Ask me anything about the Soviet Union/ Former Soviet States

[Timminz]

This is a great thread.

[Neoteny]

I have four shot glasses, each bearing the face of one of the following: Yeltsin, Putin, Khruschchev and Gorbachev.

If I were out of vodka, what liquor should I shoot out of these?

[Baron Von PWN]

I have four shot glasses, each bearing the face of one of the following: Yeltsin, Putin, Khruschchev and Gorbachev.

If I were out of vodka, what liquor should I shoot out of these?

Good question!

For Yeltsin I would say something close to Rubbing alcohol, as it would best capture his alcoholism.

Putin, A good scotch, smooth, suave powerful.

Khrushchev Corn ethanol (His nickname was the corn man, it seems appropriate).

Gorbachev, absinthe, sounds like a good idea but it will leave you with a big mess.

[Victor Sullivan]

1. The Cuban Missile Crisis: If Khrushchev's ships had crossed the quarantine line, what do you theorize would have happened? How would the world be different today?

2. Where does Russia currently stand in the world with regard to military power, economic power, and other influential power(s)?

3. What is something that is commonly said about Russia, Russians, the Soviet Union, or Soviets that is a major misconception?

-Sully

[thegreekdog]

1. The Cuban Missile Crisis: If Khrushchev's ships had crossed the quarantine line, what do you theorize would have happened? How would the world be different today?

I can answer this question.

The X-Men led by Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr stop the Soviet ships, but then Erik turns on the rest of the X-Men.

[Victor Sullivan]

1. The Cuban Missile Crisis: If Khrushchev's ships had crossed the quarantine line, what do you theorize would have happened? How would the world be different today?

I can answer this question.

The X-Men led by Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr stop the Soviet ships, but then Erik turns on the rest of the X-Men.

-Sully

[Baron Von PWN]

1. The Cuban Missile Crisis: If Khrushchev's ships had crossed the quarantine line, what do you theorize would have happened? How would the world be different today?

2. Where does Russia currently stand in the world with regard to military power, economic power, and other influential power(s)?

3. What is something that is commonly said about Russia, Russians, the Soviet Union, or Soviets that is a major misconception?

-Sully

1. I will go TGD answer. In all seriousness I have no clue. I see it going one of two ways, 1. the USA pulls the trigger and WW3 goes off with all the nuclear loveliness that implies. Or 2. Khrushchev has successfully called the USA's bluff and the Soviet Union gets nukes in Cuba leading to a major foreign policy victory for Khrushchev. This would have probably meant that Nikita would have been around much longer, meaning his reforms might have been implemented fully perhaps making the CCCP more viable, as well as possibly leading to serious advantages in the battle for client states.

I personally think 2 to be more likely as I doubt the Americans would have risked thermonuclear war over. The Soviet could already wipe out the USA with its ICBMs besides the Americans had a balance of nukes in turkey. To risk nuclear war over it though... you can see why Nikita would back down.

2. interesting question. In terms of one on one military comparisons, taking in Nuclear capabilities I would say #2 still. Russia remains the only country that could completely destroy America. Nuclear aside nuclear arsenals and going purely conventional my guess would be #3 or possibly #4. China I suspect surpasses in terms of conventional capabilities, though Russian air power is still much more advanced, but then you throw in the question of how much hardware decay has Russia undergone since the cold war and it gets fuzzy.


Economic power is also interesting. On the one hand their manufacturing base is much reduced and their science sector has also seriously deteriorated. However their raw materials particularly oil have greatly increased in value. However any way you cut it their economic influence is much reduced, for instance I think the Netherlands has a larger GDP. Though Russia's potential for growth is enormous, but held back by domestic political factors.

Other influential power. Here Russia still has a good deal of punch. They are one of the worlds largest military goods purveyor, I believe second only to the USA though China may be nipping at their heels in gross dollar value. The real strength here though is Russia is still the best place to go to for more advanced weaponry if you're a little dodgy politicly. Think the Russian's selling Iran advanced anti-aircraft weapons. They also sell tanks, aircraft and other modern/semi-modern military hardware. Though often the purchasers don't have the training to use them as effectively as the Russians could.

As a result of this Russia maintains quite a bit of political influence and is often useful to the west in bargaining with nations of ill repute. They can also be a huge pain in the ass if they want to, thanks to their UN security council vote.


Their oil gives them quite a bit of political power as well. They can use it as a cudgel to badger the EU for economic deals for example, though its a little double edged.

However again their global influence is much decreased. Still among the power players but nowhere near its former position.


3. That the USSR was terrible all the time. The place was basically a giant prison camp.

While the USSR made great use of coercive methods, it wasn't all Gulag and jackboots. There was a great deal of positive community networking, neighbours helped neighbours, very little crime(other than black market activity), you never had to worry about a job, housing was cramped but it was always affordable, there were great paying educational opportunities if you were qualified so in general if you kept your head down it wasn't all that bad a place to be.

