I think you came late to the party or something. Terr was making a blatant claim that the Soviet Union and Russia were/are the same thing. That’s not the same as saying that Russia was the most powerful republic of the Soviet Union.
That’s true by definition. The question is whether they were the republic that was really in charge.
India had a seat too while under British rule.
He wasn’t saying they were the same thing. He was saying that the Soviet Union was dominated by Russia and Russians, and that, even though it claimed to be made up of 15 equal republics, it was really under Russian control centralized in Moscow.
He not only said they were the same in language and in mind, but also that Russia owned the other republics “by any definition of ‘owned’”. It’s all right there in the thread. So are we retracting these or not?
OK, we retract it.
Russia was, for all intents and purposes, Soviet Union. It definitely owned and controlled all the Republics.
So for fun, because I’m warped and twisted, I looked at all the members of the Politburo of the Soviet Union from 1920-1990, and counted the birthplaces of each of the members. A few quick disclaimers. First, I only looked at full members (except in the 1950s and early 60s, when the Politburo was expanded into the Presidium, and the distinction between full and candidate members was erased). Second, I only looked at place of birth, and not necessarily ethnic origin or what the person considered himself. So somebody born of Russian parents in the Ukraine, is considered a Ukrainian for purposes of the list. Somebody like Khrushchev, with one Ukrainian and one Russian parent, and who was born in Russia, is Russian on that list.
So, here it is.
Russia 44
Ukraine 20
Belarus 4
Georgia 4
Latvia 2
Poland 1
Armenia 1
Finland 1
Uzbekistan 1
Khazakstan 1
Azerbaijan 1
I believe that, now what about percentage by population?
That’s harder, because, obviously, population is a snapshot, while the numbers are a composite over 70 years. In general, though, as you can see, the Slavic republics are overrepresented while Central Asia, the Baltics, and the Caucasus are underrepresented. In fact, the Ukraine is the only republic other than Russia to have a significant number of members in the Politburo.
I think the reason for this is threefold. First, there was a significant Jewish membership in the early Communist party before Stalin’s purges, and Jews in Imperial Russia were pretty much restricted to the Pale of Settlement, which was largely in the Ukraine and Poland. For instance, three of the leading “left opposition” to Josef Stalin, fighting for control of the Soviet Union until they were all purged by them, Trotsky, Kaminev, and Zinoviev, were all Jewish and all from the Ukraine (and all three are counted in my above list.)
Second, like I said, my list was by place of birth, not self identity. Brezhnev, for instance, was born in Dniprodzerzhynsk, in the Eastern Ukraine, and got his start as part of the “Ukrainian clique” around Khrushchev; the group of young Ukrainians that attached themselves to Khrushchev when he was governing the Ukraine and took him as their patron. Brezhnev is actually a good example of the way that Russians dominated the Soviet Union, because until 1952, Brezhnev’s ethnicity was listed as Ukrainian on his papers. In 1952, he managed to get that changed to Russian, and that was when his political career really took off.
The third is just that the Dneiper basin was a major Soviet industrial hub, and important for that reason. A lot of the Ukrainian members of the Politburo had at least some experience with heavy industry management.
All this aside, I agree with Terr more than I disagree with him. The Soviet Union was dominated by Russia, and controlled by Russians. Everything flowed through Moscow. Individual Non-Russians and even non-Slavs could get to a position of power or influence, but only by Russifying; by proving themselves more Russian than the Russians. As George Schueller put it in his study of the Politburo for the Hoover Institute,
“The sole fact that a man was born in the Ukraine, for instance, or is a Ukrainian by birth, is no assurance that he is a Ukrainian or that he has Ukrainian interests at heart.”
While it is true that Moscow was the seat of power of USSR, based on my conversations with people who are from that time and place, the only republics for which victimization was an accepted, but not totally agreed to idea, were the Baltic States. Plenty of republics and countries looked to Russia for support rather than seeing it as a cruel mother. Plenty of Russians were persecuted under Stalin as were Ukrainians, even the closest members of the original Party. So, not only do I think it disingenuous or ignorant to equate Russia with the USSR, I think it is also insulting to the Russian ethnicity and national patriotism. They are no worse peoples than we are, certainly.
First of all, this bears repeating:
Second,
Ethnic identity in this region is more nuanced than that.
When the USSR was in mid stride, identifying as ethnically Russian was a great advantage for the average citizen of any republic. Some, like Breznev and Stalin, went to great lengths to hide the fact that they were not in fact ethnically Russian.
When the USSR fell apart, some people tripped over themselves identifying as being from their domicile republic. I suspect the majority wanted to distance themselves from Soviet Russia as quickly and quietly as they could. Especially before foreign eyes. But in-country, that was not so simple. An ethnic Russian and an ethnic Ukrainian can easily dinstiguish each other under most circumstances. So where once being Russian in the Ukraine was often a social/political/career advantage of sorts, now, it’s seen as mixed blessing at best and I would argue more of a disadvantage. And I would add that it is not we in the west who equate Russian foreign nationals as being ‘Soviets’, but the ethnic populations of respective republics who often judge them so. Sometimes for good reason, as we’ve seen recently.
I understand your other points, but can you explain this a bit further? It seems you are saying that peoples of the former USSR, other than ethnic Russians, view ethnic Russians as the true Soviet, and recent actions justify that view. Is that what you are saying?
I’m in no way saying that Russian actions in Crimea are justified. I think I undrestand Putin’s motives, but I don’t consider the actions justified.
If you accept the premise that throughout the former republics, the Russian nationals are seen as interlopers and remnants of the invasion and takeover by the native Russians (which was the case under Stalin’s policies of relocation and mass defacto genocides), then perhaps you can also accept that there remains a thread of dislike for the ethnic Russians. This despite the fact that generations have been born in place and call the former republics home as much as the local ethnic populations who’ve been there much longer.
I’m not saying it’s a constant and palapable discontent throughout the former republics. But it seems to me that there is that undercurrent of classism that remains. Perhaps it is changing in the current generation.
Perhaps some former Russians/Ukrainians/etc. on the board can chime in to agree or disagree with my assertions.
Does that make sense?
It seems to me that the speed with which the eastern european countries and indeed Soviet republics like Ukraine, the 'stans, Georgia etc left the Soviet Union the moment they felt the ability to compel them slip, indicates that they were very much not agreed to the idea.
Less than 1% of our national budget goes to foreign assistance.
I’m not a fan of the more politically motivated aid. But our disaster relief and development aid has made fantastic strides in the world. There are millions of people who have been lifted out of poverty and illness to live happy productive lives because of it.
The most accurate and objective observation in my mind is that Putin responded to a request by secessionists in Crimea who took advantage of a clear cut breakdown of constitutional law in Kiev. The Crimeans asked for the might of the Russian military to back up their separation from Ukraine long overdue. The threat of that military might that was not to be challenged by the west or Ukraine, so that gave this secession the ability to be as close to zero bloodshed as possible. (One Hostile Fatality).
That is the story but none on the West wish to include the legislative violence driven coup in Kiev and the real desire of most in Crimea to break away from the lawless and violent behavior and seemingly unresolvable chaos in Kiev.
They don’t wish to include it as the “real desire” of most Crimeans because it exist only in your imagination. Of course, it’s possible that this time, everyone else is wrong and you’re right. Possible, but unlikely.
Certainly true for Poland, not for other countries/republics that would need to be weaned off of Mother Russia’s teats.
Forgive me, but how were they “weaned off of Mother Russia’s teats”? How much money did Russia keep sending their way after 1991?