The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Post-Soviet States]: Frozen Conflicts are Forever
JusticeforPluto
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
The old Ukraine threads have kinda morphed into more of a "Russia does the darnest things" thread. Which is bad, since its supposed to be about the current crisis in Ukraine. However, Russia seems to want to be a local and perhaps even global power again, making the nation and its actions a worthy topic of discussion.
This thread will be the place to talk about the current goings on in the former Warsaw Pact (minus Germany, as they do not share the same experience as most Post-Soviet States) and Soviet Union, seen here:
and here:
(States the numbers correspond to)
So, why talk about this area? As I said before, it seems that Russian is on the rise (although this does not mean they are predestined to be a superpower once more, they face many challenges). After the fall of the Soviet Union, I think many leaders in the West believed Russia could be marginalized and ignored. Capitalism would take hold, and perhaps they would join Europe in a sense. However, this seems to not be the case any more. If you could describe the current world as a split between the Capitalist West and Communist China, Russia seems to be attempting to create a third, unique way. Strongman government, control over the press, limited economic freedom, nationalist, a rejection of Western liberal values, and militarism all seem to play a role here.
Now, as Russia rises from the ashes for the time being, it has come into conflict with several nations over power and influence in three key areas: Eastern Europe (the former Warsaw Pact) the Caucasus and Central Asia (Once part of the Soviet Union). Lets look at these two areas quickly:
Eastern Europe:
(all nations in green or yellow join after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact)
Most of Eastern Europe went straight to NATO and the EU after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with two exceptions: Ukraine and Belarus. While I am not a fan of letting one nation dictate foregin policy to another, this action did cause some legitimate concern for Russia. For 50 years those nations stood as a wall between Russia and NATO. Now, they seem to almost be encircling Russia, providing the largest and most powerful alliance in the world with bases right on their doorstep. This has caused considerable tension between NATO, its new members, and Russia. Russia is pissed at being surround by an often unfriendly alliance of states, the West (at least in Europe) rejects the old school spheres of influence approach and sees Russia's actions in Ukraine as proof of Russia ill intention toward's in fellow Post Soviet States, and the new member of NATO do not always feel the alliance is doing enough for them or to block Russian aggression (especially in Ukraine).
Now, lets look at what I believe to be the key players (as of now) and how they fit into the larger picture.
Russia: The big dog. Russia in my opinion is currently in a transitional state (it has been since the late 80's) with its future still very much in doubt. The collapse of the Soviet Union created poverty, turmoil, and a loss of international status. Internally, the country still has various factions vying for power, with Putin currently on top. Externally, Russia has a large variety of methods to project power. This is a mixed bag, as the nation has worked hard to build relations in the region and globally. Yet, there are times where the nations has tried to force a nation into its corner against its will (see Ukraine). The internal trade with in the Soviet Union has become external, but still exists and is worth a lot to many nations. Resource sales, especially natural gas and oil, give the nation influence and income. You have probably have seen the country use its armed forces as hard power. They are a mixed bag: conscription and professionals, outdated and state of the art equipment. In between, Russia still supplies many nations with arms and training. Outdated, excess, and brand new weapons of war are shipped out of the nation. Training is provided to allies across the globe. The former Soviet States still use the same common inventory, and they are sometimes reliant on each other for spare parts and ammo. Russia's future is unclear, as is the role it will play in this world.
Poland: this nation has become one of the United States' staunchest allies in the region, and its not hard to see why. Russia and Poland have a long history of warring with on another since at least the 1500's. While Poland dominated the early wars, Russia one in the long term, annexing Poland along with Prussia (A German states that would go on to form Germany) and Austria. Russia spend a long time attempting to "Russify" the Polish people and put down several armed uprisings. After the First World War, Poland regained its independence. Then 1939 rolled along, and Poland was invaded by Germany and the Soviet Union, who split the nation between themselves. During 1944 the Polish Home Army (a resistance movement) rose up and attempted to liberate the capital of Warsaw, believing the Soviet Armies to be near. They were, but stopped to let the German army crush the Pro-Western uprising. The Soviet Union then went on to create a communist state in Poland after the Second World War. Basically, the Poles and Russians have not lost love for one another, and Poland is still weary of any Russian aggression in the region.
The Baltic States: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. These nations are not Slavic, but instead Baltic (Lithuania and Latvia) and Finno-Ugric (Estonia, closet related to Hungary and Finland). While for a long time these states were part of the Russian Empire, this unique identity never went away. The biggest issue these states face is the large number of Russian's who live within their borders. Colonists from both the times of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, the Baltic states see Russia's action's in Ukraine and Crimea as dangerous precedents to their territorial integrity.
Belarus: I'll admit I don't know much about this state, other than it is the one Post Soviet State in the region that is undoubtedly Pro-Russian.
Moldova: Once part of Romania, Russia annexed the region in 1812. The end of the First World War saw Moldova unite with Romania again, only to be annexed by the Soviet Union as apart of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that split Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union. The Axis invasion of Russia temporarily saw the region regained by Romania, but Russia victory in the Second World War saw the region fall back to the Soviet Union. Post collapse of the Soviet Union, Moldova decided that it was better off alone and didn't need no Russia or Romania. Then a bunch of Ethic Russians rose up and broke away from Moldova to create Transnistria. Russia supports them (indeed most of their initial army came from an old Soviet Guards Army) and there have been calls from Transnistria to integrate with Russia, but Russia has resisted these calls so far.