This isin't to say the Soviet Union didn't have the Gulag and didn't use many coercive methods. I am just saying that the Soviet Union could actually be a pretty decent place so long as you played by the rules and wasn't all misery.

About Russia; Bread lines, crushing poverty, all vodka all the time, the police will bundle you in a truck and make you disappear!

Russia today is not the Russia of the 90's. Economically it has stabilized and even come to a measure of prosperity in certain areas. Many areas remain poor but it is not the situation you often hear imagined (bread lines ect) the shops are full and produce is plentiful.

It's true alcoholism remains a big problem. However you sometimes get the impression people think its a crazy place where instead of water vodka pours from the taps. "you can smell the vodka when you take the metro!" . Sometimes that's true but Russia is not a nation of alcoholics. They have a good number of them but its not as absurd as people think it to be.

Police. In some ways Russia is allot like the Soviet union in this respect, only that he rules have been greatly reduced. Play by the rules and your ok, get too nosy or too political and you risk encountering problems. Though you might want to worry about the Mafia more than the state.


Oh one more

Russia as Evil empire.

People often think of Russia as this malignant state bent on fucking everyone over and global domination. I don't think that's the case. What I would say it is a very traditional state. To a certain extent Russia's policy makers still think like policy makers did in the days of empire. They are very concerned with hard power as it benefits Russia and it seems do not see the benefit of working with others if it dose not obviously and directly benefit Russia.

[BigBallinStalin]

Regarding SV's question 1. The Soviets actually got a ship or two across. It was just ignored.


The reason why it was ignored was because those ships didn't face a direct confrontation with any US ships. They dodged them.

The Soviets ended their nuclear game in Cuba because they feared the consequences (as did the US). They crossed the line, the US made that clear, so other games were pursued. What helped was that the US diplomatically traded with the Soviets (Cuba for Turkey--with IIRC the Juniper missiles). That was done several months later, so that Americans in general wouldn't realize that the US actually compromised with the Soviets (i.e. by backing down, wussing out, etc.).

[Victor Sullivan]

This is a great thread.

-Sully

[Baron Von PWN]

Regarding SV's question 1. The Soviets actually got a ship or two across. It was just ignored.


The reason why it was ignored was because those ships didn't face a direct confrontation with any US ships. They dodged them.

The Soviets ended their nuclear game in Cuba because they feared the consequences (as did the US). They crossed the line, the US made that clear, so other games were pursued. What helped was that the US diplomatically traded with the Soviets (Cuba for Turkey--with IIRC the Juniper missiles). That was done several months later, so that Americans in general wouldn't realize that the US actually compromised with the Soviets (i.e. by backing down, wussing out, etc.).

Yes. I neglected to mention the Americans had withdrawn their missiles from Turkey some time later. Its rarely mentioned that the US provoked the Cuban missile crisis by putting nukes in Turkey.

[BigBallinStalin]

@BVP and anyone else (I guess, if it's not too off-topic):


What's your opinion on the US' continued pursuit of "second-strike capability"?

I know this was used to justify building more complex nukes and placing them in more strategic locations, but in retrospect it seems ridiculous. Even with the acknowledgement of MAD, the bureaucracies continued to justify expanding their budgets for the sake of national security. But how much security was really needed, and what (if anything) constrained those buying decisions?

It went out of control, and I can't place the reasoning on only fear, or loss of perceived geo-political power. It seems that those reasons were used to inflate these bureaucracies' and the politicians' own importance/usefulness (which then justifies the authorization of increased budgets).

There really wasn't any means for constraining their action. As long as you can forcibly extract wealth from one's populace, there was no strong incentive to constrain one's spending...

[/rambling]

[Baron Von PWN]

@BVP and anyone else (I guess, if it's not too off-topic):


What's your opinion on the US' continued pursuit of "second-strike capability"?

I know this was used to justify building more complex nukes and placing them in more strategic locations, but in retrospect it seems ridiculous. Even with the acknowledgement of MAD, the bureaucracies continued to justify expanding their budgets for the sake of national security. But how much security was really needed, and what (if anything) constrained those buying decisions?

It went out of control, and I can't place the reasoning on only fear, or loss of perceived geo-political power. It seems that those reasons were used to inflate these bureaucracies' and the politicians' own importance/usefulness (which then justifies the authorization of increased budgets).

There really wasn't any means for constraining their action. As long as you can forcibly extract wealth from one's populace, there was no strong incentive to constrain one's spending...

[/rambling]

I would say it was self justification. Being able to say "look we did something!". Either that or path dependency, people were so caught up in the cold war they didn't realize how ridiculous they were.

[BigBallinStalin]

With such lack of accountability on the decisions made by bureaucrats, why do so many people place so much faith and trust in the government to "do the right thing"?

[2dimes]

Habit/path of least resistance. It's easier to go to work, come home, fap, have a beer and watch television. The lottory and those "Next big [insert failed attempt at becoming rich here] shows keep the tiny glimmer of hope you can buy a lamborghini and a mansion without having to become a 1%er.

