Belarus

Who knows really, but watching current trends, the country is far more discounted and fractious than at any time since the Civil War and that has led me to speculate.

Who's Steamy anyway?
Steamy = conventional artillery.
Or have I misunderstood something?
 
Who knows really, but watching current trends, the country is far more discounted and fractious than at any time since the Civil War and that has led me to speculate.

Who's Steamy anyway?
Belarus has trod a dangerous line, trying to be authoritarian enough to satisfy the Vlad tyranny next door, but europhile enough to work with the EU. A perpetual buffer state.
The problem is it just isn't very competent, and the Lukashenko one man band is stale and unpopular.
Unless Belarus offers up a Lukashenko clone oppressive enough to satisfy Moscow, Moscow will install one, and Belarus will lose its tenuous independence.

And Steamy is @Steamboat, a stereotypical good ol' boy Trump cultist, closet Fascist, and village idiot.
 
To suggest that other countries will change is making the very myopic mistake by viewing them through Western glasses and expecting that they want freedom and Democracy. We made that mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In reality, quite a few of them are very happy to live under despotic crackpots and backward regimes. Just look at the Russian trolls on here defending Putin. The Russians have a world view that forms part of their national identity and it's difficult for Westerners to understand. Recall in the late 90s when Communism collapsed, uncle Yeltsin was getting drunk and naked in the White House with Bill Clinton and there was even talk of Russia joining NATO. What happened to those halcyon days?

Russia merely returned to type - they got their strong man back, just like they always preferred to have a tsar, Stalin or Lenin calling the shots. The only difference is he's called Putin.

Exactly the same can be said for the Arab Spring. Anyone remember that? Egypt was going to become democratic and perhaps there would be a domino effect across the M.E. What did they end up with? Yet another autocratic leader, yet their world view of Islam (which includes most of the M.E.) is even more conservative and their ideal of a tyrannical government goes all the way back to the Pharaohs.

Unless you completely dismantle a country and dominate them militarily (like with Japan and Germany) then you won't change their culture. I imagine it would be even more difficult to do when Islamic religion is involved because it forms a fundamental core of their identity and most would rather die than give that up.

By this simple fact it should be crystal clear that we're threatening our own ideas of freedom and Democracy by importing a load of third world trash whose beliefs are completely incompatible with Western liberalism.
 
Belarus has trod a dangerous line, trying to be authoritarian enough to satisfy the Vlad tyranny next door, but europhile enough to work with the EU. A perpetual buffer state.
The problem is it just isn't very competent, and the Lukashenko one man band is stale and unpopular.
Unless Belarus offers up a Lukashenko clone oppressive enough to satisfy Moscow, Moscow will install one, and Belarus will lose its tenuous independence.

And Steamy is @Steamboat, a stereotypical good ol' boy Trump cultist, closet Fascist, and village idiot.
First paragraph - agreed as the most likely outcome, unfortunately. More pain to come there.

Second paragraph - ah, thanks. I don't subscribe to anyone's particular point of view, but I do listen to objective argument from across the socio-political spectrum and I do have quite a few sources from across the pond.
 
To suggest that other countries will change is making the very myopic mistake by viewing them through Western glasses and expecting that they want freedom and Democracy. We made that mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In reality, quite a few of them are very happy to live under despotic crackpots and backward regimes. Just look at the Russian trolls on here defending Putin. The Russians have a world view that forms part of their national identity and it's difficult for Westerners to understand. Recall in the late 90s when Communism collapsed, uncle Yeltsin was getting drunk and naked in the White House with Bill Clinton and there was even talk of Russia joining NATO. What happened to those halcyon days?

Russia merely returned to type - they got their strong man back, just like they always preferred to have a tsar, Stalin or Lenin calling the shots. The only difference is he's called Putin.

Exactly the same can be said for the Arab Spring. Anyone remember that? Egypt was going to become democratic and perhaps there would be a domino effect across the M.E. What did they end up with? Yet another autocratic leader, yet their world view of Islam (which includes most of the M.E.) is even more conservative and their ideal of a tyrannical government goes all the way back to the Pharaohs.

Unless you completely dismantle a country and dominate them militarily (like with Japan and Germany) then you won't change their culture. I imagine it would be even more difficult to do when Islamic religion is involved because it forms a fundamental core of their identity and most would rather die than give that up.

By this simple fact it should be crystal clear that we're threatening our own ideas of freedom and Democracy by importing a load of third world trash whose beliefs are completely incompatible with Western liberalism.
I partly agree with you.