Ukraine: The nation that got me thinking about the area to begin with! The idea of Ukraine as a state is relatively new (circa 1900's from what I can tell). For the longest time the people of the region we called "Little Russians", with Belarus as the "White Russians" (not to be confused with the armies of the Russian Civil War) and Russia and the "Great Russians". Indeed, there are some (especially within Russia) that believe that all three nations are parts of a greater whole. The Ukrainian Independence movement has a shady past, and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) sided with the Nazis against the Soviets. The Pro-UPA will tell you that they only did so out of necessity and indeed later fought the Germans, those who are Anti-UPA will tell you about how they helped the Nazis with the Holocaust (there is a lack of consensus about this) and their genocidal actions against Poles in the region (is is a fact). The UPA's fight lasted past the Second World War and into the 50's. They are almost a classic case of "one person's terrorist, another's freedom fighter". After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine existed for a long time as a nation between the West and Russia, both physically and more importantly metaphysically. This changed in 2013 when the president decided to reject a EU trade agreement. This lead to clashes, people died, and the president fled. The new government was declared illegitimate by both internal and external forces. Russia sized the Crimea, which was home to a strategically important navel base and a Russian majority. The peninsula had been given by Russia to Ukraine in 1954 as part of a deal to internally reshuffle territory inside the Soviet Union (cause who in 1950 though the Soviet Union would collapse, especially within the Soviet Union?). Now, Pro-Independence/Russian fighters (depending on who you ask) are fighting against the Ukraine government with the support of Russian soldiers (who are with enjoying a Far Cry style vacation there or deployed on Moscow's orders, again depending on who you ask).
My main take away from this region is that a battle for influence is happening here between the EU/NATO and Russia, Russia is losing badly. All the former Warsaw Pact states ran to the West, as did the Baltic states. They only have Belarus in their court. Ukraine existed between the two, but I think Russia always expected them to come back around. The ousting of the Pro-Russian President for a new Pro-Western government alarmed them, as Ukraine was one of their last chances for influence, allies, and market opportunities in the region.
The Caucasus!
As you can see, its kinda a mess. Lets look at the current key conflicts of the region. While Eastern Europe is home to ideological conflicts and one real one, almost all the conflicts in this region sadly resulted in wars.
Russia-Georgia: In 2008, war broke out between the two nations, and Russia held two parts of Georgia declare independence. Most of the world declared this illegitimate and ignored the new states requests for recognition. Recently, Russia and Abkhazia signed a deal to unite their armed forces, basically de facto uniting the two nations.
Russia-Chechnya: The Muslim separatists of the region have long warred against Russia, and have committed some down right terrible acts to achieve this goal. However, for all of Russia's talk about how terrible Ukraine is for trying to squash the rebellion in the east with force and ignore the will of the people there, there seems to be a convenient case of memory lost of when Russia twice leveled Grozny (the capital of Chechnya) to the ground. @Synthesis elaborates: Chechnya's practical victory in the First Chechen War (1994) continued its defacto independence in a way very similar to the current standing of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and others. It was only after Russia's victory in the Second Chechen War that ended this--a reversal of the tendency towards the defacto independent, unrecognized (internationally) states--and brought the Chechen Republic under direct federal control.
Chechnya-Dagestan provided by @Synthesis: as Dagestan was recently relevant to Americans, and I would say the charge by the Dagestani government and civilians at Chechen militants committing mass executions in the mountainside ("genocide" in Dagestani words--this is debated), not necessarily an act by the nominal Chechen government (this is highly controversial), which was cited as the casus-belli for the Russian invasion and Second Chechen War. At least something there is worth mentioning, as it directly relates to Dagestan's instability and the current state of direct (rather than federal) rule of Chechnya by Moscow.
Very, very few Americans are aware of mass murder in Dagestan, even though it seems just as noteworthy as the destruction of Grozny.
Armenia-Azerbaijan: the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory is disputed. Both sides claim it as theirs, and the conflict has froze for now. Recently a Armenian helicopter was downed by Azerbaijan, who claims it was in their airspace. This is basically like the Korean War, both sides are currently at peace, but any little act has the possibility to spiral out of control and reignite the conflict. Currently, Turkey (and to greater extent the West) back Azerbaijan while Russia back Armenia.
Please note that both Armenia and Azerbaijan exist on the border of the Middle East. Their dealings with the nations of that region should go there (http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/191837/the-middle-east-v5-the-fourth-gulf-war). I would say that talk of their relations with each other, the West, Russia, or the conflict go here.
Central Asia (minus Afghanistan, talk of which belongs in the Middle East Thread liked above):
All of these states were once part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Currently, the issue of old Russian colonist (especially Kazakstan) again plays a role. While Eastern Europe is experiencing a battle for influence between NATO/the EU and Russia, Central Asia is a battle between the US, Russia, and China. The energy reserves of the region are eyed by all, and both China and Russia see the states in the region as a possible balance to the currently pro-US Afghanistan and the US bases there. Currently Russia, China, and most of the states in the region are part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which stress cooperation in the region in both economic and security terms. I have a feeling this may change as China grows more powerful and able to assert themselves while the resources in the region start to become more and more scarce.
Also of note is the ecological disaster in the area formerly know as the Aral Sea. Nations on the remains of the Aral are not happy to see the rivers that feed it diverted to agricultural causes. Upstream. @BlindPsychic found this lovely pic for us:
Special Case: Sino-Russian Relations.
