I spent some time this summer reading two novels by Lev Tolstoy, “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina.” Apparently, I was not the only one who had this idea because I received comments from people who had been doing the same (*).
Hi Ugo, me here again. Also I during this summer read Tolstoi to understand the Russian soul. When in 2015 Syrian refugees flooded Europe I tried to understand and read Tim Marshalls enlightening book "Prisoners of Geography". He has also a chapter on Russia where he advises to forget about Putin and ask ourselves what ordinary Russian people expect from their leader:
The way from Hamburg to Berlin and to Moscow is flat open country without any topographical barriers. Of this fact Western neighbours regularly took advantage by invading: In the 17.century the Swedes, in the 18th the Poles, in the 19th Napoleon and in the 20th century Hitler. If one includes the minor incursions (Crimea etc.) Marshall counts about one invasion or war form the Russians per generation.
In addition Hitlers invasion was fought with the utmost brutality and lawlessness: He left millions of Russian prisoners of war starve without shelter, he chased innocent civilian girls and woman to abuse them in hundreds of military brothels for officers and soldiers, only to shoot them after some weeks (thats why there are no complaints by comfort woman like in Korea). These events will be engraved in the Russian memory for generations and cause a deep suspicion of any hypocritical declarations of the West about "humanity" or "human rights". Russians expect their leader to protect them from such calamities. As long as he does that will be content to submit and to sacrifice everything for the common good. And they like to have a cordon of satellite or neutral states around them.
In addition Russia is an essentially lawless civilisation, without separation of state and religion (may it be orthodox or communist), without separation of powers, obeying the to the laws of the stronger and of corruption and the supreme will of the Czar (may it be Alexander, Lenin, Stalin, or Putin). Russia will not believe in or not keep any promises.
Now enter the EU, where the dominant member is Germany, and which can be viewed as the continuation of the project of German domination of Europe e.g. in Greece. The European court has no democratic legitimation and clear roots in Nazi-jurisdiction. On can forgive Russians for being suspicious.
Then enter NATO: A so-called defensive alliance commanded by he same Washington which wants to "contain" Russia, whatever that means. Its not lost on Russia that the strongest European member of NATO is the same Germany that had attacked them so brutally two generations ago. And its not lost on them that NATO had left its defensive stance by attacking their orthodox brothers in Serbia in the Jugoslawian war and that NATO member participated in some form in the aggression against some unfortunate dictators who had renounced to atomic bombs (Saddam, Ghadaffi). Russia will not believe that NATO is purely defensive.
Kiev is the founding capital and Ukraine is heartland of Russia. In this sense for Russians the Ukrainian situation is civil unrest within Russia.
While they could just tolerate that Poland and Romania entered NATO, Tim Marshall as well as even some of the best and most experienced US-American diplomatic experts warned that talk and steps about incorporating Ukraine into NATO would be a cause for war.
It was stupidity of the Americans and the Biden administration not to hear these warnings.
I also read Caulincourts report "En traineau avec l'empereur" a protocol of his conversations with Napoleon during the two weeks he spent with him during the flight from Russia to Paris. Might be worthwhile to remember what Napoleon said to Caulaincourt about the Russians: "Le les bats toujours et cela ne termine rien", "I beat them all the time and this finishes nothing". Semmes the same now,
And why all this territorial aggression? Probably Testosterone programming the male mind do defend and expand its territory. Must have some significance for Darwinian selection.
As Emmanuel Todd points out in his latest book (The Defeat of the West), never in its long and painful history has the Russian population enjoyed as much individual freedom and material affluence as it has since Putin came to power.
Of course, it's not perfect and one could hope for an even better situation. But this simple fact should have given pause for thought to those in the West who hoped (and in some cases still hope) for an easy change of regime in Moscow. Again, Russia remembers.
It should be remembered that Russia was founded by raiders and pirates. The "Rus", those who row, came down from the North, an extension of the Vikings. In Russian history and you find characters stranger than fiction, including Ivan the Terrible who roasted people alive in a specially designed frying pan. Stalin wanted Tolstoy to explain the necessity of cruelty. Putin carries on the tradition of killing those who challenge him, sometimes with poison. Alas poor Mother Russia, your children are monsters!
