion in the medieval period was through soft power. The Novgorod Republic (an example of a possible democratic Russian State, in ages past) was conquered by force at the hands of Ivan III of Moscow.
Seem to have forgotten about the conquest of the Finnic tribes, too. Merya, Meshchera and the Muroma were through soft power, but the Erzya, Moksha and Mari were through conquest.
@@finnicpatriot6399 that's why Merya language dissapeared completely by XVIII century and Mari language is alive and well now. Some of the Mari people also are the last pagans of europe (meaning continuous religious tradition, not reviwed neoaganism), fun fact.
Novgorod was crushed after they tried expelling Moscow's soft power. Muscovy's influence and northern expansion had cut off Novgorod's market share in the fur trade, allowing the Muscovites to gain leverage. After roughly a century of Moscow's soft power, Novgorod rebelled and failed. It's a bit similar to Kazan's fate. First soft power, then hard power.
@@CaspianReport typical of how any empire works - a combination of both the hard and the soft.
Moreover, Siberia was initially colonized not under the Czar's whims, but the merchants' initiative to get rich through Siberian fur trade, led by the Stroganov family. Later the Czars realized his possession of such territories but had never truly learned how he got them, and therefore used it as a convenient dumping ground. It's not won through hard power either (except for Outer Manchuria).
The "one Belgium a year" meme will never die
I'm from Belgium and I don't get it
Always found it pretty cool how just like in the U.S. the construction of railroads in Russia brought along with it large populations and nessecary boomtowns all across Siberia and Asia to Vladivostok following the transsiberian railroad bringing Russians from Europe to East Asia just like it brought Americans from the East Coast to the West of America
Thr difference is most of siberia was already empty while america was not
@@Silver_Prussian Siberia was not empty. There were many native peoples there before.
@@greywolf7577 nope it was mostly empty check an ethnic map of the place and see where russians live and where the minorities do.
@@greywolf7577 How many was them? 100k? Look at the size of Siberia lmfao, it was pretty much empty, aswell as it is now...
@@Silver_Prussian Siberia wasn’t empty
"soft power and annexation"
ivan the III literally burned novgorod to the ground
It was the IVth, bucko
@@user-ym2ne1zg1b oops ;)
More like western democracy has failed to adapt to russia, our democracy may be touted as libertarian, but it also has autocratic roots, as in monarchy and in the case of france, dictatorships, our democracy gives little in terms of communication between the highest offices and the lowest economic class, much like during the days of monarchy, it requires alot of trust, and effort on the part of the governing officials to find the pulse of the nation, among every region, state, city and borough. But as the present state of government officials indicates, its a system thats riddled with inefficiencies and flaws.
With Russia having origins with even more autocratic, corrupt and incompetent influences, in the form of Muscovy, Novgorod, and their old masters the Golden Horde, there has never been any administrative social mechanism that generates any semblance of expected competence on the administrative side, and with the population having both a stake and trust in the governing institutions, this is why Lenins revolution failed its purpose. Hell lenin probably took the ideas used to supress minorities, and subconsciously just transferred that cultural influence onto what he perceived as the bourgeoisie, even his infamously described Kulaks. Therefore any democratic system would have to be developed with the cooperation of both the society and with the governing body being conscious of its own autocratic nature, and be able to apply reforms adequately, largely this has not been successful, with the old influences of the old Novogrodian Oligarchy plaguing Russia today.
Maybe Russia could look in places like Iraq, where revolutionaries have taken a more decentralized approach to democracy, a system that is much older than our present democratic systems, with each village being able to set its own rules and customs, this however changed with the arrival of the British which forced an inefficient centralized system onto the population.
Alexander I literally burned Moscow to the ground
@@user-ym2ne1zg1b How about you find another name other than Ivan 😄
Imagine 200 years ago Caspian looks at France and says:
"France has always been absolutist monarchy. It can't be anything else because it has so many enemies: England, Spanin, Austria, Prussia. They from all sides. Only monarch can save France, it can never be democracy"
Yeah I’m not a fan of this geographical determinism that Caspian seems to adhere to.
France's initial experience with democracy was an absolute mess and led to the Reign of Terror. Robespierre was a little too trigger happy with those guillotines. Eventually Napoleon became dictator, then Emperor. France then would proceed to cycle between monarchies, republics and empires before they finally managed to hammer down a stable republic. The current French republic is its fifth iteration.
Russia could possibly be a stable democracy some day... but right now it's on a shaky foundation... just like the First French Republic had been. The only way I see Russia finally settling into a stable democratic country is for it to cycle between oligarchic dictatorship and the next iteration of democracy. Long story short, I'm not expecting it to happen in my lifetime if it would even happen at all.
There is a difference. France, at that time and even now, didn't exist as long as Russia, it's borders were mostly formed by mountain ranges and major rivers, it didn't include as many ethnic minorities and many of it's enemies were still divided or were separated from France by one or more countries, giving it a buffer zone. Also, it's major enemies were busy expanding or protecting empires.
Despots always use an excuse like that to cling to power. "I may be bad, but the alternatives are worse, we can't afford democracy, it would weaken us... etc...".
He would be right.
Even now France is a monarchy, not based on some fancy royal bloodline but rather on an electoral choice.
An electoral monarchy.
"If Russia is sealed to despotism, then let It have democracy, for it gives every person the right to be his own oppressor."
Very well said.
That's the stupidest thing someone can say
Democracy cult of thought is cancerous
You can use geographical characteristics of any country to prove why it’s couldn’t be a democracy. Russia is not a democracy for many other reasons than it’s geography
Mostly because of how toxic it's been in the west.
Also even if there's other factors, a major reason is still it's geography and ethnic past. Geography has a lot to do with history. Look at the geographic realities of Europe and it predicts all of the wars.
Hey Shirvan, I have a suggestion.
It would be awesome if you could use a different projection for the Arctic region it would be really lovely. It would be much easier to estimate distances and areas and not suffer from the scaling effects of Mercator projection.
90% of people have never seen a 'real' projection of the globe.
Russia is so long and skinny in real life.
@@shrimperlincs3395 But the rest of us 10%'ers are heavily over-represented on this channel.
I vote Waterman Butterfly...
@@shrimperlincs3395 90% of people don't live in the USA, so your wrong mate
@@djcoopes7569 britfag identified
I'm confused why Shirvan even used a projection at all for this video. His other videos have done just fine using a true global "viewed from space" rendering, he is clearly capable of making those.
I always liked the detail that the Oprichnik were the strongest units for killing civillians in Age Of Empires 3.
I bet in the next Civilization game, there is gonna be a "Great Leader" named Putin, which can reduce the population in all neighboring cities by half.
That's crazy, I'm ☠️, civilians ☠️ too
@@egor_2gor_3gor F
Хотя число казненных при Иване Грозном на самом деле невысокое, в основном были жертвами новгородцы
yeah. Ivan the "terrible" killed like 20 000 people for 20 years - WHAT A CRIME. An ordinary king in Europe killing 100,000 per day. Who cares. Thats how fascist propaganda works.
The main problem of Russia is that it never stopped being an empire, so people still tend to think in that way.
As a Russian I agree 100%. Over time, other European countries/states developed social institutions and other things to raise economic/social equality while Russia always seemed to lag behind in that regard. A good video I’d recommend that explains this well is the origins of Russian authoritarianism, here’s the link: th-cam.com/video/f8ZqBLcIvw0/w-d-xo.html
That's basically how first world nations see themselves.
True
No, Russian people don’t think this way, the government doesn’t ask people what they think anymore, it fakes any data Putin needs to stay in power.
Well, it's your problem, not Russia's.