[Baron Von PWN]

With such lack of accountability on the decisions made by bureaucrats, why do so many people place so much faith and trust in the government to "do the right thing"?

Well in the context of the cold war it is fairly understandable. If there is a large belligerent empire threatening you, If defence measures become a little excessive it is perhaps more beneficial than if they had been insufficient.

These are not questions related to Russia or the Soviet Union!

[PROFITS]

Oh geez, 13 pages of stuff before I even get to it. I'll have to check back when I have time for this. Maybe Friday.

[Baron Von PWN]

Oh geez, 13 pages of stuff before I even get to it. I'll have to check back when I have time for this. Maybe Friday.

No need to read everything, its just a bunch of questions about Russian and the USSR. If you want to ask anything or post your theory go right ahead.

[TheGeneral2112]

As many of you may know I have what might be considered an unhealthy obsession about Russia. Inspired by the recent Ask threads Ask me anything about the Soviet Union or Russia and I will give my best answer without the use of outside sources. Just a heads up questions about language will be poorly answered at best.

As an added bonus I will also tell you where I think you would fit within Stalinist Russia at the height of the purges.


* Edit*

I feel I should point out that I am not a Russian. I am a Canadian who is currently (and since june) learning Russian in St.Petersburg. I am also nearing completion of a Bachelors degree in "European and Russian Studies: Concentration in Russian and Eurasian studies" and I avidly read any material I get my hands on about Russia and the Soviet Union, which is why I feel competent answering questions.

The reason I'm adding this edit is because some people have sent me PMs or wall posts with the assumption I'm actually Russian, I don't want to pretend I have the same understanding of Russian society or culture as a native would.

How are the police regarded in Russia?

[notyou2]

what is the russian word for panzergeshtultzimheimer?

[Haggis_McMutton]

what is the russian word for panzergeshtultzimheimer?

as a follow-up what's the russian word for floccinaucinihilipilification ?

[Baron Von PWN]

As many of you may know I have what might be considered an unhealthy obsession about Russia. Inspired by the recent Ask threads Ask me anything about the Soviet Union or Russia and I will give my best answer without the use of outside sources. Just a heads up questions about language will be poorly answered at best.

As an added bonus I will also tell you where I think you would fit within Stalinist Russia at the height of the purges.


* Edit*

I feel I should point out that I am not a Russian. I am a Canadian who is currently (and since june) learning Russian in St.Petersburg. I am also nearing completion of a Bachelors degree in "European and Russian Studies: Concentration in Russian and Eurasian studies" and I avidly read any material I get my hands on about Russia and the Soviet Union, which is why I feel competent answering questions.

The reason I'm adding this edit is because some people have sent me PMs or wall posts with the assumption I'm actually Russian, I don't want to pretend I have the same understanding of Russian society or culture as a native would.

How are the police regarded in Russia?

Corrupt no-goodnicks. Essentially they are as likely to ask you for a bribe as do any policing. Though some people I met said they understood why they were that way since they are paid so little.

Not you 2 and Haggis_Mcmutton

You so silly!

[BigBallinStalin]

Why is the crime rate so high in Russia relative to its GDP per capita? (It's an amazing outlier; sorry can't find the right chart)

[Neoteny]

Do you ever feel like you are the main character of a Tom Clancy novel?

[Baron Von PWN]

Why is the crime rate so high in Russia relative to its GDP per capita? (It's an amazing outlier; sorry can't find the right chart)

This doesen't surprise me, but do you remember which areas of crime were high?

That being said factors in Russia which would contribute to crime.

A big factor would have to be the important role black and grey economic activity had in the Soviet period. This engendered a disregard for official rules and resulted in a core of disreputable economic actors ready to expand when market liberalization occurred. Add on top of that how privatization occurred in Russia, a highly corrupt process and the slow rate at which laws were brought up to speed with new realities.

In addition to those purely environmental factors, Russia's public servants on all levels are poorly paid. As a result they need to look elsewhere for money. This means shady types are able to buy their way out of legal troubles or use connections to push out competition.

Russia's courts are not truly independent, and as a consequence of the above are often heavily leaned on to gain certain results (or the judge is simply bribed).

There are also insurgencies in certain areas (the north Caucasus), the presence of these insurgencies likely exacerbate all of the other factors. Insurgents boost the black market sector, which in turn boosts crime.

Throw in high levels of alcoholism and other narcotics abuse.

lastly they have very weak social safety nets or what is in place is not effective in the least. As a result there are allot of people who live in desperate situation which leads to eager recruits for the maffiya.

All of the above being said, Russia is still a fairly safe place to visit. No more dangerous than say Bolivia or Brazil (assuming you stay away from Chechnya/Ingushetia).

[Baron Von PWN]

Do you ever feel like you are the main character of a Tom Clancy novel?

I've only read a couple of his books, and his characters are usually your typical all-american bad asses with navy seals training. I would not consider myself all american or particularly bad-ass, forget about any sort of military training.

so no.