It is a game that historians play all the time. Trying to find reasons for current events in past history. There is no doubt that the ancestors of modern Russians were people of dubious moral qualities and with a certain penchant for wanton violence. But I wouldn't call Russians "monsters" because of that. It would be the same as calling Italians "monsters" because of Mussolini, or earlier on Caligula or Nero.
Russia was indeed founded by Viking raiders. But it was forged by centuries of confrontation with the Mongol hordes. And the latter were terrible enemies. Life in the steppes has never been an easy one...
Ivan 4 "the terrible" is probably more correctly named "the magnificent" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible), was a reformer and a conqueror, probably the nickname in Western Europe is also because of his policies against the nobles (bojars) not dissimilar from other during consolidation of power but ill perceived: ruling class like to think himself as eternal because "natural", reality usually make them scream. Fairy tales about cruelty are common in propaganda, political homicide usually is brutally efficient or a public show of force, so I suppose no pans.
Putin is the leader of his country and rule as people suppose him to, his country is a quite harsh and direct one and his elite is more like mafia, so sometimes an example is probably what folk expect. Western world had no problem with some no one gone to Guantánamo during the "war on terror" or some show of a dictator or two killed in quite fancy ways...
Actions are dictated by possibility and oppartunity, there is no absolute wrong or right, I still find our western system quite more effective because less brutal but is because to us coercion is based on economy and not force.
Yes, history surely explains why Russia's distrust of Europe and the USA is actually not so paranoid. And therefore, it explain, at least in parts, why Russia ended up reacting so strongly to try and stop the NATO's eastward advance initiated in the 90s. Russia remembers.
But it was not inevitable... France was allied with Russia before 1917, and (despite the regime change in Moscow) found itself de facto allied with Russia again after 1941. Germany was somehow allied with Russia before 1941 and, with the Ostpolitik, tried to get closer to Russia after 1945 despite the Cold War. Then again after 1991. And after all, De Gaulle wanted to build an Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals...
Then, since Russia is both Europe's strategic depth and its main potential source of raw materials, I consider this pointless and fratricidal war (where Europe is a mere follower of US warmongers) to be a colossal strategic error for the Global West. And if the past is anything to go by, it's always been incredibly painful for Russia, but it's never ended well for the Western powers who embarked on this kind of sinister adventure…
Enjoyed reading this,especially the part Tolstoy wrote about the causes of war. You could apply the same principles to tyranny , it would not happen without the support of ordinary people. Thank You
"Ecosystem services" are deeply and profoundly coded within our DNA, in multiple layers of failsafe.
The case is there to consider that it is hard enough for us to know our individual minds, and that we are in societal denial of the existence of collective mind.
Very interesting blog. This one is not his best, I think, but there are some posts that are hugely interesting and click with the research I am working on right now!
I remember reading War and Peace 40 years ago and coming away with the perspective that, according to Tolstoy, wars happen less because of evil rulers than because ordinary humans are all too willing to make war. That dynamic doesn't seem to have changed.
Professor Bardi; I understand your argument that Russia seems to be a sort of enemy of choice for the west. I think you do your argument a disservice, however, by painting Russia as a victim and very much skewing the actual history. When mentioning World War 1 you quietly sidestepped the fact that the Russian mobilization and the subsequent invasion of Germany (East Prussia) actually started the world war. What you called the American "invasion" of Russia was a small part of an international force that was initially requested by the Bolshevik government and personally greeted by either Lenin or Trotsky ( my memory fails me, sorry). This international response later became involved with the White Russians in the civil war, but to call the miniscule American part of the international effort an invasion is a stretch. Historically, the Finns, Swedes, Poles, Czechs, and many others might have a perspective different than yours when it comes to Russia as victim.
Well, actually WW1 started when Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. But it is a moot point. That war was a "tit for tat" game where you can always find a previous "tat" that justifies a current "tit."