The irony of this being sponsored by gaijin
I'm a great fan of your videos, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I think you may be overreacted when assessing the demand for sovereignty in Russia's autonomous republics and territories. With the exception of some of the Caucasus republics, Russians still make up a majority of citizens within the Eastern territories and even amongst the indigenous populations, Independence remains low. You also try to use Russia's history of expansion and size as proof that Russia cannot transition to democracy. I also disagree with this, although geography and size can play a role in impacting a countries adminstration, federalisation and de-centralisation can address many of the problems associated with this. For evidence of this just observe countries like the United States and Australia, two countries that have a history of conquest, and governing over large and geographically diverse countries yet have evolved into entirely different countries than Russia.
The true problem in Russia's democracy comes not from its size or georaphy, but rather the development of its institutions and governance. A dismantling of Russia would not guarantee that democracy succeeds, but rather the creation and reinforcement of democratic institutions and safeguards.
What also played a role is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West rather had an oligarchy providing them with cheap commodities than a democracy that would think about the Russian people. This was the essence of the so-called "shock therapy". Similar things happened in Latin America as well as some Asian / Mid East countries where democraties were overthrown and dictators were installed who were willing to facilitate the West's neoliberal project by providing cheap commodities and labor.
@@rolyars i disagree with the comparison with Latin America. Russian collapse required a different approach by the west, and Russia was never a democracy in the first place. In fact, id argue the opposite: the west was very much interested in Russia becoming a democracy. If Russia did, the west could save billions in military spending in Europe, gain a nuclear-capable ally and focus on China. However, the west did not want to expend their resources to make this a reality. They'd rather confortably deal with a naturally formed russian oligarchy (thus reaping economic benefits). They willfully ignored the early signs of trouble: 90s wars in Moldova, Abkhasia and Chechnya, and hoped that the oligarchy will not seek territorial expansion. They obviously did not foreshadow the comeback of former security apparatus and Russian revanchism. Oh well...
@@AV-rr2zp I don't think we disagree much. I agree the most important thing for the West was that Russia was no longer a threat and also that they'd become a provider of cheap commodities in exchange for freshly printed dollars. However, democracy doesn't necessarily mean Russia wouldn't be a threat so this was of secondary importance, integration in the neoliberal system was seen as the most important as they believed this would also provide safety.
He mentioned that the known history of Russia with its regional breakout events is hold as a reference point and this reasoning has been used and abused to cancel out further democracy and incentivized despotism.
Caspian didn't mention what he should have. Russia can not be a Democracy simply because the centre of power resides in Moscow, and Moscow only. And as you can see the geography; it does play a role and a major one at that because none of the political centers lie outside of Moscow central or Saint petersburg. You have understand the dynamics of power and the strings, the elites reside in Moscow. As long as the Elite class (the oligarchy, it always exists in a society no matter democratic or authoritarian backed by the 'Iron Law of Oligarchy') continues to rule and flourish which it will continue to do so, Democratic institutions can never exist.
Extra Information is that Democracy itself is ruled by the elites. So a democracy is itself a farce.
I don't disagree that Russia in it's current form can't become a democracy, but I heavily disagree that it's because of geography. Geographic determinism is a very silly notion that disregards much more important variables like history, culture, human agency and etc. If geographic determinism was the case, we would never have had civil wars between ideologies (north and south korea, east and west germany, communist, democratic and nationalist china, spain and etc) nor would the form of a state change so long as it's geography didn't (literally most of the entire world).
The reason why Russia can't be a democracy at this time is because something like 70 to 80 percent of the population is apolitical. They have no idea what the Kremlin is doing or how it works and they don't care to find out. They vote whatever their tv tells them to vote and get on with their lives. Politics never intrudes in their private lives. There are no debates, no coherent ideologies, no plurality at all in politics. This is in contrast to the soviet times where communist politics and ideology penetrated everything in daily life with no room for other types of thought. Both of these approaches create easily corraled sheep that is not conductive towards democratisation.
Why not?
Different geographic zones inside one country lead to different economy, political views, habits, etc.
Thus leading to disagreements including civil conflicts.
th-cam.com/video/tzAcuVuk-2Q/w-d-xo.html
@@RemusCroft it's not my burden to prove a negative. But I'll give an extreme example. Switzerland is one of the most successful democracies and economies on the planet. Afghanistan has a near-identical geography. Why the tremendous difference?
Geography is the nucleus of ethnic differences… I don’t think it’s geography, it’s ethnicity that will cause the disintegration of Russia… and good riddance.
Doesnt the same apply to USA? And every other nation bigger than a breadbox?
No, the same doesn't apply to the US since it has two oceans separating it form the rest of the world a thus protecting it. Canada I a lly of the US and Mexico is corrupted and unable to challenge US. This makes the US very safe and you also must consider history of the both nation. The US was never invaded by the Mongols which ravaged and pillaged the whole nation.
@@matijastanivukovic8744 Mexicans are not enemies of the United States, they have never invaded their territory, you have
@@matijastanivukovic8744 The Mexicans are allies of the United States and have condemned the war in Ukraine, have supported many United States policies, and the commercial alliance has strengthened. Saying that Mexico is an enemy of the United States is like saying that France is an enemy of Germany.
@@eltecnico9541 What about California and Texas. Whose territories are these before the USA?
@@eltecnico9541 Why is there no Indian state in the USA?
Russia never became capitalist. It was capitalized by the west when the USSR fell. Even Sachs (from goldman sachs) who ran the transition admitted to exploiting it and turning it into an anarchy.
Russia is one of the most properly-capitalistic of all the countries rn, especially compared to the Europe. And it's a clear example why pure capitalism is nothing but a death sequence for a country that tries to stand on it's own
russia is a capitalist oligarchy with a specific twist where oligarchs and the government are tied up to the point there autocracy has been built. russia doesn’t have any elite conflict, that’s why it doesn’t seem democratic (in bourgeoise way). all the social goods that russia has - free medicine, for ex, is just ussr’s heritage.
@@olenachko6801 There is no free medicine at this point, its a joke, optimized to save as much money as possible, not human lives and 100% not their quality of life.
The statement that democracy is determined by geography is silly. What about North vs South Korea or West vs East Germany during the Cold War. Or even Ukraine vs Russia currently. Neighbouring territories with vastly different systems. It's determined by causality like everything else. But just because things have led to something bad doesn't mean we should justify the bad thing or not try to change it.
Like seeing Russia get democracy and dividing into 10 pieces? Then china trying to exert influence in 8 of those pieces, which would be worse off without the Russian centralised system? (Do you know how food and resources reach the far East corners of Russia?)
Ya, no thanks mate.
Change is possible, definitely. But not now, also, while trying to change the present and shape the future, the past will be there to make you remember why it's the way it is.
You can't really compare these systems though. Well you can but it's no good one.
Tradition and culture created political incentives detrimental to the common man. Unless Russians learn to love liberty and grant others liberty, it will stay the same.
It's not comparing systems.....it's that geography isn't a major factor
It’s easy to compare relatively small nations under the influence and pressure from a larger, wealthier and more powerful democracy. South Korea and West Germany were effectively puppet states of the United States, which ensured they developed governments in line with their overlords values.
Russia is a country large and powerful enough to largely self determine, and developing your own institutions is always much more difficult than having them imposed on you by force.
3:20 You know man, you are the best when it comes to pronunciation. As a russian I appreciate the effort. You make mistakes but you come so close, I haven't seen anybody do that. Usually people don't even try but you -- hats off, man, wow.
I also find it generally so ignorant if people say this usual 'Sorry for butchering the names' and feel disposed of any effort. There are so many tools on the internet to research pronunciation. It doesn't need to be perfect, I'm totally fine if people just use their own phonemic system (because it can be hard to produce sounds or regard phonemes which don't exist in the own language) but at least try to mirror the original with it
Teach us
The TH-camr Shivan is from Azerbaijan so I'm certain he speaks fluent Russian
I'm not sure why you think those who don't come close to good pronunciation 'didn't put in the effort', as if that's how language learning works. They just never learned Russian or some other Slavic language.