Russia and China are kinda like the United States and China, sometimes friends, sometimes competitors, sometimes outright rivals. Russia and China are closer than the US and China, especially on security issues. These nations have had a on-again, off-again relation ship since Russia's communist days. For most of the Cold War, Russian had a technological and economical edge over China that was hoped could counter their large population. There days are most likely coming to an end. China is set to join the US in the superpower club, and Russia has little hope to counter their shear strength in all areas. I said that Russia may become a global super power, riding off Anti-Western sediment. China may not be a vocally anti-Western, but both nations have something to gain courting nations unhappy with the current order, such as Iran and Venezuela. While Russia may be able to challenge the West, especially in military terms, I don't think they could do the same to China. The days of Russia advantages or even equal terms at the negotiating table may soon be past, especially as Russia alienates the West.
Alphabet Soup and Important Ideas.
Frozen Conflict: Basically a war on pause. The cause of the conflict is not settled, and there is a risk that it may reignite at any moment. Korea is the classic case.
Commonwealth of Independent States: some believe this and Eurasia Economic Union as Russia's attempt to recreate the Soviet Union in territorial terms. Most see it as a symbolic organization. @Synthesis summed it up much better than I did: it may be worthwhile to mention its earlier role as a transitional organization instead of just a "recreative" one. The CIS administered the Soviet armed forces and overseas embassies for a brief period of the mid-1990s, while the distribution of military assets was ongoing--this brought them into direct conflict with Boris Yeltsin in 1992-1993 before he made himself M.O.D. briefly. It also managed what were now international sporting competitions, but that's not that noteworthy. This was actually its function before it moved, unsuccessfully, to propose a new alliance with non-Soviet states. And yes, it's role is largely symbolic and organizational for exactly those reasons (particular since the dissolution of its military command).
Eurasian Economic Community: the preadcessor to the EEU.
Eurasian Economic Union: A bit to create a union between Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Armenia. Some within the union wish to see it blossom into a political and military union to counter the EU, US, China, and India. Other are fine with the union as is.
Collective Security Treaty Organization: Military alliance of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan were all once members but withdrew.
Eurasian Customs Union: Customs Union between Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Removed tariffs and aimed to promote trade and growth in the region.
CISFTA (Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Agreement): free trade agreement between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Moldova and Armenia.
GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) Organization for Democracy and Economic Development: does what is says it does. Seems like basically a "eff you Russia" club aimed at providing a common front to oppose Russia. Used to be GUUAM but the Uzbekistan left.
Baltic Assembly: Aims to promote cooperation between the Baltic States.
Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations (aka Commonwealth of Unrecognized States): comprised of Abkhazia, South Ossetia (both break away states of Georgia), Transnistria (break away state of Moldova) and Nagorno-Karabakh (region claimed by both Azerbaijan and Armenia. Currently ruled by a pro-Armenia government), Aims to promote recognition of these nations as independent countries.
As always, please feel free to @ me or message me for any corrections, info, or new you feel Op worthy.
Edit: @Synthesis wrote some lovely posts of Kazahkstan and the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict on the first page. Read them!
This thread will be the place to talk about the current goings on in the former Warsaw Pact (minus Germany, as they do not share the same experience as most Post-Soviet States) and Soviet Union, seen here:
and here:
(States the numbers correspond to)
1. Armenia; 2. Azerbaijan; 3. Belarus; 4. Estonia;
5. Georgia; 6. Kazakhstan; 7. Kyrgyzstan; 8. Latvia;
9. Lithuania; 10. Moldova; 11. Russia; 12. Tajikistan;
13. Turkmenistan; 14. Ukraine; 15. Uzbekistan
5. Georgia; 6. Kazakhstan; 7. Kyrgyzstan; 8. Latvia;
9. Lithuania; 10. Moldova; 11. Russia; 12. Tajikistan;
13. Turkmenistan; 14. Ukraine; 15. Uzbekistan
So, why talk about this area? As I said before, it seems that Russian is on the rise (although this does not mean they are predestined to be a superpower once more, they face many challenges). After the fall of the Soviet Union, I think many leaders in the West believed Russia could be marginalized and ignored. Capitalism would take hold, and perhaps they would join Europe in a sense. However, this seems to not be the case any more. If you could describe the current world as a split between the Capitalist West and Communist China, Russia seems to be attempting to create a third, unique way. Strongman government, control over the press, limited economic freedom, nationalist, a rejection of Western liberal values, and militarism all seem to play a role here.
Now, as Russia rises from the ashes for the time being, it has come into conflict with several nations over power and influence in three key areas: Eastern Europe (the former Warsaw Pact) the Caucasus and Central Asia (Once part of the Soviet Union). Lets look at these two areas quickly:
Eastern Europe:
(all nations in green or yellow join after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact)
Most of Eastern Europe went straight to NATO and the EU after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with two exceptions: Ukraine and Belarus. While I am not a fan of letting one nation dictate foregin policy to another, this action did cause some legitimate concern for Russia. For 50 years those nations stood as a wall between Russia and NATO. Now, they seem to almost be encircling Russia, providing the largest and most powerful alliance in the world with bases right on their doorstep. This has caused considerable tension between NATO, its new members, and Russia. Russia is pissed at being surround by an often unfriendly alliance of states, the West (at least in Europe) rejects the old school spheres of influence approach and sees Russia's actions in Ukraine as proof of Russia ill intention toward's in fellow Post Soviet States, and the new member of NATO do not always feel the alliance is doing enough for them or to block Russian aggression (especially in Ukraine).
Now, lets look at what I believe to be the key players (as of now) and how they fit into the larger picture.