I cited the US intervention in Russia of 1918 not because it was a major campaign, but because it was weird: the US had no reason to do that. Incidentally, I have no record that Lenin or Trotsky greeted the Americans as allies or friends, but these were confused times. But you are right: I should not have used the term "invasion" -- you cannot invade Russia with 8,000 men!!! I'll correct that. The point I wanted to make is that it was a bad omen, and it was.
Then, of course, the Russian Empire and the later Soviet Union were both imperial organizations and behaved as empires. That is, they tended expand to neighboring countries. The US does the same nowadays. It is the way the world goes.
Until Russian mobilization, the Austro-Hungarian/Serbian crisis was considered a "Balkan" thing; it is my understanding that Russian mobilization was actually what triggered the Triple Entente and then Triple Alliance mutual aid provisions. I still maintain that Russia, historically as well as recently, has a less than pristine record when it comes to invading neighbors- as well as being on the receiving end.
An interesting piece. I think you are questioning what it is about Russia that has driven so many others to "other" it, to treat Russia as an alien place. This is a good question. I think part of that is due to a combination of its physical vastness, and the fact that culturally it remained separate from Europe for much of its early history.
My own introduction to Russian literature was via some Russian lit courses taken half a century ago at university. Since then I have continued to read both early and more modern Russian literature, and as you progress from the earlier to the later stuff, you can feel the changes. By "earlier" I refer to perhaps the 16th or 17th century, but even the late 18th and early 19th century were noticeably different from later authors like Tolstoy.
For anyone inclined, one of the best non-fiction books I have read that gives a feel for Russia's transition into a Western-looking land is Robert K. Massie's biography of Peter the Great. For me it read like a good novel as well as interesting history.
'Mother Russia' ... excellent and very pertinent ... Tolstoy ... the fault lines run deep and the fractures elsewhere? ... Tyrannies, the 'shape of history', 'The Enlightenment' & slavery, Civil War, did some reading of WB Yeats earlier this morning ... pondering more than biology, industrial programming then and now ... the long 'Iron Age'?
Hi Ugo, me here again. Also I during this summer read Tolstoi to understand the Russian soul. When in 2015 Syrian refugees flooded Europe I tried to understand and read Tim Marshalls enlightening book "Prisoners of Geography". He has also a chapter on Russia where he advises to forget about Putin and ask ourselves what ordinary Russian people expect from their leader:
The way from Hamburg to Berlin and to Moscow is flat open country without any topographical barriers. Of this fact Western neighbours regularly took advantage by invading: In the 17.century the Swedes, in the 18th the Poles, in the 19th Napoleon and in the 20th century Hitler. If one includes the minor incursions (Crimea etc.) Marshall counts about one invasion or war form the Russians per generation.
In addition Hitlers invasion was fought with the utmost brutality and lawlessness: He left millions of Russian prisoners of war starve without shelter, he chased innocent civilian girls and woman to abuse them in hundreds of military brothels for officers and soldiers, only to shoot them after some weeks (thats why there are no complaints by comfort woman like in Korea). These events will be engraved in the Russian memory for generations and cause a deep suspicion of any hypocritical declarations of the West about "humanity" or "human rights". Russians expect their leader to protect them from such calamities. As long as he does that will be content to submit and to sacrifice everything for the common good. And they like to have a cordon of satellite or neutral states around them.
In addition Russia is an essentially lawless civilisation, without separation of state and religion (may it be orthodox or communist), without separation of powers, obeying the to the laws of the stronger and of corruption and the supreme will of the Czar (may it be Alexander, Lenin, Stalin, or Putin). Russia will not believe in or not keep any promises.
Now enter the EU, where the dominant member is Germany, and which can be viewed as the continuation of the project of German domination of Europe e.g. in Greece. The European court has no democratic legitimation and clear roots in Nazi-jurisdiction. On can forgive Russians for being suspicious.