@@glacialimpala You can easily research pronunciation on Wiktionary or various dictionaries. It is not necessary to know a language to do this research
There is no such thing as predetermined political regime, as most politoligists say. And in Russia's history there were many decisions (such as Yeltsin's constitution or Chechen or Afganistan wars) that could be made differently and could lead to a completely different results. So the situation is not defined only by 1 or 2 major factors, such as country's geography and ethnic composition
9:38 Chechnya announced its withdrawal from the RSFSR even before there were tanks in Moscow in 1991.
Governing Russia is like playing on nightmare difficulty.
Hello from Russia, glory to Putin
@@user-db5zc1nf4b🤨👎 I am from Russia
Yep live here is the same. If you can survive here, you can win anywhere :D Hello from Russia :D
@@egor_2gor_3gor you want that p*ssy in prison to govern you instead? The one who cries to his wife?
Governing russia on all eras is extremly difficult
against mongols
against turks
against germans and austrians
against commies
against poles
against germans with almost all of europe at their back
against japanese
against westerners
against afghans with help from the west and muslims countries
against chechens with helps from muslims countries
against ukrainians with NATO equipment
and so on...
Context : Russia's still an empire
More like shadow of past empire.
always has been and probably always will be
Using that logic then majority of today's countries are empires
What means empire ? Any multinational state is empire ?
Context : Russia's still a shitole*
I look to your videos for your thorough research and excellent perspective. Thank you. I hope you are able to keep up your work!
I'm not saying by any means that the USA, UK, Canada and Australia are perfect, but I think a truly federal democracy is the way to go for Russia. I don't have the time to spell it all out since I was watching this before work, but the biggest concern for Russia with a federal democracy is to be less ethnic-central. Some countries like Indonesia are even building a new capital so that it is physically more central to everyone in the country. Russia building a new capital near the Urals, or Caspian Sea might be a good idea, while all it's autonomous regions, federal cities, oblasts, etc. are reorganized into a more appropriate federation of states, like the USA, Canada, UK or Australia. I know this can be scary since the last sovereign federation was the USSR, which fell apart largely on ethnic lines, but I believe the strength of Federal Democracies isn't just common history and language, but also recognition that smaller parts together are stronger together. Russia would also hugely benefit from connecting and developing it's interior. Russia has so many natural resources and so much land, that it should be largely self-sufficient at least in basic needs. Yet I'm have, at least, seen articles now of Russia asking for train parts, vehicle parts and critical infrastructure parts from India. It won't be easy, and by no means should it copy the West exactly, but if Russia has the chance, I think it should take the chance to form a better Federation and true Democracy.
Very naive.
very nice take I agree
Political systems are the product of the evolution of societies through history. They're not picked off a supermarket shelf.
Federal democracy should be the only acceptable democracy. Anything else is dog sh*t.
True democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Funfact: the modern Russian flag was created after tsar Peter the great visited the Dutch republic in the late 17th century. He was so impressed by what he saw that he took the colours of the Dutch flag, creating the Russian one.
Dumb myth. It comes from the colors of muscovys coat of arms
@JUMAYUMMA Two accounts of the flag's origin connect it to the tricolour used by the Dutch Republic (the flag of the Netherlands).[1][2]
The earliest mention of the flag occurs during the reign of Alexis I, in 1668, and is related to the construction of the first Russian naval ship, the frigate Oryol. According to one source, the ship's Dutch lead engineer Butler faced the need for the flag, and issued a request to the Boyar Duma, to "ask His Royal Majesty as to which (as is the custom among other nations) flag shall be raised on the ship". The official response merely indicated that, as such issue is as yet unprecedented, even though the land forces do use (apparently different) flags, the tsar ordered that his (Butler's) opinion be sought about the matter, asking specifically as to the custom existing in his country.[3]
@@GreenRatel A different account traces the origins of the Russian flag to tsar Peter the Great's visits to Arkhangelsk in 1693 and 1694. Peter was keenly interested in shipbuilding in the European style, different from the barges ordinarily used in Russia at the time. In 1693, Peter had ordered a Dutch-built frigate from Amsterdam. In 1694 when it arrived, the Dutch red, white, and blue banner flew from its stern.[4] Peter decided to model Russia's naval flag after that banner by assigning meaning and reordering the colours.
@@drpepper3838 I am Russian, and while he definitely took inspiration from you people it wasn’t made just on that. Peter The Great was fascinated by the west and wanted to reform Russia, but above all he was a proud and strong Russian nationalist
@Comrade Stalin he implemented beard tax lol. Because in the west it was the norm that you were clean shaven
I do like your videos
But if a country like India can make democracy work then so can Russia
It's all about the will of the people and elites
Democracy requires work
Lmao mate. India is a democracy because of Hinduism. It promotes shit like cultural Sovereignty and diversity. That's why polycultural societies can sit down and form democracies.
Does the Indian state assimilate muslims which have a different set of values directly taken from middle East? No it can't. Infact, 3 nations emerged out of British raj to get dEMocRaCy here(which btw, gets nothing done and we often get shitty administrations and a lot of bureaucracy)
Does it harm the fabric of democracy all while making India look bad on the world stage? Yes.
So no, modern India is a bad example.
Democracy in big countries is a farce. The elites are the actual political decision-makers, Elections have little to no result in a society where the state is influenced and political parties lobbied by corporations. The US is the best example, India is not far away from that fate.
Not as long as they all hail the zar denying the effect of bad politics on their living standards.
Underrated comment. Democracy indeed requires A LOT of hard work from EVERYONE, and that’s exactly why so many, especially in the East, are comfortable within their authoritarian or totalitarian comfort zones, no matter how miserable they might be.
More like western democracy has failed to adapt to russia, our democracy may be touted as libertarian, but it also has autocratic roots, as in monarchy and in the case of france, dictatorships, our democracy gives little in terms of communication between the highest offices and the lowest economic class, much like during the days of monarchy, it requires alot of trust, and effort on the part of the governing officials to find the pulse of the nation, among every region, state, city and borough. But as the present state of government officials indicates, its a system thats riddled with inefficiencies and flaws.
With Russia having origins with even more autocratic, corrupt and incompetent influences, in the form of Muscovy, Novgorod, and their old masters the Golden Horde, there has never been any administrative social mechanism that generates any semblance of expected competence on the administrative side, and with the population having both a stake and trust in the governing institutions, this is why Lenins revolution failed its purpose. Hell lenin probably took the ideas used to supress minorities, and subconsciously just transferred that cultural influence onto what he perceived as the bourgeoisie, even his infamously described Kulaks. Therefore any democratic system would have to be developed with the cooperation of both the society and with the governing body being conscious of its own autocratic nature, and be able to apply reforms adequately, largely this has not been successful, with the old influences of the old Novogrodian Oligarchy plaguing Russia today.
Maybe Russia could look in places like Iraq, where revolutionaries have taken a more decentralized approach to democracy, a system that is much older than our present democratic systems, with each village being able to set its own rules and customs, this however changed with the arrival of the British which forced an inefficient centralized system onto the population.
Your pronunciation of Russian words is on point, well done!
No it's accurate, but very fun to listen native words with english accent, well done :)
Mostly on point.
Not rly and I'm Russian
@@marysartr чел, я про его акцент, его произношение отличается от русского (по потому что по английски русские названия произносятся по-другому), но то как слова измены звучит прикольно.
@@alfiz9943 наоборот он пытается произносить русские названия с англиским акцентом
I was shocked from childhood that the will of the government is felt by the Russian people like things like the weather or epidemics. Something random and by definition uncontrollable. This is especially true for outlying provinces. It is only among my generation of zoomers that interest in politics begins to awaken, while our parents implicitly believe everything they say on TV, without requiring any proof. What is the study of the issue if both the government and the front line feel like another planet?
