Belarusian is closer to polish and Ukrainian - Belarus was also heavily russified
AHC: Best Possible Post-Soviet Russia?
- Thread starter Workable Goblin
- Start date
BigBlueBox
Banned
Let me make things very simple for you. Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian are East Slavic languages. They are all closely related. Polish is a West Slavic language and is no more related to Belarusian and Ukrainian than the Slovak language is. This is linguistic fact.
Great maybe you should go look at Belarusian.. Thank for for your thoughts
Дзякуй за вашыя думкі Belarusian
Спасибо за ваши мысли Russian
So I can make it simple for you . Surprise . Not so simple now Is it
Gorbachev presses to get that whole "NATO won't expand beyond Eastern Germany" thing in writing.
If he gets it then Russia's European Plain related anxieties likely don't flare up.
If not then Gorbachev is given a wake up call and dithers on other matters so as to exact concessions in other areas.
The first probably very quickly leads to a productive relationship with the west, the second keeps relations cold in the short term but probably leads to healthier relations in the longterm. Either nets a better economy in the long run.
If he gets it then Russia's European Plain related anxieties likely don't flare up.
If not then Gorbachev is given a wake up call and dithers on other matters so as to exact concessions in other areas.
The first probably very quickly leads to a productive relationship with the west, the second keeps relations cold in the short term but probably leads to healthier relations in the longterm. Either nets a better economy in the long run.
BigBlueBox
Banned
You have completely failed to demonstrate your ridiculous claim that Belarusian is somehow closer to Polish than Russian.
There would be obvious problems with expanding the private back room talks between Gorbachev and a few Western politicians into an actual multinational agreement. For Gorbachev, such a deal would be a humiliation, as it would make it plain that the USSR is the weaker party when it needs to seek Western guarantees for the West not taking away its Warsaw Pact allies. For many Western governments, the deal would of course look like an open, blatant "fuck you" to all the peoples between Germany and Russia, looking at regaining their freedom to decide their own future and their own allies after decades in Moscow's shadow. For many, it would mean that the Western world has forsaken Eastern Europe in its search for freedom. Making an actual treaty of NATO non-enlargement would then spell various issues to both sides, and because of this it would be a very uphill struggle to create one. IMO it would be realistically hard to see more than a watered-down version of such a deal, and one which the Western nations would later worm out of, after the USSR is no more, citing the sovereign rights of countries like Poland or the Baltic states to do what their electorate wants.
What is the mechanism through which this kind of a deal would lead to a better Russian economy? Could you expound on what you are thinking? IOTL, by the time the first former WP nations (the so-called Visegrad Group) were practically joining NATO in 1999, Russia was already beginning to recover from the worst effects of its post-Soviet slump. The ability of the Eastern European nations to join NATO thus did not harm Russia at the time it was going through the worst crisis.
On balance, I think that Russia's economy will not be fixed by attempting to screw over the smaller Eastern European nations. The most important measures for the Russian economy would need to happen inside, not outside Russia. Fixing and reforming the Soviet-era institutions to get a Russian Federation with rule of law, consistent politics and predictability for all business, domestic and foreign, would be a key here, as it would allow Russia to join the European economy in a sustainable manner. Countries like Germany or the Nordics could be used as examples for rebuilding Russian state institutions and ditching as much harmful Soviet-era baggage as possible.
Last edited:
Although both languages belong to the samegroup of Slavic languages, the differences between the two are significant. Russians have a very hard time to understand the Belarusian language well, especially if authentic Belarusian words are used. Belarusians can understand Russian, however, because almost all of them are bilingual.
There is a high degree of mutual intelligibilityamong Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian languages.[16] Belarusian has 80% mutual intelligibility with Ukrainian, 75% with Russian, and 55% with the Polish language.[17]
Within East Slavic, the Belarusian language is most closely related to Ukrainian.[18
IIRC the talks in question occurred after the Revolutions of 1989, so that ship had already sailed.
I mean that had basically been NATO policy since its formation, and as mentioned above Eastern Europe had already liberated itself. Furthermore, one doesn't need NATO membership to receive American aid, see America's present clown car of unofficial allies.