Russia: The big dog. Russia in my opinion is currently in a transitional state (it has been since the late 80's) with its future still very much in doubt. The collapse of the Soviet Union created poverty, turmoil, and a loss of international status. Internally, the country still has various factions vying for power, with Putin currently on top. Externally, Russia has a large variety of methods to project power. This is a mixed bag, as the nation has worked hard to build relations in the region and globally. Yet, there are times where the nations has tried to force a nation into its corner against its will (see Ukraine). The internal trade with in the Soviet Union has become external, but still exists and is worth a lot to many nations. Resource sales, especially natural gas and oil, give the nation influence and income. You have probably have seen the country use its armed forces as hard power. They are a mixed bag: conscription and professionals, outdated and state of the art equipment. In between, Russia still supplies many nations with arms and training. Outdated, excess, and brand new weapons of war are shipped out of the nation. Training is provided to allies across the globe. The former Soviet States still use the same common inventory, and they are sometimes reliant on each other for spare parts and ammo. Russia's future is unclear, as is the role it will play in this world.
Poland: this nation has become one of the United States' staunchest allies in the region, and its not hard to see why. Russia and Poland have a long history of warring with on another since at least the 1500's. While Poland dominated the early wars, Russia one in the long term, annexing Poland along with Prussia (A German states that would go on to form Germany) and Austria. Russia spend a long time attempting to "Russify" the Polish people and put down several armed uprisings. After the First World War, Poland regained its independence. Then 1939 rolled along, and Poland was invaded by Germany and the Soviet Union, who split the nation between themselves. During 1944 the Polish Home Army (a resistance movement) rose up and attempted to liberate the capital of Warsaw, believing the Soviet Armies to be near. They were, but stopped to let the German army crush the Pro-Western uprising. The Soviet Union then went on to create a communist state in Poland after the Second World War. Basically, the Poles and Russians have not lost love for one another, and Poland is still weary of any Russian aggression in the region.
The Baltic States: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. These nations are not Slavic, but instead Baltic (Lithuania and Latvia) and Finno-Ugric (Estonia, closet related to Hungary and Finland). While for a long time these states were part of the Russian Empire, this unique identity never went away. The biggest issue these states face is the large number of Russian's who live within their borders. Colonists from both the times of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, the Baltic states see Russia's action's in Ukraine and Crimea as dangerous precedents to their territorial integrity.
Belarus: I'll admit I don't know much about this state, other than it is the one Post Soviet State in the region that is undoubtedly Pro-Russian.
Moldova: Once part of Romania, Russia annexed the region in 1812. The end of the First World War saw Moldova unite with Romania again, only to be annexed by the Soviet Union as apart of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that split Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union. The Axis invasion of Russia temporarily saw the region regained by Romania, but Russia victory in the Second World War saw the region fall back to the Soviet Union. Post collapse of the Soviet Union, Moldova decided that it was better off alone and didn't need no Russia or Romania. Then a bunch of Ethic Russians rose up and broke away from Moldova to create Transnistria. Russia supports them (indeed most of their initial army came from an old Soviet Guards Army) and there have been calls from Transnistria to integrate with Russia, but Russia has resisted these calls so far.
Ukraine: The nation that got me thinking about the area to begin with! The idea of Ukraine as a state is relatively new (circa 1900's from what I can tell). For the longest time the people of the region we called "Little Russians", with Belarus as the "White Russians" (not to be confused with the armies of the Russian Civil War) and Russia and the "Great Russians". Indeed, there are some (especially within Russia) that believe that all three nations are parts of a greater whole. The Ukrainian Independence movement has a shady past, and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) sided with the Nazis against the Soviets. The Pro-UPA will tell you that they only did so out of necessity and indeed later fought the Germans, those who are Anti-UPA will tell you about how they helped the Nazis with the Holocaust (there is a lack of consensus about this) and their genocidal actions against Poles in the region (is is a fact). The UPA's fight lasted past the Second World War and into the 50's. They are almost a classic case of "one person's terrorist, another's freedom fighter". After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine existed for a long time as a nation between the West and Russia, both physically and more importantly metaphysically. This changed in 2013 when the president decided to reject a EU trade agreement. This lead to clashes, people died, and the president fled. The new government was declared illegitimate by both internal and external forces. Russia sized the Crimea, which was home to a strategically important navel base and a Russian majority. The peninsula had been given by Russia to Ukraine in 1954 as part of a deal to internally reshuffle territory inside the Soviet Union (cause who in 1950 though the Soviet Union would collapse, especially within the Soviet Union?). Now, Pro-Independence/Russian fighters (depending on who you ask) are fighting against the Ukraine government with the support of Russian soldiers (who are with enjoying a Far Cry style vacation there or deployed on Moscow's orders, again depending on who you ask).
My main take away from this region is that a battle for influence is happening here between the EU/NATO and Russia, Russia is losing badly. All the former Warsaw Pact states ran to the West, as did the Baltic states. They only have Belarus in their court. Ukraine existed between the two, but I think Russia always expected them to come back around. The ousting of the Pro-Russian President for a new Pro-Western government alarmed them, as Ukraine was one of their last chances for influence, allies, and market opportunities in the region.
The Caucasus!
As you can see, its kinda a mess. Lets look at the current key conflicts of the region. While Eastern Europe is home to ideological conflicts and one real one, almost all the conflicts in this region sadly resulted in wars.
Russia-Georgia: In 2008, war broke out between the two nations, and Russia held two parts of Georgia declare independence. Most of the world declared this illegitimate and ignored the new states requests for recognition. Recently, Russia and Abkhazia signed a deal to unite their armed forces, basically de facto uniting the two nations.