Your parents were not born that way either, they were broken over the years. All protests were brutally put down. And it will be no different with you. You protest, the police beat you up, you protest again and get beaten up again. Until you eventually give in. People who are too dangerous will be arrested or sent directly to the front. Every generation believes at the beginning that they are different and can change something. Until the authoritarian Regieme or the dictatorship shows them their limits with violence. And puts them in their place, and so long until you are broken at some point and no resistance.
@@Unknown-fh6ge Sadly, this is true. Mostly. In terms of mentality that has developed under such conditions, I am no exception. I am a weeaboo-homebody, my biggest rally in my life is a rally for the ecology of my small town, and my biggest protest is my plans to leave for Kazakhstan and wait for the better times. Most of my friends took part in the protests tho and everyone was even lucky not to be arrested or expelled from the university, but it’s kind of not to say that they drastically changed the situation in the world.
Is any "civilized" country any different? As far as i know everybody silently accepts government decisions in EU, USA etc.
in the West, everyone believes in television...
I'm from Russia and I'm just shocked by this propaganda. Our history is not as politicized and one-sided as it is served to you, and we do not have such a lack of freedom here that you are talking about. This video is pure lies. How did democracy end in the Capitol in America? What happens if you throw a bottle at a policeman anywhere in the world? In Russia, you probably won't even be put in jail for such things. Of course, no one will pat on the head. But personally, I would like the ambulance to get there if my mother gets sick, and not run into a herd of students who decided to express their will to the government. At the same time, no one disperses rallies if they do not interfere with anyone. So don't teach us democracy.
Germany also tried growing by one Belgium per year. It didn't end well for them either.
Germany was neutered and became an US puppet state.
Second try with soft power ended quite well.
Well, they do control Europe today together with France with their industry and economy. Both country are pretty much the Diodarchy of Euro.
So did the Japanese empire haha
More like one Belgium per month -- for a while anyway.
"Most Russians don't care whether they are ruled by fascists or communists or even Martians as long as they can buy six kinds of sausage in the store and lots of cheap vodka."--Alexander Lebed.
The closing statement is powerful. Very impressive script!
Going by this logic, forming a one world government will never be feasible. Russia has many failings which have made democracy impossible, it’s not all down to geographic constraints. Examples include their economic model, lack of a strong middle class, and inability to create a national identity which goes beyond ethnic and religious lines.
EDIT: great production and research as always
Earth as a whole has a clear and defensible boundary. So that geography would favor a one-world government. :-D But, I agree with your other points.
>EDIT: great production and research as always
why did u add that
Geodeterminism is a hell of a drug. Often I find your input reasonable or at least a point of view worth having heard. The historical perspective is fine. The conclusions you are drawing from that into the contemporary era, is pretty much indefensible. The vast majority of relevant historians, political scientists and geographers alike will throw this out with contempt. Sorry, CR. Not a passing grade on this one.
"the shape of the Russian skull leaves no capacity for democracy" - Shirvan
finally...a good comment.
Totally true. Geography is only 'unforgiving' so far. I would say culture and scale would matter as much or more to a democracy being possible or not. The argument that democracy is not an effective form of government in a given context can really be used at any scale of government, and has been used in a wide variety of situations. It is also the main argument within far right / radical parties in western countries that want to change parliamentary regimes into presidential ones, and we know very well what is their final goal. You either have values that you wish to enforce, that you want to build upon collectively, or you don't. Putin doesn't, as a dictator, so Russia doesn't as a county. For now at least.
This is why it will collapse to 20 or more republics. Ethnic Russians will have their own european size country with 50 mln inhibitants. The end of imperialism and no more threat to East and Central Europe.
The geography is relevant. But there wasn't nearly enough here on foreign interference, which seems to be one of Moscow's main concerns.
That end line was brilliant writing. great work
one of his dmbest videos by far
1:14, I disagree that geography DETERMINES the character/virtues of a people, as I think an individual's educated choice overpowers their conditioning every time if the opportunity is given, but geography definitely has a strong influence, MUCH stronger than most people realize, especially individualists.
The idea that individual choice overpowers everything else is wrong, because your individual choice is largely determined by factors outside your control, such as genetics, and your environment
Best argument ever for breaking it into a hundred pieces.
the history element of the vid was nice, but this assertion is bold and dubious. The United States and Canada are also very large with many ethnic groups who operate essentially autonomously. If you look at the history of the US and Canada, it is rooted in a monarchy of England and colonialism that was enforced with violence. Yet... somehow the US and Canada made it work. I dont see why the reasons presented disqualify Russia from becoming a democracy in the future.
The big difference is that the US and Canada aren't bordered by resentful-to-hostile neighbours. Their historical security concerns are completely different from Russia's. They didn't need to keep a tight grip on their remotest regions at all times because what were those regions going to do, drop into the sea?
He is iranian he loves ruzzia 🤣
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs oh, we WERE bordered by hostile neighbors (here in the US). Canada invaded us once or twice way back when
And we ourselves attacked, conquered, and annexed big chunks of Mexico way back when
Massive Asian empires vis a vis the Mongols or Ottomans though? Not so much. Logistics worked in our favor there
But our histories are steeped in war and bloodshed too
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say our newness and isolation from Eurasia made it easier for us to settle down after the fights, and realize sooner rather than later the value of cooperation to meet needs and goals
Now my Canadian friends complain they basically live in America but with better healthcare
Seems when a place has a population that can trace back roots many thousands of years, the more entrenched the disagreements get
@@daveandersson126 you are surrounded by ocean on both sides and weak arse neighbours which were taken care of during the inception of ur state itself.
The US is an exception and a very recent occurrence with a history of just 200~ years. Also, you choose who can immigrate into your nation today. That's the talent drain for other countries while illegal immigrants from southern america are an 'issue' in America, all while black neighbourhood* still are acutely poor and deep in drugs and debt(it's not the fault of the American state here tho) so I don't believe it's a great example.
What I do believe is, cultures which are compatible and polycultural, having a similar set of values can definitely work together in democracy and make it work better than authoritarian nations infact. Also, it takes a specific set of values for democracy to work anywhere in the first place. No, you can't democratise most of middle east when their mentality itself is inclined towards a despotic regime. What you mentioned can work in places like EU(albeit with problems, but it's the best example) and a collective East Asia with Japan, korea, Taiwan working together(given they can let go of their historical bitter feelings)
Edit: Spelling mistakes
@@harshjain3122 first off America is a republic not a democracy. Second America, Canada, and Mexico all had incredibly violent births, simply reading history on the wars between the natives, themselves, and their colonial parents will show they were all quite brutal. America has weak enemies because America crushed its nearby enemies long ago and then through innovative industry and science became the world's strongest country.
I would add that Russia never subordinated its geopolitical interests to the ones of the US, which inevitably pushes him against the US and its allies more than encouraging their leaders to collaborate with them in mutual benefit.
US still sees Russia as the main heir of the USSR so in order to keep their current hegemonic status, US will directly or indirectly try to avoid that Russia become again a strong political, economic and military power in international affairs .
Even if Russia becomes a full democracy, US will never tolerate that Europe fell more under russian influence than under theirs and probably will support and finance nationalist movements inside russian territory in order to destabilize it from the inside.
In South America, even if you flop on banana skin, it's probably US fault.
@@anathemebouffon5983 the US still follows the Monroe Doctrine. South America is theirs and every leader on the subcontinent who does not conform will be overthrown or that will at least be tried.
@@Ozymandias1 yes and no. US meddled and meddle in South America for sure, but:
1. latinos use to blame everything bad that happen to them on US while lot's of bad stuff that happen to them comes from retarded ideas and even more retarded implementation
2. US is empire and empires opress people, but US as empire is quite chilled. viewing US as big bad baddie that strikes at everyone and destabilises everything while talking to someone, who lives in eastern Europe, close to Russia that used to genocide people in millions and makes everything that is possible to do it again is bad joke.
when russians talk that "there's no such thing like ukrainian nationality and it has no right to exist" they iterally mean it.