Then enter NATO: A so-called defensive alliance commanded by he same Washington which wants to "contain" Russia, whatever that means. Its not lost on Russia that the strongest European member of NATO is the same Germany that had attacked them so brutally two generations ago. And its not lost on them that NATO had left its defensive stance by attacking their orthodox brothers in Serbia in the Jugoslawian war and that NATO member participated in some form in the aggression against some unfortunate dictators who had renounced to atomic bombs (Saddam, Ghadaffi). Russia will not believe that NATO is purely defensive.
Kiev is the founding capital and Ukraine is heartland of Russia. In this sense for Russians the Ukrainian situation is civil unrest within Russia.
While they could just tolerate that Poland and Romania entered NATO, Tim Marshall as well as even some of the best and most experienced US-American diplomatic experts warned that talk and steps about incorporating Ukraine into NATO would be a cause for war.
It was stupidity of the Americans and the Biden administration not to hear these warnings.
I also read Caulincourts report "En traineau avec l'empereur" a protocol of his conversations with Napoleon during the two weeks he spent with him during the flight from Russia to Paris. Might be worthwhile to remember what Napoleon said to Caulaincourt about the Russians: "Le les bats toujours et cela ne termine rien", "I beat them all the time and this finishes nothing". Semmes the same now,
And why all this territorial aggression? Probably Testosterone programming the male mind do defend and expand its territory. Must have some significance for Darwinian selection.
As Emmanuel Todd points out in his latest book (The Defeat of the West), never in its long and painful history has the Russian population enjoyed as much individual freedom and material affluence as it has since Putin came to power.
Of course, it's not perfect and one could hope for an even better situation. But this simple fact should have given pause for thought to those in the West who hoped (and in some cases still hope) for an easy change of regime in Moscow. Again, Russia remembers.
It should be remembered that Russia was founded by raiders and pirates. The "Rus", those who row, came down from the North, an extension of the Vikings. In Russian history and you find characters stranger than fiction, including Ivan the Terrible who roasted people alive in a specially designed frying pan. Stalin wanted Tolstoy to explain the necessity of cruelty. Putin carries on the tradition of killing those who challenge him, sometimes with poison. Alas poor Mother Russia, your children are monsters!
It is a game that historians play all the time. Trying to find reasons for current events in past history. There is no doubt that the ancestors of modern Russians were people of dubious moral qualities and with a certain penchant for wanton violence. But I wouldn't call Russians "monsters" because of that. It would be the same as calling Italians "monsters" because of Mussolini, or earlier on Caligula or Nero.
Russia was indeed founded by Viking raiders. But it was forged by centuries of confrontation with the Mongol hordes. And the latter were terrible enemies. Life in the steppes has never been an easy one...
Ivan 4 "the terrible" is probably more correctly named "the magnificent" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible), was a reformer and a conqueror, probably the nickname in Western Europe is also because of his policies against the nobles (bojars) not dissimilar from other during consolidation of power but ill perceived: ruling class like to think himself as eternal because "natural", reality usually make them scream. Fairy tales about cruelty are common in propaganda, political homicide usually is brutally efficient or a public show of force, so I suppose no pans.
Putin is the leader of his country and rule as people suppose him to, his country is a quite harsh and direct one and his elite is more like mafia, so sometimes an example is probably what folk expect. Western world had no problem with some no one gone to Guantánamo during the "war on terror" or some show of a dictator or two killed in quite fancy ways...
Actions are dictated by possibility and oppartunity, there is no absolute wrong or right, I still find our western system quite more effective because less brutal but is because to us coercion is based on economy and not force.
Yes, history surely explains why Russia's distrust of Europe and the USA is actually not so paranoid. And therefore, it explain, at least in parts, why Russia ended up reacting so strongly to try and stop the NATO's eastward advance initiated in the 90s. Russia remembers.
But it was not inevitable... France was allied with Russia before 1917, and (despite the regime change in Moscow) found itself de facto allied with Russia again after 1941. Germany was somehow allied with Russia before 1941 and, with the Ostpolitik, tried to get closer to Russia after 1945 despite the Cold War. Then again after 1991. And after all, De Gaulle wanted to build an Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals...