Russia-Chechnya: The Muslim separatists of the region have long warred against Russia, and have committed some down right terrible acts to achieve this goal. However, for all of Russia's talk about how terrible Ukraine is for trying to squash the rebellion in the east with force and ignore the will of the people there, there seems to be a convenient case of memory lost of when Russia twice leveled Grozny (the capital of Chechnya) to the ground. @Synthesis elaborates: Chechnya's practical victory in the First Chechen War (1994) continued its defacto independence in a way very similar to the current standing of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and others. It was only after Russia's victory in the Second Chechen War that ended this--a reversal of the tendency towards the defacto independent, unrecognized (internationally) states--and brought the Chechen Republic under direct federal control.
Chechnya-Dagestan provided by @Synthesis: as Dagestan was recently relevant to Americans, and I would say the charge by the Dagestani government and civilians at Chechen militants committing mass executions in the mountainside ("genocide" in Dagestani words--this is debated), not necessarily an act by the nominal Chechen government (this is highly controversial), which was cited as the casus-belli for the Russian invasion and Second Chechen War. At least something there is worth mentioning, as it directly relates to Dagestan's instability and the current state of direct (rather than federal) rule of Chechnya by Moscow.
Very, very few Americans are aware of mass murder in Dagestan, even though it seems just as noteworthy as the destruction of Grozny.
Armenia-Azerbaijan: the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory is disputed. Both sides claim it as theirs, and the conflict has froze for now. Recently a Armenian helicopter was downed by Azerbaijan, who claims it was in their airspace. This is basically like the Korean War, both sides are currently at peace, but any little act has the possibility to spiral out of control and reignite the conflict. Currently, Turkey (and to greater extent the West) back Azerbaijan while Russia back Armenia.
Please note that both Armenia and Azerbaijan exist on the border of the Middle East. Their dealings with the nations of that region should go there (http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/191837/the-middle-east-v5-the-fourth-gulf-war). I would say that talk of their relations with each other, the West, Russia, or the conflict go here.
Central Asia (minus Afghanistan, talk of which belongs in the Middle East Thread liked above):
All of these states were once part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Currently, the issue of old Russian colonist (especially Kazakstan) again plays a role. While Eastern Europe is experiencing a battle for influence between NATO/the EU and Russia, Central Asia is a battle between the US, Russia, and China. The energy reserves of the region are eyed by all, and both China and Russia see the states in the region as a possible balance to the currently pro-US Afghanistan and the US bases there. Currently Russia, China, and most of the states in the region are part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which stress cooperation in the region in both economic and security terms. I have a feeling this may change as China grows more powerful and able to assert themselves while the resources in the region start to become more and more scarce.
Also of note is the ecological disaster in the area formerly know as the Aral Sea. Nations on the remains of the Aral are not happy to see the rivers that feed it diverted to agricultural causes. Upstream. @BlindPsychic found this lovely pic for us:
Special Case: Sino-Russian Relations.
Russia and China are kinda like the United States and China, sometimes friends, sometimes competitors, sometimes outright rivals. Russia and China are closer than the US and China, especially on security issues. These nations have had a on-again, off-again relation ship since Russia's communist days. For most of the Cold War, Russian had a technological and economical edge over China that was hoped could counter their large population. There days are most likely coming to an end. China is set to join the US in the superpower club, and Russia has little hope to counter their shear strength in all areas. I said that Russia may become a global super power, riding off Anti-Western sediment. China may not be a vocally anti-Western, but both nations have something to gain courting nations unhappy with the current order, such as Iran and Venezuela. While Russia may be able to challenge the West, especially in military terms, I don't think they could do the same to China. The days of Russia advantages or even equal terms at the negotiating table may soon be past, especially as Russia alienates the West.
Alphabet Soup and Important Ideas.
Frozen Conflict: Basically a war on pause. The cause of the conflict is not settled, and there is a risk that it may reignite at any moment. Korea is the classic case.
Commonwealth of Independent States: some believe this and Eurasia Economic Union as Russia's attempt to recreate the Soviet Union in territorial terms. Most see it as a symbolic organization. @Synthesis summed it up much better than I did: it may be worthwhile to mention its earlier role as a transitional organization instead of just a "recreative" one. The CIS administered the Soviet armed forces and overseas embassies for a brief period of the mid-1990s, while the distribution of military assets was ongoing--this brought them into direct conflict with Boris Yeltsin in 1992-1993 before he made himself M.O.D. briefly. It also managed what were now international sporting competitions, but that's not that noteworthy. This was actually its function before it moved, unsuccessfully, to propose a new alliance with non-Soviet states. And yes, it's role is largely symbolic and organizational for exactly those reasons (particular since the dissolution of its military command).
Eurasian Economic Community: the preadcessor to the EEU.
Eurasian Economic Union: A bit to create a union between Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Armenia. Some within the union wish to see it blossom into a political and military union to counter the EU, US, China, and India. Other are fine with the union as is.
Collective Security Treaty Organization: Military alliance of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan were all once members but withdrew.
Eurasian Customs Union: Customs Union between Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Removed tariffs and aimed to promote trade and growth in the region.
CISFTA (Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Agreement): free trade agreement between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Moldova and Armenia.
GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) Organization for Democracy and Economic Development: does what is says it does. Seems like basically a "eff you Russia" club aimed at providing a common front to oppose Russia. Used to be GUUAM but the Uzbekistan left.
Baltic Assembly: Aims to promote cooperation between the Baltic States.
Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations (aka Commonwealth of Unrecognized States): comprised of Abkhazia, South Ossetia (both break away states of Georgia), Transnistria (break away state of Moldova) and Nagorno-Karabakh (region claimed by both Azerbaijan and Armenia. Currently ruled by a pro-Armenia government), Aims to promote recognition of these nations as independent countries.
As always, please feel free to @ me or message me for any corrections, info, or new you feel Op worthy.
Edit: @Synthesis wrote some lovely posts of Kazahkstan and the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict on the first page. Read them!
Bogart on
+36
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
also. Germany what the fuck. You have some history with a Russia like this. Called East Germany.
Smarten the fuck up.
edit: hey holy look what five and a half hours of sleep does to my brain folks. I got brain juice running out my ear
Belarus is quite the uneventful state, when it was part of the soviet union it was known only for it's natural resource production and farming. Much like Ukraine, there is a native language 'Belarusian' which is known by less then a third of the country and spoken by even fewer. After the collapse of the Soviet union most former members adopted a democratic system of government which was in many cases subverted, Belarus didn't bother much with that and went for the old tried and true method of corruption right away, they even kept the KGB (although that acronym means something different the spirit is there).
Germany thinks with it's wallet, not with it's heart.
With regards to the OP, the one thing I'd always figured on being an advantage with regards to isolating russia was that this would put china in an extremely powerful position; having been pretty effectively locked out of the west the bear would be forced to deal with the dragon... who would be in an excellent position to put the screws to putin.
I am pretty sure that is exactly what happened in the gas deal.
Anybody know for certain if Putin got screwed on the gas deal with China?
Some assorted thoughts:
Separating the world into Western Capitalism, Communist China, and Other Thing Russia seems odd, since they're all capitalist. China's been reforming since the 70s, and is a manufacturing powerhouse that will overtake the US in coming years. Russia basically chopped up the old state and sold it, with pieces being gobbled up by oligarchs that now operate for their profit. The systems are different for sure, but capitalism is something they share in common. This was a minor point I know, just found it odd.
I like how in the map of Central Asia, Kazakhstan has two capitals (marked with a star). This makes a sort of sense, since Almaty was the capital for a long time until it was moved to Astana in the late 90s (if I recall to get the capital away from the more populous and turbulent part of Central Asia, and into a more politically stable middle of nowhere (kinda like Brasilia maybe)).
The OP might benefit from something about energy being mentioned. Gas pipelines through Ukraine are big in the news right now, and gas is now Russia makes a lot of its income. Its what makes the Caucuses and Central Asia future battle grounds. Russia and China recently signed a huge agreement on gas that (if it goes according to plan) is another sign of co-operation.
Might want to mention the former Yugoslavia. It will likely come up in some capacity anyway, due to political/ethnic/religious links. Speaking of which, lets have some more maps!
Cyrillic Alphabet distribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_script
Eastern Orthodox distribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church_by_country
All territory held by the Russian Empire, "sphere of influence" in light green:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire
Basically to show there's more linking these countries and their histories together than membership in the former USSR.
I have to agree with that.
I mean on the one hand, [Tycho?] is right and they are all capitalists.
On the other hand the capitalism is different in China (where there is a mix of state-run and privately run businesses in a market that is largely profit-motivated, but everyone answers to the state), versus America (where the golden rule applies: the person with enough gold makes the rules, thank you very much Citizens United) vs Russia (which, and correct me if I am wrong, seems to be sliding towards facism: subservience of industry and private enterprise to the state)
Eh, I think that's overlooking changes that happened at the very least post-USSR-collapse.
From my not-extensive knowledge of that period in Russian history there was a definite period where the country was being sold off to business interests and organized crime that was rather shitty and the current rise in what seems sort of fascist-y nationalism is a reaction to that period and the perceived loss of prestige that accompanied it. There's been major blows to the power of the oligarchs and such with power being concentrated in the state again and that power being built on a nationalist "bring back the glory days" platform.
Fuck yeah!
They are post-soviet states, are they not? Like, more or less?
So, Armenia and Azerbijan are basically at a state of low-intensity war. Seriously. Last week, Azerbaijani press reported an Armenian military helicopter attacking Azerbaijani military positions last week. The details are still disputed, but according to the Azerbaijanis, the helicopter was a Mi-24 armed transport (of which Armenia operates) they were Armenian servicemen wearing the insignia of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (one of those four unrecognized states in the Community for Democracy bloc detailed in @JusticeforPluto's very elaborate OP.
This has been going on for several weeks now. Radio Free Europe has reported that the helicopter actually was in the unrecognized republic's military, but this being RFE, they're reputation is not particularly better or worse than Azerbaijan's state-controlled press in this area. No one disputes that the NKR receives military backing from Armenia. The whole situation practically means an escalation from the already "near war" that Armenia and Azerbaijan have been at nonstop for the last +20 years, over what BBC terms the most militarized area of Europe. This is a distinction from Transnistria, which, while disputed, is at a lower level of militarization (because Moldova and Ukraine are comparatively weaker and more friendly, though that could change).
Obviously, this is nothing to the scale of Ukrainian separatism--it's a smaller area, and has simultaneously gone on for decades rather than months or years. But I find it particularly interesting that the American press is very reluctant to talk about it, with a handful of exceptions. It's an awkward issue: unlike Ukraine, which has a clear delineation of a sides the United States and NATO supports and opposes, Nagorno-Karabakh does not. Armenia, for a time, was a clear darling in the west as a Christian democracy (well, that's how the media characterized it anyway) in an area characterized increasingly by a tug between culturally secular but self-identified Muslim military authoritarian governments. Yerevan knew its economic weaknesses, and shaped itself as a Christian underdog.