@@anathemebouffon5983 What he’s saying is right though, America has done it in Chechyna and has directly supported independence movements within Russia to make things worst
@@comradestalin9444 If this is true, Putin funding Texas separist movements (lol) is just returning the favor.
Is there any way I could get a list of sources for this video?
У нас в России говорят - "Начали за здравие, а закончили за упокой". Вот прямо про этот ролик :)
Если закончили за упокой, то зачем войну в Украине начали?
@@HopeRock425 потому что капитализм он про войну и прочие переделы собственности, а не про демократию - уж американцам ли это не знать :)
@@Frothuss2 причём здесь капитализм и демократія. Ви Русские не из-за этого напали.
@@HopeRock425 Поплачь , зaебалi себя оправдывать
@@ketone4444 зачем мне плакать. Україна победит, Путин умрёт, а Россия развалится.
I would disagree with statement that lack of democracy is caused by geography. like ancient Greeks could include different minorieties or likewise ancient Rome while was Republic. there numerous examples of former similar to Russia entieties proof that you can create prosperious one
Rome is a poor choice. The republic only worked while it was roughly contained to italy and small other areas. The moment it became to large to manage it stagnated leading to the triumverates and eventually that led to a centralized empire. A republic never couldve managed the problems of the mid to late roman empire. Greece as well even with minorities is less then 1/1000th the size of russia. Even rome at its height was less then half the size of russia. The only thing that would give a possible chance is modern communication technology but historically the U.S is the only republic thats worked at that size and its not like itll last indefinitely
the USA is maybe a better option. its a massive country with varying interests & concerns. federalism works well to keep the American Empire in tact
Both example were slave states with slave economy so don't be fooled by the name republic or origin of the word democracy. Wright to vote was just for ruling elites not the right for all above 18 years of age which is the case now.
Geography is not excuse for not having democracy just your examples are not good.
Exactly. What about North vs South Korea or West vs East Germany during the Cold War. Or even Ukraine vs Russia currently. Neighbouring territories with vastly different systems. The statement that democracy is caused by geography is silly.
@@deyanpetrov4447 It is caused by geography. Rome and Greece is not a great example because only the ruling elite can vote. Not like today where millions can vote and millions can march on the streets. Rome also started to crumble once it got too big. Democracy doesn't work when there are too many different ethnicities in a country. Even America is crumbling. And I would argue America itself isn't totally democratic. It seems like these days, if you are white, especially if you are a white man, your voice doesn't matter. Just look at their politics today. It is scary
This is also why the changed the proportion of shared taxes so that the regional administrations relied way more heavily on the federal government rather than controlling their fair share of the riches they produce: its a way of political control over the regions that even when incredibly productive as in what is exploited from their land, their locals see little of merely provide the workforce. This also explains why mainly Moscow and Saint Petersburg are pristine first-world looking cities while the rest of the country is a mess and sometimes incredibly decayed and poor: it's by design, like having a prisoner ill fed so he never gets strength or ideas to rebel.
But on doing so, the country is also condemned to corruption and poverty, fearing that making people self sustainable would give them bad ideas, trying to concentrate on the state the distribution of money, etc. It's a huge jail where both the prisoners and the guards are trapped together and neither trust each other, the weak are fxxxx or killed and only the "strong men" can rule via intimidation.
well-put. the sad bit is that there's no light at the end of the tunnel for us in Russia. and boy does that thought hurt.
stability in russia is good than breaking russia apart because if you look at breakups of soviet and balkans there will be bloodbaths all around because most of these minorities dont like each other
Basically, like a colonial empire, where the colonies are internal, yet ethnically different from Russians. The oblasts provide more to the Federal government than they receive, and contribute more cannon fodder than ethnic Russians.
So dramatic
Not even entirely true
This video argues for geographic determinism, but it draws just as much from historical contingency and culture as it does from geography.
very high quality as usual, every time I see a new video I click as fast as possible
I see DRC Congo being defined by it's large geography and has more than 200 ethnic groups in the same way. Without wealth or force, the country has remained divided and run by war lord's controlling small sections of the large county.
have you read Dancing in the glory of monsters? Really put the DRC into perspective for me
@@lm_b5080 I will be looking for that one.
Chinese system of governance would work perfectly for DRC
I think an additional cause is the severe trauma of subjection of the Rus states to the Golden Horde, Muscovy's survival as a powerful vassal because of its status as the Golden Horde's unwaveringly loyal favorite vassal and tax enforcer among the Rus states, which is what allowed it to absorb the other Rus states, and the integration of the Muscovite and Russian nobility with the nobility of the Golden Horde both before and after Muscovy freed itself from the Golden Horde's domination.
Under these circumstances, it was almost inevitable that Muscovy would be autocratic, that it would be obsessed with achieving invincibility through expansion and empire, and that it would quickly turn to overwhelming force in response to the slightest resistance from surrounding peoples, following the Mongol model of empire that Muscovy had the most direct experience and understanding of, and which Muscovy had in fact already been actively participating in successfully enforcing against the rest of the Rus since the 1200s.
There was never integration of any "nobility" (savage tribal chieftains). Russian royals never intermixing with any primitive mongoloid nomadic savages. But this would be too disgusting to imagine to a Russian person on any level of the social hierarchy. The Muscovite model of imperialism has nothing to do with any stone age savages who never even had a administration, concept of statehood or even a basic language or a numerical system. What the hell are you writing?
@@HigherMorality Unfortunately your statement is *very* badly informed. In the first place the Golden Horde were not remotely "stone age savages who never even had a administration, concept of statehood or even a basic language or a numerical system." To begin with, the Golden Horde were not only extremely firmly in the iron age, but operated siege engines which required skill in geometry, precise force calculations and skill in engineering, minted their own coins which were imprinted with writing sometimes in multiple languages and scripts, and were among the most technologically advanced empires on the face of the planet at the time (1242-1466). This was an empire which very much had a language and a writing system (their own, which they invented the script for, still used in Mongolia today), a formal administration, published extensive written decrees and diplomatic correspondence as well as comprehensive, systematic and high-quality written history documents, had vast walled cities such as Sarai and Sarai Berqe (a city with a prosperous population of 600,000), with wide, well organized streets, vast libraries and gigantic markets, a very clear concept of statehood, not only had a numerical system but in fact conducted periodic censuses of the whole population not only of their own territory but also of all of the territory of their vassals, and based their (formalized and consistent) taxation rates on the populations recorded in the censuses. In fact, Muscovy adopted the Golden Horde's taxation system and continued to collect in the same way after the end of their domination by the Golden Horde. Even the Russian word for money, Деньги, among many others, is of Golden Horde origin. The Russian postal service was based on the Golden Horde model, as well as the Russian laws concerning Church immunity from taxation, so much so that translated Mongol documents were still being directly used by men of the Church in the 1600s as a model of how they and the Church should be treated by the Russian state. This was an empire with an extremely competent and well-ordered army numbering in the hundreds of thousands which was able to execute simultaneous coordinated attacks hundreds of kilometers apart, as part of a single written war strategy decided by a central administration and coordinated using by far the fastest and most professionalized postal service that had ever existed in history up to that point. Basically, nothing you say about the Golden Horde is even remotely accurate.
