A less Russia-centric Soviet Union?

Not exactly. Officer in the Russian army could be Yakut, Aleut, Caucasian (from the Caucasus), a baptized Jew, and he could beat the Russian soldier in the face. In England, this could be?

Like I said, the Russian Empire was a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural state. The soldiers came from different backgrounds and were traditionally more bound to their loyalty and service to the Tsar than Russia as an nation. This kind of practice was common in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, say, with the nobility serving various rulers and often quickly changing their loyalties. The Finnish nobility was loyal to the Swedish crown until 1809, after that the sons of Finnish noblemen made illustrious careers in the Russian army. Oscar von Kraemer, the son of Finland-Swedish nobles, made it to full Admiral in the Imperial Russian Navy and a member of the State Council.

But it still was a Russian army and a Russian state. I am fairly sure, for example, that inability (or unwillingness) to learn at least passable Russian would have placed a definite "glass ceiling" on one's career in the Tsar's service. Modernization in the military, too, meant streamlining, harmonizing, standardizing - and Russification. Together with a growing sense of nationalism, by the turn of the 20th century this was undermining the sort of ethnicity-blind, premodern class privileges that were still known and understood among the officer corps.
 
What is it? One-third of the aristocracy in 1917 were Poles. Among the aristocrats were Tatars, Germans, Georgians. Russian from the lower classes did not have any privileges.

The Polish aristocracy were also subjected to enormous restrictions and suppression of their faith and language as a result of their long history of subversion against the Tsarist regime. The Tsars actually backed up the Ukrainian peasants in eastern Poland against them because the Polish aristocracy were seen as so disloyal.

Lower class people in general had a hard time of it in the Russian Empire.
 
Like I said, the Russian Empire was a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural state. The soldiers came from different backgrounds and were traditionally more bound to their loyalty and service to the Tsar than Russia as an nation. This kind of practice was common in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, say, with the nobility serving various rulers and often quickly changing their loyalties. The Finnish nobility was loyal to the Swedish crown until 1809, after that the sons of Finnish noblemen made illustrious careers in the Russian army. Oscar von Kraemer, the son of Finland-Swedish nobles, made it to full Admiral in the Imperial Russian Navy and a member of the State Council.

But it still was a Russian army and a Russian state. I am fairly sure, for example, that inability (or unwillingness) to learn at least passable Russian would have placed a definite "glass ceiling" on one's career in the Tsar's service. Modernization in the military, too, meant streamlining, harmonizing, standardizing - and Russification. Together with a growing sense of nationalism, by the turn of the 20th century this was undermining the sort of ethnicity-blind, premodern class privileges that were still known and understood among the officer corps.

Well, basically - yes. Tsarist policy was aimed at creating a mono-cultural space. Although it is not always possible, so in the early 20th century, the Finns tried to squeeze by cutting their autonomy, but failed. The biggest gains were among the Orthodox of the Finno-Ugric peoples living near the center of Russia.
But here's the example: the public service, including the military, the Jews did not take the persistence of traditional religion section. After the outbreak of the First World War, because of the large loss of officers, the officers began to produce and Orthodox Jews.
And I do not quite understand what you mean by the "glass ceiling"? If the production of the higher classes, it is done automatically when you reach a certain rank.
 
The Polish aristocracy were also subjected to enormous restrictions and suppression of their faith and language as a result of their long history of subversion against the Tsarist regime. The Tsars actually backed up the Ukrainian peasants in eastern Poland against them because the Polish aristocracy were seen as so disloyal.

Lower class people in general had a hard time of it in the Russian Empire.


Nonsense. Not for the faith and language, but it is for subversive activities against the Tsarist regime. Poles were few one-third, they always wanted to be the only aristocracy. Until the uprising in 1829 Poland had the broadest autonomy: the parliament, the monetary system, its own army. But the purpose of the rebellion was not the independence of Poland, but the restoration of the Great Poland "from sea to sea."
The lower classes - yes, but there was also a social elevator: Serve and received a knighthood, all in your hands.
 
Nonsense. Not for the faith and language, but it is for subversive activities against the Tsarist regime. Poles were few one-third, they always wanted to be the only aristocracy. Until the uprising in 1829 Poland had the broadest autonomy: the parliament, the monetary system, its own army. But the purpose of the rebellion was not the independence of Poland, but the restoration of the Great Poland "from sea to sea."
The lower classes - yes, but there was also a social elevator: Serve and received a knighthood, all in your hands.

That's what I meant, initially the Russians attempted to extend the same sort of policies of co-opting local elites as they had successfully done with groups such as the Baltic Germans to the Polish aristocracy, but when the Poles proved to be ungovernable by such means, the response was repression of traditional Polish institutions along with the Polish language, one of which being the Catholic Church. The Poles were, like the Chechens, one of the people for whom typical Imperial policies did not work as well as intended.

Similar policies were undertaken with the Ukrainian language in some parts of the Empire, with much greater success, the Russian Empire successfully stifled and minimized pretty much any expression of Ukrainian nationalism in the parts of Ukraine it ruled.
 
That's what I meant, initially the Russians attempted to extend the same sort of policies of co-opting local elites as they had successfully done with groups such as the Baltic Germans to the Polish aristocracy, but when the Poles proved to be ungovernable by such means, the response was repression of traditional Polish institutions along with the Polish language, one of which being the Catholic Church. The Poles were, like the Chechens, one of the people for whom typical Imperial policies did not work as well as intended.

Similar policies were undertaken with the Ukrainian language in some parts of the Empire, with much greater success, the Russian Empire successfully stifled and minimized pretty much any expression of Ukrainian nationalism in the parts of Ukraine it ruled.

No Catholic Church is not pursued, except when Catholic priests calling for an uprising. In St. Petersburg, there were several Catholic churches, including one on the Nevsky Prospekt.
In Poland, as in other regions, the Russian government contained only Russian-language schools, but to have a private, teaching the Polish language is not prohibited.
With the Chechens were generally tragicomedy - in 40-50 years they sent an embassy in the capital, promising to obey the king, provided that they are allowed to plunder the neighboring region (something other livelihood they were not). The tsarist government regarded the words such as subtle mockery.
 
Top