But Armenia's largest ally, bar none, is Russia. Lacking the population or mineral wealth of its rivals, it's economic survival is dependent on Russia, as is its military security. It cannot count on the outstanding economic growth to fuel military expansion as Azerbaijan has. This is a bitter pill for many people to swallow, because asking Armenia to discard military cooperation, leased hardware, Russian training schools (both military and civilian), border guards and peacekeepers for some unspecific alternatives is basically asking Armenia to commit state-suicide. And the Russian population as a generally positive image of Armenia, compared to its other neighbors.
Azerbaijan, for a time, was the "replacement" darling (it's hard to describe this situation without sounding rather cynical). It was on good terms with NATO, and excellent terms with Turkey. It's relations with Russia have soured moderately for the precised reason that Moscow is seen as pro-Yerevan and unfair to Baku in its mediation (ironically, something that Yerevan sometimes argues is over exaggerated), and that if it were not for Russian interference, Azerbaijan would not have lost the war in the early 1990s. But Baku has a much stronger authoritarian streak than Armenia (and as far as censorship is concerned, Russia as well) that rubs some the wrong way, and occasionally falls into the rhetoric of old Christian powers ganging up on new Muslim ones. Azerbaijan thinks it should win by all accounts--they spend far more money on military readiness than Armenia can hope to. Outside interference is the one "stab in the back". And there is not a clear side for the west to back, even before you get into the complexity of Nagorno-Karabakh itself. Azerbaijan has asked China to take a greater role in moderating for exactly that reason--the West sits on its hands (as Ukraine is obviously a higher priority), Russia cannot be counted on being unbiased (having, at best, "pleased everyone and no-one"), and they want a sympathetic arbitrator.
I hurt my neck last week, and since then, sitting at my desk involves a lot o awkward turning just to type, so that's it on that. I'm not even sure if it's a topic anyone besides me gives a crap about, but I think it's relevant for the topic at hand.
Especially when Russia is diddling in Ukraine and parking subs outside Stockholm.
Apparently, NATO forgot that would only work if Armenia remains a solvent state, an expensive endeavor since Azerbaijan continues to exist and be a wealthy regional rival. Too much shit for Brussels to keep track of, I guess.
EDIT: The Armenian Times is also expecting some Chinese role in moderating. As you might expect, it's about as ideologically-driven as its Azerbaijani counterpart, and deeply concerned about a perceived European favoritism towards Azerbaijan resulting from weak Armenian cultural and commercial representation, and its positions on the other Democratic Community states is very much in opposition to the West's. And there's a sense that Europe, which has consistently decried Russian violations of human rights, is deliberately ignoring what are to them rampant Azerbaijani violations for typically political reasons (oil, Turkey, NATO, etc.).
I know about that area of the world from like CK 2 and other Paradox games.
How much is culture a thing in all of that? I know there have been some horrific ethnic genocides in that area but I can't remember if they were hundreds of years ago or just tens of years ago.
It's...hard to say, because I only played the Hearts of Iron games. :?
Certainly, culture is part of it--Armenia and Azerbaijan are characterized by religious and linguistic differences, obviously, it's one of the things that shaped Soviet national delimination into turning them into two Soviet republics after the First World War. The Armenian Genocide is part of that, which occurred amid the war and recognized nationally in Soviet Armenia from a grass-roots movement.
But it's not only historic and cultural--we're dealing with a fairly new political and economic rivalry as well. Armenians and Azerbaijanis intermarried and intermixed during the entirety of the Soviet period, this "divorce" is a very recent event on the grand scheme of things. In an area where the players are going to be much less populous than the "big players"--Russia, Turkey, Iran, etc., and the United States made very large steps to increase its influence after the dissolution of the USSR, practically any nationwide issue can be tied back to the violence that the Soviet government initially tried to contain, but then pulled out of when there ceased to be a Soviet government. All politics is local, etc.
Agreed; unfortunately, that crisis is not confined to Ukraine, per se (despite the wishes of many to pretend it does). Putin's ambitions certainly aren't, IMO.
And the "crisis" itself seems to have settled into a "bleeding wound" mode - a horrible new status quo of sorts.
If that's the case (and it could certainly be) this bleeding wound has been around for years--it was certainly around in 1993, when the conflict zones actively mobilized troops and Russian tanks fired live ammunition at the blockaded parliament building in central Moscow.
We just decided that it wasn't a "crisis" so much of an exciting "opportunity", to borrow that old adage.
The Armenian genocide took place during WW1, perpetrated by Ottoman Turks and Kurdish groups who also lived in the area. This is usually discussed in a Middle Eastern context, but Russia had been expanding into the Caucuses for some time. I think Armenian support for Russia and actions against the Ottomans were the justification for the killings.
You do?
Man, the american press, hell, what we think of as "The West" simply does not give a shit about that area of the world by and large. To say they are reluctant to talk about it is a huge misnomer because odds are they don't even remember it exists 99 days out of a 100. Shit, you'd be amazed how many people think Kazakhstan is a fake place made up by the guy who plays Borat.
Even the political argle-bargle from the west seems vague and distant, like most of them really don't give a shit.
oh shit you say Armenia to most Americans and you'll get "Isn't that the island that sunk in the middle of the ocean or something? I saw it on History Channel once" for an answer.
Most likely an attempt to cause the public to turn against DPR and LPR leadership, which probably won't work.
Also the salient detail that Ukraine is super duper broke and needs massive assistance just to keep itself above water.
Not great.