You seem to be describing a stone age tribe of parts of what are now the Russian Far East or the Siberian Federal District and such groups indeed existed and were conquered by Russia without being incorporated into the nobility in any way, but the Golden Horde has nothing to do with these groups, and the Golden Horde was indeed incorporated into the Russian nobility and royalty. Yury of Moscow married princess Konchaka an ethnic Mongol princess of the Golden Horde and sister of Uzbeg Khan. Gleb Vasil'kovich, prince of Beloozero and briefly of Rostov, also married a princess of the Golden Horde named Feodora Sartakovna, daughter of Sartak Khan and granddaughter of Batu Khan. This was all before the end of the Mongol yoke, and is not only extremely well documented, but was not even considered controversial at the time within the Rus states, since the Golden Horde was fine during this period with these princesses converting to Orthodox Christianity as part of a marriage alliance. After 1313 this did partially change due to the Golden Horde converting to Islam, but non-muslim nobility and royalty within the Horde could still become Orthodox Christians in the right circumstances if they had previously followed Shamanism or Buddhism, and some did.
Likewise, after the end of the Golden Horde's domination of the Rus, the nobility and royalty of the Golden Horde did indeed continue to assimilate into the Muscovite aristocracy. They did so by converting to Orthodox Christianity, taking Russian names, marrying Russian aristocracy, entering into service to grand princes and culturally assimilating. Despite their assimilation, these nobles continued to openly and proudly claim Mongol descent. Among these nobles were the princes of Ryazan and the Gudonov, Saburov, Zernov and Veliaminov noble clans who all claimed descent from the Golden Horde prince Zachary Chet, an Orthodox Mongol prince whose descendants include Tsaritsa Irina Godunova (wife of Tsar Feodor I Ivanovitch, who reigned 1584-1598), Tsar Boris Godunov (reigned 1598-1605), and Saint Solomonia Saburova, wife of Grand Prince of Moscow Vasili III (reigned 1505-1533).
@@sechernbiw3321 Listen, every single wrote you just wrote is contradicted by both historical sources and archaeological findings (or a lack thereof). No authentic historical Russian chronicle even mentions the word "mongol" until the 18th century. There was never any empire that was built by unintelligent nomadic tribal savages that just magically disappeared without anything leaving behind. There aren't even any mongoloid skeletal remains anywhere near Russia/eastern Europe. Not a single noble/royal claimed to be descendant of mongoloid savages. Again, you are clearly getting this pseudohistorical garbage from wikipedia or some equally useless source that's completely contradicted by both authentic historical sources and archaeology. This is why there isn't a single portrait of any Russian aristocrats looking anything other than 100% pure white people. DNA tests conducted on both descendants of aristocratic families and regular Russian alike both show that there isn't even a microscopic drop of any mongoloid genetic contamination.
The mongolians never had any written language or a numerical system. This is why they use the Russian alphabet and everything in mongolia that is resemblant of a civilization/functional state was brought over by Russians. As a matter of fact, even though Russian people encountered many savage tribes during expeditions/conquests, the Russian people who encountered mongolians were shocked by their level of primitiveness. The mongolians were had a lower level of societal development even compared to pygmies. Lastly, the word "dengi" is entirely Indo-European. For example, Tanga (Tajik), Dangi (Old Persian), etc. The mongolians themselves never had the word "dengi" in any of their dialects. Again, there isn't a single mongolian loanword in the Russian language and even the ethnonym "mongol" doesn't appear in any written works until the 18th century. Go search up what I'm telling you here and you will see for yourself.
At least someone noticed the submission to the Mongols is what formed the brutal personalised authoritarianism, creating a cycle of chaos, rebirth, repression and collapse.
It was 1480 when Muskovy achieved independence.
Note the Mongols apparently understood soft power while later in this silly video "grass" is blamed for a complete inability to do diplomacy.
The fundamental flaw is assuming the conclusion in the premise, then ignoring technological changes from steppe horsemen.
It even points out Russia has never seriously tried rule of law and democracy. Gorbachev's USSR was already collapsing and Yeltsin was too weak to deal with corruption and asset stripping for personal gain by Yeltsin, KGB and others with access to hard currency was simply a more lucrative version of the party boss favour system under communism.
Absolute BOZOS. One should really not write about historical subjects when you have a developmental disability.
Why Russia cannot become Western* democracy - correct headline
I don’t see the difference? Democracy is democracy, doesn’t matter if “Western” is put in front of it
@@paulallen2680 Well china is a democracy since anyone can join CCP and it already has 90 million members. Even Capitalistic billioner Jack Ma is member of CCP. And every member of CCP votes for higher-ups. But West calls China a dictatorship.
On the other side in countries like UK and Germany, people vote for parties, not candidates, and these parties choose higher-ups, and its also democracy. But the West thinks its more democratic than China.
West called Xi Jinping dictator, but Angela Merkel was longer chancellor of Germany than Xi general secretary of CCP.
Russia is also a democracy, since Putin has 60-80% of approval rating according independent data centers, that mean he is quite popular to be elected.
What western democracy are you talking about? Liberal democracy? Direct democracy? Athenian style democracy? Or is it the current Russian style sovereign democracy?
@@Bdog40 He mean American puppet democracy
Ok we would like to know why America or Europe is yet to have any democracy next.
She was rich not only in fur. Wax, hemp, linen, cloth are also the main types of goods for export to Europe. According to some of them, the Russian state was a monopoly.
These days, Russia is sometimes described as a gas station that has territory.
As ever, your ending phrases are a work of beauty in themselves
one of his dmbest videos by far
Fascinating! What a History lesson. Thanks a lot.
This piece is among the best in all of Caspian Report, and I have watched them all.
man you are really good at dropping an incredibly insightful, applicable comment/proverb/statement at the end of each essay. Some are well known, but many are very unique and clever! Always great content, buddy! Cheers from Texas.
Quite a shitty insight that assumes geography to be very deterministic. And sure, it was, but with advancements in technologies (i'll just say planes exist now) it becomes less and less of an obstacle to anything
You might be interested in looking at Canada or Australia. Canada is vast with mountains and rugged geography. Canada was formed by two separate nations and is ethnically diverse. It supplanted an Indigenous population. In addition, it is neighbours with USA (once threatened to be taken over by US). Australia is a continent with a desert in the middle! Also a nation of immigrants with an indigenous population. If these place can be a democracy, so can Russia. History is about choices.
It would be interesting to see if wiping out or taking over the land of the indigenous population is required for Democracy then. I never knew there were non-white Russians until a few years ago, or that the USSR didn't wipe out any non-Russian language being spoken or taught.
Why should Russia become a Western style democracy anyway ? The premise is entirely wrong.
The better question is, why should Russia exist?
@@RedXlV Because such nation exists.
@@mayakovske Russia is an empire.
@@RedXlV Just like USA. 😄
@@RedXlV modern Russia? Oof
Geography may have a role to play, but I don't think it's as important as made out there. I think there's a lot to be said about the institutions and their corresponding institutional cultures that have successfully perpetuated themselves across different forms of government are a key determining factor to Russia's paucity of democracy.
I just want to say something from my side. I and a lot of people was raised up with respect of our complex history and elders always says respect every culture, every nation in our big country. We travel around the country to learn the history of minorities. Just respect people and don't be an asshole - main rule after all. It's a big shame that people interest in our culture was rised after certain events that I can't even talk about if I don't want to go to jail. Talk to people and be people. This is the only way for our planet to have something good.
@@user-zk1rv2je2s Thank you so much for sharing this. I've always had a deep respect, interest, and admiration for Russia culture (well I guess it would be cultures) and history. I know there's a difference between what the people want and government does.
@@user-zk1rv2je2s greetings from Russia and peace ✌️
@@DawnSkyStudios thats right, my man!
You are exaggerating, because in essence Russia is very homogeneous. Life in Rostov on the Don is no different from life in Vladivostok or Khabarovsk. There are virtually no dialects in the Russian language people from Krasnodar easily and with all the subtleties of the language will understand people from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Even the remotest regions of the country are linked by kinship ties. And as for the national minorities, they are extremely small. And in many national republics in Russia, the majority of citizens are Russians. So I think you are wrong, and democracy in Russia is possible, and if Russia takes this path, it will be a very influential player on the world stage.
