AHC: Make Russian an accepted part of the west.

[Bad@logic]

You may be right; still you conced that there;s a difference in perspective between the West and Russia that flares up during times of global conflict. There's also the question of Russians themselves and whether they have historically considered themselves members of the liberal West, and whther that be the Slavophilia of the 19th century or the aminosity between Russia and pro-Western instituions such as NATO, it would seem as if a sizable percentage of the Russian people still do not view themselves as in step with Europe.

Yes, that's completely correct, there is definitely a cultural element that goes into it. I remember reading that the Russian liberal party, the Yabloko party, was shocked back in 2014 following the Crimean annexation by the depth of anti-Western sentiment that it revealed among the general public: by contrast Yabloko stated in their electoral manifesto that Russia was a European country and needed to remain loyal to this ideal. Dostoevsky was famous in his comparison of the Russian soul to the European soul.

But at the same time I don't think it's necessary to overstate this cultural difference: there are plenty of comparisons of British to Europeans, and similar anti-European sentiment is a major part of the British identity and came out prominently on display on their last major tiff, Brexit - nevertheless, nobody really claims that Britain is not European nor that it is not Western. I don't argue that Russia being European/Western is inevitable, it is perfectly possible for Russia to adopt a Eurasian ideal (or maybe even an Asian ideal in some more wild scenarios - I have some hopes of playing around with aspects of that in my own timeline eventually) and for both sides to reject each other, just that up until as little as around 15 years ago Russia would have been considered a Western country and if things had played out differently since then, still would be.

Before I updated this thread (seeing only the first couple of postings from yesterday), I would have said:
COME ON GUYS, it's true that Putin is the aggressor in Ukraine and is posing his Russia as the counterpole to Westernness, but does that really justify using such a kind of blatant suprematist and racist discourse? I mean, what other group of humans is it presently acceptable to treat this way? You wouldn't post a thread with the title:
"How could Negroes be seen less as slaving animals?"

There's nothing shameful about not being part of the West. I personally admire Russian classical culture, high literature and contemporary science fiction literature, music, dance, space and technological achievements, find Russian history fascinating, and have some close friends who are either Russian or Russian speaking, and I jumped through a whole series of hurdles to learn Russian despite the pandemic and the war. But Russia is not "western" right now in the way that most people would define it, in terms of economics, politics, foreign policy, and arguably culture. That's not automatically bad, even if the direction that the Putin government has taken it in most certainly is. Japan is also not a western country, but people do not mean that as an insult and generally rather admire it.

 

[alexmilman]

To be fair I've seen people say Germany was no longer "western" anymore but a threat to the "West" in Axis Victory scenarios, so I'd say the whole western thing is more ideological than anything else

It is strictly idealogical because otherwise it assumes uniformity of the economic and social development west of the Russian borders (which ones?), which clearly was not the case. Argument that the “west” had some institutions restricting the royal power while the “east” did not, is not quite correct, to put it mildly and probably based upon the assumption that Ivan the Terrible had been ruling the Russian state all the way from mid-XV till the end of the XVII, which was not exactly the case. 😂

BTW, even this seemingly long living tyrant for a part of his reign denounced his title and carved a separate domain for himself. Just for fun? Not exactly. He wanted an absolute power and could not have in the Tsardom because of the institution which was …. err… “restricting the royal power” to a very annoying degree. Not only could not he chose his own generals or appoint the civic administrators, he could not even decide who sits were at his table. He had a power to execute his boyars (so did his English contemporaries, the Tudors toward their subjects and Henry VIII even used the same demagoguery) but he did not have power to make the appointments outside the written set of “regulations” and this applied not just to the members of his Duma but for all more or less prominent noble families. Any attempt to act outside the rules led to a protracted litigation, even in a midst of a war.

Not sure when “liberalism” crept into the picture but, if anything, Russia of the XIX century was full of the liberals and not only among the “elite”, which is never clearly identified, but among the middle class as well (no offense to anybody but, based upon what was posted, one may conclude that all the way to 1917 Russian Empire was populated by two classes: a ‘feudal’ elite and the peasants with nothing in between). Strange as it may sound, even at the time of Nicholas I (absolutist, reactionary and generally a Bad Guy) there were plenty of liberals, including those in the highest institution, the Senate, who openly practiced the fundamental liberal principles. Like Senator Mordvinov who argued that the fact that the marked banknotes had been found in a pocket of an official does not mean that he took a bribe and won the case. For the comparison, in the super-liberal MA in the 1990s two “servants of the people” lost their positions for the similar discoveries. So how much more liberal one could be? 😂