Oh no, I'm thinking longer term than that. I'm thinking of ways to prevent Russia's present sanctions related economic woes. Too my understanding the only way to prevent the economic disaster of the 90s would be to preemptively crash the economy in the 80s.
If you look at it all with the benefit of hindsight. But looked at from the mid-1990 POV of a reforming Soviet leader, the Warsaw Pact had not yet unravelled and the USSR was still a going concern. The OTL discussions about NATO non-enlargement were had in the context of seeking Soviet support for the unification of Germany. In that situation, Gorbachev saw his and the USSR's position as better than it was in actual fact. The situation still appeared salvageable in that moment. Now we know that it wasn't. Looking at the events thirty years ago, it may not be easy to understand how quickly everything happened and how swiftly the international situation changed in 89-91. The huge pace of change was not at all well-understood by the different leaders at the time. Practically all involved were fumbling in the dark. Many ships sailed those days without even the top national leaders understanding it until months later.
You might very well think that way. But the Eastern Europeans of the early 90s very much seemed to think that joining NATO and the EEC as soon as possible were overriding concerns. The Visegrad Group for example agreed on the need for official Western integration already in 1991. The Eastern European countries were very much pushing Western integration as a logical follow-up to their rejection of real socialism in the 90s and early 00s, it was more of a local political movement than you are depicting it as, not just an American/Western European campaign.
I don't recall depicting it as anything, please don't put words in my mouth or assume meaning which isn't there.
So you agree with me that the process of integration into Western organizations was strongly pushed by the formerly Warsaw Pact nations like Poland themselves, already since the early 90s, and that they would have very much opposed to a cynical deal between US and Soviet/Russian leaders denying them the chance to "go West", agreed over their heads?
Yeah, not that great power diplomacy was ever particularly considerate to the people it concerned.
Yes, it's 27 years since fall of USSR. Where were Italy, Japan, West, or even Eastern Germany in 1972 compared to 1945 or 1939?
Big Smoke
Banned
I am Belarussian. Thats not true - yes, theyre quite similair, but not nearly anywhere close a dialect. By the same logic Ukranian is a dialect, too, and Polish would be at least a mutually intelligable sister language. In fact, Belarussian and Polish are both similair to Russian and to each other, but are all separate languages. Belarussian is more similair to Russian than to Polish, but more similair to Ukranian than to Russian. Belarussian nationalism is on the rise and was born 100 years ago. Slavic languages are all quite closely related, relative to other language families, because they only split into West, East, and South Slavic 1,000 years ago.
There are/were two general directions which could lead to long-term "better" Russia.
First: no "Russia" as such. Basically not only USSR should have been disbanded but RSFSR as well. Several smaller states would be of much less problem to their neighbors and would be seen as less potential threat. Smaller "Russias" could not rely on force to solve their problems. If not themselves pushed around too obviously that could lead to improved relations politically and economically.
Of course there was not a realistically peacefull scenario to achieve that result. USSR at least in theory was a voluntary union, while there was no legal ground to disband RSFSR barring comletely new legislation.
Second: a really dedicated help from the former "enemy". Jeffrey Sachs mentioned in the one of previous posts got a lot of flack for his role as economical advisor in USSR/Russia and of course he would try to show himself in favorite light but what he is saying in this rather long article (which I seem to continue linking year after year)
is not IMO unreasonable though not very likely to succeed both for local Russian and outside reasons.
The NATO expansion is unavoidable at that time and yes it had basic anti-Russian motivations because East European states desired to join NATO exactly to prevent their potential re-absorbtion into Russain sphere however unlikely it seemed in 1991. Combined with seemingly leaving Russia to deal with it's problems that created an impression inside Russia that it in the end had been considered a defeated enemy and nothing more. That feeling could be alleviated by dedicated help by the West in the lines proposed by Jeffrey Sachs.
The chances of success of such a policy is slim at best but it could create a more prosperous more divercified and integrated with Europe Russia at the same time less militaristic as it would continued to view the West as friend despite all NATO shenanghias.