Then, since Russia is both Europe's strategic depth and its main potential source of raw materials, I consider this pointless and fratricidal war (where Europe is a mere follower of US warmongers) to be a colossal strategic error for the Global West. And if the past is anything to go by, it's always been incredibly painful for Russia, but it's never ended well for the Western powers who embarked on this kind of sinister adventure…
Enjoyed reading this,especially the part Tolstoy wrote about the causes of war. You could apply the same principles to tyranny , it would not happen without the support of ordinary people. Thank You
Do look at this by Taoist Physicist, Josh Mitteldorf, please, Ugo. https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/science-and-politics-libertarian
"Ecosystem services" are deeply and profoundly coded within our DNA, in multiple layers of failsafe.
The case is there to consider that it is hard enough for us to know our individual minds, and that we are in societal denial of the existence of collective mind.
Very interesting blog. This one is not his best, I think, but there are some posts that are hugely interesting and click with the research I am working on right now!
Josh is very engaging, if you want to engage with him.
I met him through our mutual friend, Meryl Nass MD.
I'll see to digest some of his posts!
I remember reading War and Peace 40 years ago and coming away with the perspective that, according to Tolstoy, wars happen less because of evil rulers than because ordinary humans are all too willing to make war. That dynamic doesn't seem to have changed.
Professor Bardi; I understand your argument that Russia seems to be a sort of enemy of choice for the west. I think you do your argument a disservice, however, by painting Russia as a victim and very much skewing the actual history. When mentioning World War 1 you quietly sidestepped the fact that the Russian mobilization and the subsequent invasion of Germany (East Prussia) actually started the world war. What you called the American "invasion" of Russia was a small part of an international force that was initially requested by the Bolshevik government and personally greeted by either Lenin or Trotsky ( my memory fails me, sorry). This international response later became involved with the White Russians in the civil war, but to call the miniscule American part of the international effort an invasion is a stretch. Historically, the Finns, Swedes, Poles, Czechs, and many others might have a perspective different than yours when it comes to Russia as victim.
Well, actually WW1 started when Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. But it is a moot point. That war was a "tit for tat" game where you can always find a previous "tat" that justifies a current "tit."
I cited the US intervention in Russia of 1918 not because it was a major campaign, but because it was weird: the US had no reason to do that. Incidentally, I have no record that Lenin or Trotsky greeted the Americans as allies or friends, but these were confused times. But you are right: I should not have used the term "invasion" -- you cannot invade Russia with 8,000 men!!! I'll correct that. The point I wanted to make is that it was a bad omen, and it was.
Then, of course, the Russian Empire and the later Soviet Union were both imperial organizations and behaved as empires. That is, they tended expand to neighboring countries. The US does the same nowadays. It is the way the world goes.
Until Russian mobilization, the Austro-Hungarian/Serbian crisis was considered a "Balkan" thing; it is my understanding that Russian mobilization was actually what triggered the Triple Entente and then Triple Alliance mutual aid provisions. I still maintain that Russia, historically as well as recently, has a less than pristine record when it comes to invading neighbors- as well as being on the receiving end.
An interesting piece. I think you are questioning what it is about Russia that has driven so many others to "other" it, to treat Russia as an alien place. This is a good question. I think part of that is due to a combination of its physical vastness, and the fact that culturally it remained separate from Europe for much of its early history.
My own introduction to Russian literature was via some Russian lit courses taken half a century ago at university. Since then I have continued to read both early and more modern Russian literature, and as you progress from the earlier to the later stuff, you can feel the changes. By "earlier" I refer to perhaps the 16th or 17th century, but even the late 18th and early 19th century were noticeably different from later authors like Tolstoy.
For anyone inclined, one of the best non-fiction books I have read that gives a feel for Russia's transition into a Western-looking land is Robert K. Massie's biography of Peter the Great. For me it read like a good novel as well as interesting history.
Ugo
'Mother Russia' ... excellent and very pertinent ... Tolstoy ... the fault lines run deep and the fractures elsewhere? ... Tyrannies, the 'shape of history', 'The Enlightenment' & slavery, Civil War, did some reading of WB Yeats earlier this morning ... pondering more than biology, industrial programming then and now ... the long 'Iron Age'?