It doesnt matter which nation it is, if it suddenly goes "rogue" with a "rogue" ideology then it is no longer western according to its western neighbours, however if it triumphs over them like America has done(formerly being seen as a rogue republican colony led by insurgent revolutionaries) or like Russia would've done in scenarios where it won the Cold War(or the Russian Empire rules the world) then it suddenly calls the shoots on who can and can not be considered western and part of the so called West as it is a completely arbitrary ideological concept ultimately based on might makes right

You described it quite well. For example, Germany, within the XX century passed through this metamorphosis twice but it probably worth noticing that the Nazi generals in their memoirs tended to describe themselves as the defenders of the “West” against the “hordes” of the Russian barbarians. Well, in support of their claim one may add that most of the countries in continental Europe (the liberal “west”?) contributed to this effort either as the direct allies or by providing of volunteers for the SS units. 😉
OTOH, the remainders of the “west to the west from the west” embraced the “east” (SU snd Kuomintang China) as their allies in a complete disregard to their absence of the liberal values. However, as soon as the war was over, the “west” was redefined again along the lines of the zones of occupation. And then redefined again in the 1990s.
To make the long story short, it is all ideological.

 

[WinRar Archivist]

So to become a western country, Russia has to stop being Russia (Orthodoxy is the main core of Russian identity and autocratic-like political functioning has been the most prevalent in Russia since the 16th century). As for Nationality, do You mean 'nationalism' ? I don't really understand what you mean.

I don't mean to get rid of orthodoxy and nationalism (autocracy can be absolutely done with - Russia will remain Russia without it). I was referring specifically to Tsar Nicholas I "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality" policy.

What I mean is for Russia to stop using the Orthodox Church as a mean of legitimizing political power, as an instrument of control over the population, to separate the State from the Church; what I mean is the introduction of a constitutional monarchy (maybe even a republic) over the almost boundless power of the Tsar; what I mean is abandoning the Russification policy and the concept of the All-Russian nation.

 

[JohnBull]

This is the case

This map is one of the weirdest fandom I've seen. I wonder how a person described as himself as a historian was brave enough to put this forward.

 

[JohnBull]

Simple. Forget all that "West" nonsense and let Russia be its own country. Not embracing American definitions of "the West" and re-acknowledging the fact that Europe exists and Russia is part of it.

Expanding: Personally this has reminded me of the similar threads about how Japan is a strange and totally foreign entity to the West towards which equally similar ideas are poured.

I would say that a similar response is most appropriate in this case, which would basically be that Russia would need to take a break from Western ideas.

In the case of Japan what we see is that they try to be Western, while Russia is already in the phase of "Oh what the hell, trying to be Western is a waste of time. Those idiots are never going to accept us no matter what we do."

West was a term used to replace Europe/Christendom when "Europe" was no longer confined to its original continent and turned Americas/Siberia/Oceania into its mere extension.

However, for some reason, in Anglophone countries the term that was used to describe a 2,000 year/long civilization was rebranded to describe the United States and its vassal states post WWII. That's why we have those weird discussion on whether Argentina is not "West" but Taiwan or Papua New Guinea are.

 

[Siberian Tiger]

Greece does not have a large population of Asiatics. Its the combination of both that pushes Russia further east in the minds of the western powers

Precisely. Greece is more conventionally western than the other Orthodox states, not just because it is descended directly from the progenitors of western civilization but also because historically, the modern day state of Greece has been used as a springboard for European intervention in the Balkans, from the contributions Europe made to defeat the Ottomans in the name of reclaiming their cultural ancestry (and freeing it from the sick man of Europe) to its service as a launchpoint for the attempted liberation of the Balkans to even its present status one of the nations most heavily dependent on the bailouts of the European Union.

This may be controversial but I don't consider Ancient Greece and Rome to be western.

 

[Siberian Tiger]

Have Russia adopt Catholicism.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Have the rest of Europe remaining Orthodox

 

[Aluma]

Have the rest of Europe remaining Orthodox

Finally, someone has said it
You can close the thread now admin!
We peaked here

 

[Polish Eagle]

Have the rest of Europe remaining Orthodox

Orthodox Christian wishes on monkey's paw that the Pope had not committed heresy in the 11th century

Finger curls

Europe now dominated by Old Believers and Skoptsy

 

[Rhymehouse]

Have Russia adopt Catholicism.