In the case of Russia, what you describe parallels my theory of the "Muscovite Mindset". It is the weight of historical precedent that tends to determine the development of nations.

However the Russian peoples are historically part of European civilisation and culture and are more likely to return to it once the baleful influence of the "Muscovite Mindset" (developed under the tutelage of the Mongol Horde) is finally pushed aside.
 
To suggest that other countries will change is making the very myopic mistake by viewing them through Western glasses and expecting that they want freedom and Democracy. We made that mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In reality, quite a few of them are very happy to live under despotic crackpots and backward regimes. Just look at the Russian trolls on here defending Putin. The Russians have a world view that forms part of their national identity and it's difficult for Westerners to understand. Recall in the late 90s when Communism collapsed, uncle Yeltsin was getting drunk and naked in the White House with Bill Clinton and there was even talk of Russia joining NATO. What happened to those halcyon days?

Russia merely returned to type - they got their strong man back, just like they always preferred to have a tsar, Stalin or Lenin calling the shots. The only difference is he's called Putin.

Exactly the same can be said for the Arab Spring. Anyone remember that? Egypt was going to become democratic and perhaps there would be a domino effect across the M.E. What did they end up with? Yet another autocratic leader, yet their world view of Islam (which includes most of the M.E.) is even more conservative and their ideal of a tyrannical government goes all the way back to the Pharaohs.

Unless you completely dismantle a country and dominate them militarily (like with Japan and Germany) then you won't change their culture. I imagine it would be even more difficult to do when Islamic religion is involved because it forms a fundamental core of their identity and most would rather die than give that up.

By this simple fact it should be crystal clear that we're threatening our own ideas of freedom and Democracy by importing a load of third world trash whose beliefs are completely incompatible with Western liberalism.
REPEATED FOR EMPHASIS !!
 
I partly agree with you.

In the case of Russia, what you describe parallels my theory of the "Muscovite Mindset". It is the weight of historical precedent that tends to determine the development of nations.

However the Russian peoples are historically part of European civilisation and culture and are more likely to return to it once the baleful influence of the "Muscovite Mindset" (developed under the tutelage of the Mongol Horde) is finally pushed aside.
What evidence do you have, to support your hypothesis ?! ;) .
 
What evidence do you have, to support your hypothesis ?! ;) .
I have explained the arguments in support of the "Muscovite Mindset" at length on various relevant threads in this forum and a synopsis of it was included in Keir Giles' recent book "Moscow Rules".

As to the hypothesis that the Russian peoples are likely to return to the common European fold, one should look at the trajectory of Ky'ivan Rus and the Russian principalities before the Mongol invasion and the rise to power of their local proxy, Muscovy. As well as the more recent attempts at re-orientation of their fellow eastern Slavs, the Ukrainians and Belarusians. A trend which Moscow is desperate to stop.
 
I partly agree with you.

In the case of Russia, what you describe parallels my theory of the "Muscovite Mindset". It is the weight of historical precedent that tends to determine the development of nations.

However the Russian peoples are historically part of European civilisation and culture and are more likely to return to it once the baleful influence of the "Muscovite Mindset" (developed under the tutelage of the Mongol Horde) is finally pushed aside.

I guess only time will tell, if your premise is true then it will mean the fracture of Russia into separate states. Russia has always been a problem because people can't identify where Europe ends and Asia begins. Is it at the Caucasus or the Polish border? Is it geographical or is it political? The same can be said about Turkey. Numerous books about European history include or choose to ignore Russia. The Cold War barrier only reinforced the political view.

Imho,the Muscovite mindset will remain for a while, you only have to see how the Russians behave online. Many of them view the West with suspicion (& rightly so given their history with Napoleon and Hitler). Most have only just got off the plough and the awesome ideas of self government will seem radical. The slavs (slaves) have traditionally been subservient to the Cossacks and ruling elite. Whilst Dickens was writing Oliver Twist the Russian peasantry were still living in medieval serfdom.

Had Russia embraced British values of individual freedom, the rule of law, free trade and enterprise it would probably be one of the most powerful countries on the planet. The reason it's backward is because of the crackpot government and endless corruption. I don't think it will change any time soon.

Another example is North and South America. Even though the South has more natural wealth the North is rich because it inherited British values and laws. South America is poor because it inherited Spanish and Portuguese government.
 
I guess only time will tell, if your premise is true then it will mean the fracture of Russia into separate states. Russia has always been a problem because people can't identify where Europe ends and Asia begins. Is it at the Caucasus or the Polish border? Is it geographical or is it political? The same can be said about Turkey. Numerous books about European history include or choose to ignore Russia. The Cold War barrier only reinforced the political view.