First: no "Russia" as such. Basically not only USSR should have been disbanded but RSFSR as well. Several smaller states would be of much less problem to their neighbors and would be seen as less potential threat. Smaller "Russias" could not rely on force to solve their problems. If not themselves pushed around too obviously that could lead to improved relations politically and economically.
Of course there was not a realistically peacefull scenario to achieve that result. USSR at least in theory was a voluntary union, while there was no legal ground to disband RSFSR barring comletely new legislation.
Second: a really dedicated help from the former "enemy". Jeffrey Sachs mentioned in the one of previous posts got a lot of flack for his role as economical advisor in USSR/Russia and of course he would try to show himself in favorite light but what he is saying in this rather long article (which I seem to continue linking year after year)
is not IMO unreasonable though not very likely to succeed both for local Russian and outside reasons.The NATO expansion is unavoidable at that time and yes it had basic anti-Russian motivations because East European states desired to join NATO exactly to prevent their potential re-absorbtion into Russain sphere however unlikely it seemed in 1991. Combined with seemingly leaving Russia to deal with it's problems that created an impression inside Russia that it in the end had been considered a defeated enemy and nothing more. That feeling could be alleviated by dedicated help by the West in the lines proposed by Jeffrey Sachs.
The chances of success of such a policy is slim at best but it could create a more prosperous more divercified and integrated with Europe Russia at the same time less militaristic as it would continued to view the West as friend despite all NATO shenanghias.
I also said actual Belarusian is closer to polish and Ukrainian. Sure there are cross words in all Slavic languages . But maybe you should hear actual Belarusian and not Belarusians speaking Russian..
Thanks for the stand in.. I know there are several Belarusians on this site. I happen to live here for 5 years.
I'm not sure what the relationship of Belarusian to Russian or Polish has to do with this thread, incidentally. I know I'm not the thread police, but it doesn't seem very relevant...
Maybe an earlier currency reform could help? Russia and the other union republics became independent in '91, but Russia and Ukraine didn't have separate currencies until '93, and the ruble zone made Russia's monetary problems harder to deal with early on.
Russia may have had a rough 1990s but at least it wasn't as bad as Ukraine's economic problems, Ukraine's living standards are better off than Moldova but comparable to the Caucasian and Central Asian Republics.
Russia may have had a rough 1990s but at least it wasn't as bad as Ukraine's economic problems, Ukraine's living standards are better off than Moldova but comparable to the Caucasian and Central Asian Republics.
my only point was that many people inside of the Russian empire / USSR were not all Russian and their territories were russified. after the collapse of the USSR . the best way to make a more stable and happy Russia is to keep it inside of its ethnic boarders and allow those who move to pursue a new direction to do so with out interference. obviously highly unlikely due to what I call super power syndrome and human nature ...
The west needed to work to stabilize these new nations and all agree to work to a better future as equals and not as cold war enemies. Russia needed cash, food, investments in training and business, this also applies to all the former communist block. its a massive investment, with high stakes and risk. This also requires adept leadership on both sides who can see long term and not local and or short term only.
So best out come is what you got.
My favorite thought is as follows:
- Putin becomes president
- Stabilizes things inside the Russian Federation
- Stabilizes the southern region
- returns rule of law inside the nation
- Reaches out and works to increase western investments in russia
- Establishes fair relationships with its neighbors based on mutual trust and trade
- doesnt run again as president - he was immensely popular as was United Russia. He needed to pull both a George Washington and Ronald Reagan. saying i have done my job for the motherland, i now turn it over to the next set of leadership to continue the work with both the help of the Duma and the constitutional court to help keep the new Democracy safe inside Russia for the long term. Then he steps away and goes off to write his book, get a monument and or library and for the most part stays away from politics.
Not every national "shock therapy" was the same. Poland's was actually very different from Russia. Although it involved the similar quick ending of price controls and what not, the privatization was slower.
In Russia, privatization was much faster, as state industries were immediately pawned off to corrupt oligarchs and other politically connected people.
Obviously, if you want a better post-Soviet Russia, make its economic reforms look more like OTL Poland than OTL Russia.