Well, it might create some disgruntlment towards the rebels, but the hatred towards Ukrainian government will be a lot more intense.
As for broke, they seem to be fine with wasting millions of our curency each day to fuel the war.
Yeah, it's not a great plan.
But I also think that Kiev is basically giving up on every getting full control of Donestk and Luhansk back in the near to medium future, despite the government's bluster there's really nothing they can actually do about it so long as Russia pumps a seemingly endless supply of troops and equipment into the area.
with luck it turns out like the Winter War and Putin winds up wasting a shit ton of resources for basically nothing*
*I realize it's not nothing but this is me thinking in like strategy mode or something I dunno
It would seem that way.
Best stance would be to fortify their current positions (including the Donestk airport), and then slowly pull resources out of the area. It would put pressure on the separatists and on Russia to keep supplying them.
I only hope that the separatists don't get the bright idea of using their newly acquired gear and military resources to make further pushes.
Well, I guess you could make the case that there are lots of places American media doesn't give a shit about (I would direct your attention to the peaceful occupation of Taiwan's legislature during the "Sunflower" protests--you know, the Taiwan that people screamed for years was going to be where World War III started back in the 1990s). Kazakhstan is both a point of interest for me personally (as the historic crossroads of Eurasia), and basically a country that has taken a lousy PR deal with a respectable amount of class and grace, the national equivalent of someone who gets hit with a pie on stage, wipes off some of the custard, and tries to leave before getting hit with another pie.
It boils down to that the Kazakh Republic (named after the general ethnic group for whom it was founded in the early days of Soviet national delimination) is an Asian country with a post-nomadic culture that would generally be considered more socially liberal than most of its neighbors (particularly further south, in the non-Post-Soviet Central Asian states--Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.), with a very high level of tolerance for non-Kazakh ethnic groups (in part because, in Soviet Kazakhstan, almost half the population were of different Slavic groups--Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles, etc.). Actual self-identified non-Slav Kazakhs are Asian (not unlike people in Western China--so, not typically East Asian, but certainly "closer" to that than Slavic, even after several generations of intermarriage). By happenstance though, Kazakh's national persona is defined by a Jewish Englishman with a successful career as a comic playing a fake amalgamation of rural-Romania and various Central European tropes with a strong dash of misogyny--though Kazakh women are not veiled and have much more in common with their Russian counterparts, which has led to a gradual but noteworthy conservative backlash suggesting women need to follow a post-Soviet homemaker model rather than a Soviet-era working woman model. On the 2012 G.I.I., Kazakhstan ranked 70--below Malaysia, Belarus and Russia, but above Mexico, Georgia, Jordan and Iran. Accompanied by a strong dash of antisemitism--even though historically, Kazakhstan has been tolerant of its small Jewish minority: its long-running dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev (generally seen as a more low-profile, politically moderate counterpart of other Central Asian dictators) was presented with a menorah in 2004 and is well-respected by Jewish affairs media internationally. For example, the Washington-operating National Conference on Soviet Jewry even made a point of clarifying that the symptoms of antisemitism in Kazakhstan were exceedingly rare, compared to the fictional character the western world widely associates with the country.
But, it was all done in good fun, and Kazakhstan is still dealing with the consequences of having its western reputation set up by a satirical film that Americans and Europeans have had a habit of taking seriously (the film isn't really known in China or East Asia, and Russians and other Eurasians see Kazakh people on a regularly enough basis to understand it is fictional). Interestingly, neither Kazakhstan nor Russia banned the theatrical release of Borat--though there were a few years where Kazakhstan regularly assumed its athletes would hear the fictional song (All other countries are run by little girls...) in lieu of its actual national anthem, as happened periodically in Europe. It may be worth noting that Sacha Cohen does not particularly harp on Kazakhstan's stance as a close strategic ally of Russia (Kazakhstan is home to the first operational spaceport at Baikonur, and acts as a resource base for Russian Industry/consumer of Russian industrial products), perhaps because it's not funny, but it is politically relevant.
On the international stage, Kazakhstan takes a low profile as a general rule, and counts on its various treaties with Russia--outside of Belarus, Kazakhstan is the next most likely partner in any future "Union" state agreement, and is active in the CSTO. So generally, we don't hear much about Kazakhstan (the real country) because it is fairly small in population and politically stable (it was the last Soviet republic to declare independence--in mid-December of 1991, less than two weeks before the country was completely dissolved!). It's not home to any of the frozen conflict zones for the same reason, despite being geographically huge and rich in resources.
EDIT: Because all of this is terribly esoteric yet real, you can read a little bit more about Kazakh Jews (mostly Ashkenazi) as of 2013, with Nazarbeyev's ascendance to another term. He's appealed pretty extensively to Jews both inside and outside the country, and its gotten him a good amount of praise--from obvious sources, like the Chief Rabbi of Almaty (the capital of Soviet Kazakhstan, still its largest city) but also think tanks, who've labeled Kazakhstan Israel's partner in Eurasia.
You mean the one where russia attacked them via proxy because western ukraine didn't want to be beholden to the whims of the Kremlin?
public opinion and facts are rarely aligned.
ok.
During WW1 Russia was invading the Ottoman Caucasus with an Army that had 100 thousand Armenians in it. The Armenian Genocide was more Balkin-esque shitheads on both sides than is typically portrayed in the West, especially when the new Armenian state performed its own ethnic cleansing of won territory leading up to the Armenian–Azerbaijani War of the 1920s.
As to Trace's question - you were right with both guesses; horrific ethnic genocides have covered a whole swathe of that regions recent history. You win a feeling a despair