When your youTube recommendations were disappointing you so you decide to search for CaspianReport and find out he uploaded yet another high-quality video just one minute ago!
That's because TH-cam didn't like some of his analysis, he is from Azerbaijan, same for Al-Jazeera, they delete your subscription because some of the position they have and they are from an Arab country, Qatar.
I had a hard time searching Caspian report after losing my subscription. Some subscriptions disappear while others stay.
CNN is never gone,same for Disney and bbc6.
Can't wait for your coverage of BRICS
Geography and minority cultures have little to do with authoritarianism. Indonesia, Canada, the US, Australia, and India are all counterexamples to this.
It also doesn't help when you consider authoritarianism in smaller, more homogenous countries.
Also depends on how you define authoritarianism lol. Very strange to see people throw around vague terms like "authoritarianism" and "liberty", "democracy", "freedom" etc as if they all have uniform meanings.
Yes there are journalists and political activists routinely dead or imprisoned in Russia but you could say the same thing about India or Indonesia or Sri Lanka or Philippines or even Colombia. Does this mean that India, Indonesia, Philippines, Colombia are not democracies?
Yes, the army was sent in to forcibly keep Chechnya from seceding but you could say the exact same thing about Punjab, Mizoram, Assam, Nagaland, Kashmir (India), West Papua and Aceh (Indonesia), Southern Philippines (Philippines) and many other democratic countries in the world like Northern Ireland (UK), the Basque majority parts of Northern Spain, North and East Sri Lanka etc
@@Nn-3 As I said, assassinations of political opposition leaders and journalists happened well before Putin even came to power and even under Yeltsin. This is also not unique at all to Russia. Even in Ukraine, many journalists and political activists get assassinated all the time. So is Ukraine not a democracy. The Philippines and Colombia are generally seemed to be some of the most dangerous places to operate as a journalist or activist as so many of them have been imprisoned or assassinated. So is the Philippines and Colombia no longer democracies too?
And annexing territory has nothing to do with democracy or authoritarianism. Israel has annexed the East Jerusalem in 1980, Golan Heights, and considered annexing parts of the West Bank in 2020 as well. So is Israel not a democracy? And what is so wrong about bringing teachers in lol?
And there have also been laws in many Eastern European countries banning protests in support of the war. So is Latvia, Slovakia, Czechia now authoritarian too? There is no clear definition as to what makes a country democratic or authoritarian.
The US obviously has never been perfect in truly honoring the concept of "one person, one vote" and "all are created equal", *but my god* : if there's any nation on the face of the planet that has for generations been comprised of more people, cultures, languages and religions meshing together and forming a "melting pot" (or "a salad", depending on how you look at it and/or what terms you prefer), then I'd love to hear it. And this is the country that made representative democracy the modern-day norm!
The end of European colonialism resulted in drawing random lines throughout former colonies in Africa and the Middle East that shoved varying cultures together without a means to unite them and basically said "you're on your own". Shortly afterward - observing what transpired elsewhere - other "experiments" (especially in Europe) did the opposite: carving up tiny swathes of territory to balkanize groups in order to prevent tensions in the hopes that not providing and sustaining a unifying purpose would be a non-issue. Neither worked! The reality is that *it is possible* to create a representative democracy in a nation-state like Russia, but it does require a strong unifying national identity and purpose. The notion that it has to be outright authoritarianism and centralized brutality, however, is nothing more than a myth and a cop-out. If one were to argue that any single region of the US had anything in common with any other prior to a generation ago, they would more or less show themselves to be completely ignorant of the nation's history - and yet its identity, culture, economy and government endured!
Russia went through a decade of economic change (i.e. turmoil) that happened to coincide with a complete change of government style, and a lot of people drew the conclusion that they were connected. Had Russia opened its markets under typical Soviet rule, it would have suffered the same pain. Had Russia became truly democratic without opening its markets to the world, the status quo from an economic standpoint would have likely continued regardless. People who hate on the Russia of the 1990s fail to realize that it was two simultaneous but independent changes that caused maximum chaos to the nation, resulting in many people being willing to accept a historically-status quo government after a few years.
@@MikelosM Firstly, Russia even in the 1990s was barely democratic. It was an oligarchy that sold off it's publicly owned enterprises to oligarchs. If you think shelling your own Parliament using troops and the President dissolving the Parliament after the President gets impeached by the Parliament is very democratic, then Russia was very democratic during the 1990s. The 90s was just a horrible period for Russia from every possible angle imaginable - major economic turmoil due to the free market shock therapy, extreme political instability, skyrocketing crime and poverty rates, shrinking middle class, sharp reduction of life expectancy.
I agree with you that Russia can easily be a democracy within its existing borders. I don't know what this host is even talking about.
@@Godzillamonstrosity "So is Ukraine not a democracy."
Goverment of USA said yes, so yes Ukraine is a democracy... And doing everything for american democracy.
Thank you, hard to put so much history in a short time but I think you did it well. Charles
one of his dmbest videos by far
nope, they started from Horde time. But they lost somewhere 800 years of history behind :D
I am from Russia, I live in Russia and I studied our history with all the regimes and emperors, I know a lot about our culture. And I state that this video is a collection of oversimplified one-sided arguments that was beautifully presented to prove an idea which has no theoretical value at all.
Of cause country which history goes back to 9th century will be generous on historic examples of all kind of wars, emperors and regimes(same as The Roman Empire for example).
Democracy in its various forms is possible everywhere, cause it is a concept, not a set of rules.
The main issue here is that many of the regions that belong to the Ruzzian Emp... i mean federation wants to leave. If they want to become autonomous why stop them? Its the same with Ukraine. Just dont impose your bullshit imperial mindset on people that wants liberty.
Yeah, I do not agree with this overgeneralized conclusion at all.
But maybe in a softer version: there is no easy way for Russia towards democracy.
lol impossible with different value ethnicity and different social value and social compast and geography like china and india what happen is like you asking civil war to erupt in russia it is impossible other hand etnic dont value women other value gays and spread social value to each other(your are bassicaly asking competition(bad thing about competition is in every competition always there is winner and loser(and every loser is always have right to manipulative)) between social value different etnic and different social view different way of life and different future)
@@onlywson how is the economical independence of Tatarstan or Yakutia feasible...for those very regions? Have you ever looked at their economical structure or just their geography?
sadly... caspian report has devolved from once being my fav youtube channel out there into largely such content. its kind of tragic
Does anybody know the name of the ending music?
It means that the larger a country, the less democratic it should be, but we don't see such correlation. There are small and very authoritarian countries, and large and democratic.
While geographic determinism can play a role in explaining the past and present, It is also important to examine how social and political systems evolve in a nation like russia
Good example is with south america.
Or in case of russia how they didn't. Democracy will never work in russia precicely because it's already a democracy, just not in a sense we think. Majority of russians want to be lead by a strongman because historically they never knew better and they want to humiliate their neigbours because historically their own existence was/is humiliating. A western democrat leader will be rejected by russian society for being too alien.
And switzerland
5:33 Moving the chess pieces: very appropriate
Do not forget the horrors of the 90s and shock therapy. Referring to the era as democratic is incorrect.
There is a grave mistake in the video. Moscovites never used soft power to spread influence. It was combined with brutal slaughter, if anyone disobeyed.
The tactic is named "whip or bread", in which if one submits, gets certain (temporary) bonus. But if resists, a brutal onslaught is used.
Novgorod was burned, most of it´s citizens slaughtered in horrific manner when Moscovites took it over.