Imho,the Muscovite mindset will remain for a while, you only have to see how the Russians behave online. Many of them view the West with suspicion (& rightly so given their history with Napoleon and Hitler). Most have only just got off the plough and the awesome ideas of self government will seem radical. The slavs (slaves) have traditionally been subservient to the Cossacks and ruling elite. Whilst Dickens was writing Oliver Twist the Russian peasantry were still living in medieval serfdom.

Had Russia embraced British values of individual freedom, the rule of law, free trade and enterprise it would probably be one of the most powerful countries on the planet. The reason it's backward is because of the crackpot government and endless corruption. I don't think it will change any time soon.

Another example is North and South America. Even though the South has more natural wealth the North is rich because it inherited British values and laws. South America is poor because it inherited Spanish and Portuguese government.
The word "Slav" is only superficially similar to the word "slave" and is not related to it etymologically.

Unfortunately the theory of that relation was propagated by Germanic racial theorists particularly since the rise of Prussia and the partitions of Poland and accepted as a given across much of western Europe. Of course the most enthusiastic exponents of it were the Nazis.

The word "Slav" comes from the proto-Slavonic language word for "word" which was "slovo" and the "people of the word" (i.e. those that spoke the same language) called themselves "Sloviani". This root can still be seen in the names for themselves of the Slovakians and Slovenes.

One can posit, given the current tendency in some parts of the Slavonic world to pronounce an "o" like an "a" (viz: "Maskva" or "Lukashenka") that the wording "Slav" developed the same way.

As an aside, the close neighbours of the proto-Slavs were the proto-Germanic peoples. These were called the "Nemtsy" or the "mute people" (i.e. "those that cannot speak our language") from the word "nemy" or "mute". Actually "ne my" also means "not us".
 
Last edited:
Europe ends and Asia begins.
More like a difficulty with Caucasian and Slavic cultures and therein lies a problem as old as the hills. We have another similar problem with Teutonic and Celtic- the fact that Teutates is a Celtic god has never been a difficulty for the mythmakers. The simple answer is Eurasia is a continental plate and consequently admixtures would be a distinct possibility.
Unfortunately the theory of that relation was propagated by Germanic racial theorists particularly since the rise of Prussia and the partitions of Poland and accepted as a given across much of western Europe
Racial theorists are not necessarily Germanic unless you include Frankish concepts. If people decided to follow the quasi scientific concepts of phrenology backed by the ultra Darwinists and Bible munchers, that was a matter for them. It always has been a matter of them and us at base. They come we die-we go they die. If on the the other hand you mean central Europe as being specifically Germanic. I put it down far more to centres of influence and where they are located
 
As an aside, the close neighbours of the proto-Slavs were the proto-Germanic peoples. These were called the "Nemtsy" or the "mute people" (i.e. "those that cannot speak our language") from the word "nemy" or "mute". Actually "ne my" also means "not us".
Isn't that what the Russians and other slavic peoples still call the Germans, eg nemcina, nemetski.
 
Isn't that what the Russians and other slavic peoples still call the Germans, eg nemcina, nemetski.
something from the dark and distant past tells me that's to do with the River Niemen

Neman​


The Nemunas, Nioman, Neman or Memel is a river in Europe that rises in central Belarus and flows through Lithuania then along the northern border of Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia's western exclave which specifically then takes its southern mouth. It drains into its Curonian Lagoon, narrowly …
 
something from the dark and distant past tells me that's to do with the River Niemen

Neman​


The Nemunas, Nioman, Neman or Memel is a river in Europe that rises in central Belarus and flows through Lithuania then along the northern border of Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia's western exclave which specifically then takes its southern mouth. It drains into its Curonian Lagoon, narrowly …
My former neighbour came from Memelland.
 
something from the dark and distant past tells me that's to do with the River Niemen

Neman​


The Nemunas, Nioman, Neman or Memel is a river in Europe that rises in central Belarus and flows through Lithuania then along the northern border of Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia's western exclave which specifically then takes its southern mouth. It drains into its Curonian Lagoon, narrowly …
From Wikipedia:
The etymology is disputed: some say that "Nemunas" is an old word meaning "a damp place",[8] while others that it is "mute, soundless river" (from nemti, nėmti "to become silent", also memelis, mimelis, mėmė "slow, worthless person").[9] The name is possibly derived from the Finnic word niemi "cape".[10]

To the Slavs and Balts it was the silent river.
In ancient times the area of the river basin was populated by Balts and Slavs and the river was broad, low lying, slow and silent.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top