There Moscovites actually betrayed their Eastern Goth brethren of Kyiv, Novgorod etc. and allied to Mongol horde. But they learned quickly the treacherous ways of Mongols and Tatars. And in the end the Horde´s new headquarters ended in modern Moscow.
dude your content is beautifully obsessive lol. the way you explain situations is really informative, the graphics are frikkin awesome, and you always put the cherry on top with your final sentence. every video, a cool final sentence. please, keep these vids coming!
one of his dmbest videos by far
I have a challenge for you: as a Brazilian, explain to me, how the Brazilian geography defines its state and culture. I will evaluate your answer based on my knowledge of the country.
Was it's suitability for plantations pretty much the defining feature for the first few centuries of the country?
@@jimmyjones8676 It depends, on the north yes. On the south no.
Look, your geography changes!
While you were dictatorship, your geography was inappropriate for democracy, then your geography became democracy-friendly and you have become democracy!
@@jimmyjones8676 non-navegable rivers, hills separating the coast and innerland, no strong neighbors, and excessive amount of land per capta
Ok boomer, hope he gets a C plus on your exam lmao
I love your intro music, please never ever change it!
Wow… I had no idea…
What a journey through the centuries. Thank you for this video. I love the classical background music haha
A break-up was not inevitable, but now it seems irreversible. As someone said: the state can not survive without the people. We can only hope that the people will survive without the state. I expect at least four different nations to emerge from this collapsing empire.
yes because russia is totally collapsing much like they shot a missile into poland, Russia as a state and people are known to struggle for their pride something the west has become incapable of doing. id wager america will bulkanize before russia collapses.
It's a real people's prison, I'm sure many of those peoples are desperate to get out of the misery of being part of the Russian empire.
Hello, are you from Russia ?
@@tellyboy17 It's all they know. They have been told that what they have is good. Sometimes, you have to know something else to want to change.
@@tellyboy17 get out and what next ? Be a small piece of land with no money, medicine and other social goods, army and nuclear shield and have high potential of absorbing by nearby countries ? "I am sure" - it is interesting to read comments of people who have a little clue in some fields and they still make statements, like they undetstand anything
Quite a few historical errors. Unification of Russian principalities wasn't peaceful. Moscow conducted very brutal wars against Vlodimir and Novgorod and Ugoric tribes. It also got token of ruler of rus lands and military assistance from Golden Horde, whose rulers fatally thought it would be easier to collect taxes and control the vast area through single Moscow principality. Ironically, Moscow Czars got their initial legitimization from Golden Horde Khan.
Moscow Czars didn't need to get legitimacy to rule from any stone age tribal confederations that were on the level of wild chimpanzees. The myths about the so called "golden horde" have been long since refuted. No authentic historical chronicles even mention it until the mid 16th century. However, it this tribal entity was mentioned, it was described as nothing but savage and entirely irrelevant to the far superior Russian kingdoms.
Everything was settled by wars in those days there was not much diplomacy going on.
What you are saying is nonsense, we didn’t get a Czar till very very later on. We also threw the Mongolian yoke off ourselves, with our own Princes unless you’ve forgotten
> Moscow Czars got their initial legitimisation from Golden Hord
Yeah, BEFORE the independence
Mongol Khans legitimise Russian tsar? In your wet dreams! Russia was an orthodox Christian country from the 9th century and took over term “tsar” or Caesar from the Byzantium - shortly after Constantinople (Byzantium) fell to the Ottomans.
"The right to be your own oppressor", that's a beautiful line!
It more than some people get. Ask any half way intelligent person in Eastern Europe if they feel like their government listens more to them or to "Western partners" and then watch their demoralised blank stare.
An excellent summary analysis.
Phenomenal video! I feel that this video could have easily been twice as long! You should do an updated or second part to this video with more detail. Cheers!
one of his dmbest videos by far
Shirvan you never let us down. Thank you for your great work.
one of his dmbest videos by far
@@qefewfwdcwdc Well you can disagree with his analysis, but you would have at least to make the argument for your case. Just saying it is dumb without giving any reasons why you think that doesn't provide anything to the debate and is intellectually lazy. But I guess your account name speaks for itself.
Just checking, but did you do a partnership with the channel Dois Níveis so they could translate this video of yours?
Thank you for your presentation , I watched all of it .
Best geopolitical channel on YT. Thank you very much for your excellent insights and quality content!
You can also try Zeihan on Geopolitics
Minus the fact that he hates Armenians and supports the Armenian Genocide because he's a turk
But geopolitics is pseudoscience. Is it a compliment or sarcasm? I don't get it🤔
one of his dmbest videos by far
It shouldn't be "geographic determinism", but rather "geography has a variable but not an insignificant influence on the development of a society and of a state.
Why war thunder ad show 500k silver lions, but when I go to the link its 100k. False advertising.
How is India a democracy? Huge country with a huge amount of poverty? How do you think young Russian liberals feel when they see this kind of reductive fatalism?
Like Loki said, “you were born to be ruled”. It’s sad, but it reflects the history of Russia.
Doesn't have to be the future though
Its true some people are way better under command than them making the rules
Someone actually acknowledging how the 90s were
The more things change, the more they stay the same
I don`t think the size of the country has as much to do with despotism as much as the personality of their ancestors.Core beliefs have evolved over centuries old tribal attitudes. Compromising,assimilating,fair play,openness don`t appear to be at the top of their list.
The Father Figure tough guy seems ingrained.
Not sure I completely agree about this one, there are many huge multi-ethnic states with much larger populations than Russia that have functioning democracies and face many of the same challenges - India, Brazil, USA
Much more informative than any other channel or tv station, as usual. Thumbs up!
Special thanks to War Thunder, World of Tanks, Square Space, Raid: Shadow Legends, Audible, Manscaped, Brilliant and many, many different VPNs for sponsoring our continued education. I'm not even being sarcastic. So many youtube videoes are sponsored by less than a dozen sponsors.
Wow! The last statement, blew my mind…yes, all democracies inevitably give all citizens the right to decide to become the choosers of their own oppression! Let that sink in! It’s seems many would prefer a king to relieve them of all mental and moral decision making in return for relief from the exhausting effort required by freedom of thought!
Isn’t that the moral of the story, when you bite the apple…life is exhausting outside the garden of “ everything decided for you “.
I'm twelve and this is deep.
Freedom of thought doesn’t exist without proper education!!!!!!
Great video but I would like to point out that the map only shows the expansion of Russia into its current borders over time, but Russia was simultaneously expanding into Central Asia and Eastern Europe. The full story is missing.
In fact it was not Siberia that was hardest to subdue because it had a very low population density. Rather it was the Caucasus and Central Asia which saw the most brutal conquest and oppression. The Islamic populations of these areas strongly rejected control by a non-Muslim power and were hard to assimilate.
Ukraine also experienced intense Russification as it fell into the hands of the Russian empire.
@TacticalMoonstone exactly!
What was Ukraine called in 16-18 centuries? Part of Poland, no? Not a separate country in any way
@TacticalMoonstone Russia has been horrible to its minorities…so far they’ve been shockingly loyal all things considered but they are always thrown into the meat grinder when a new war starts in Europe. Wars they have nothing to do with.
But the reality is that the ethnic minorities in most of Russia are too scattered and small in number to really rebel.
Chechnya is the Achilles heel though…it’s a fantasy with Kadyrov in power but a reignited Chechen insurgency could bring Russia to its knees.
@@alexandervaltsev6937 mostly part of Poland yes. The inhabitants were known as Ruthenians then. Their identity was distinct from the Poles however. After the Cossack rebellion they started referring to themselves as Ukrainians.
@TacticalMoonstone not arguing that. My point is Ukraine wasn’t there 300 years ago. So let’s not make up a country just because it fits the current narrative
Ya could try co operation. That holds states together far better than fear.
Saying democracy is impossible is ridiculous, no matter what your leaders tell you.
Really helpful video. Well done.
Russia is just different kind of nation especially with how diverse it's people and regions are.
Yes, but ethnic Russians just the same as you are.
>diverse
>80% russian pop