Poland is Catholic, yet few people consider it a Western country (especially pre-EU Poland). A Catholic Russia with the same history wouldn't be any more Western European than Chile is.

 

[AllthetTropesMan]

This may be controversial but I don't consider Ancient Greece and Rome to be western.

Do you consider them to proto-western then, like a training model? Or do you simply think their impact on the present day west is somehow overstated?

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Poland is Catholic, yet few people consider it a Western country (especially pre-EU Poland). A Catholic Russia with the same history wouldn't be any more Western European than Chile is.

Tho the reason Poland often isn't considered western is that Germans didn't like it, that's the main source making up propaganda about Poles as "Asians" (meanwhile they have a lot more German blood than they have Asian one), catholic Rus' and later catholic Russia wouldn't need to have the same level of animosity with Germans as Poland had.

 

[JohnBull]

Poland is Catholic, yet few people consider it a Western country (especially pre-EU Poland). A Catholic Russia with the same history wouldn't be any more Western European than Chile is.

Chile is a bit closer to Western Europe than Poland though. Things like language or overall social attitudes which is expected being a direct offshoot of an Western European country.

 

[Polish Eagle]

, that's the main source making up propaganda about Poles as "Asians" (meanwhile they have a lot more German blood than they have Asian one)

Sarmatists in shambles right now.

 

[Kronistry]

I don't mean to get rid of orthodoxy and nationalism (autocracy can be absolutely done with - Russia will remain Russia without it). I was referring specifically to Tsar Nicholas I "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality" policy.

What I mean is for Russia to stop using the Orthodox Church as a mean of legitimizing political power, as an instrument of control over the population, to separate the State from the Church; what I mean is the introduction of a constitutional monarchy (maybe even a republic) over the almost boundless power of the Tsar; what I mean is abandoning the Russification policy and the concept of the All-Russian nation.

These reforms would liberalize Russia, not westernize it. If you think that limiting the sovereign's authority, the Church's power and giving up the idea of national uniformity are the main characteristics of Western countries, then Spain was not part of the West until the 1980's, nor Germany up until 1945 and France is still not a western country because giving everyone the same cultural and national identity (a thing called assimiliation) is still the current politic. However, following your Logic, the medieval Islamic Kingdom of Al-Andalus (modern day Spain) was western (a very decentralized administration with a sovereign with limited power and a strong religious and cultural tolerance even regarding the Jews).
If You want to westernize a country, you'll have to make it adopt Catholicism or Protestantism (or at least their main cultural features) and make it follow the legal principles inherited by the Roman Empire and make it integrate philisophical principles coming from Ancient Greece, not transform it into a liberal, multicultural Democracy.

 

[AllthetTropesMan]

West was a term used to replace Europe/Christendom when "Europe" was no longer confined to its original continent and turned Americas/Siberia/Oceania into its mere extension.

However, for some reason, in Anglophone countries the term that was used to describe a 2,000 year/long civilization was rebranded to describe the United States and its vassal states post WWII. That's why we have those weird discussion on whether Argentina is not "West" but Taiwan or Papua New Guinea are.

Hit the nail on the head honestly. As I put down before, the west is simply an overlapping series of alliances between the major powrs of that bloc. Where we disagree though is for how long that's been the case.

 

[Fratsup]

I would say ancient Greece and Rome would not be considered western by most peoples sensibilities considering how different they were in terms of ideology and practices.

 

[WinRar Archivist]

These reforms would liberalize Russia, not westernize it. If you think that limiting the sovereign's authority, the Church's power and giving up the idea of national uniformity are the main characteristics of Western countries, then Spain was not part of the West until the 1980's, nor Germany up until 1945 and France is still not a western country because giving everyone the same cultural and national identity (a thing called assimiliation) is still the current politic. However, following your Logic, the medieval Islamic Kingdom of Al-Andalus (modern day Spain) was western (a very decentralized administration with a sovereign with limited power and a strong religious and cultural tolerance even regarding the Jews).
If You want to westernize a country, you'll have to make it adopt Catholicism or Protestantism (or at least their main cultural features) and make it follow the legal principles inherited by the Roman Empire and make it integrate philisophical principles coming from Ancient Greece, not transform it into a liberal, multicultural Democracy.

These reforms will stop Russia from being perceived as a backwards tyranny. Being "Western" is a matter of perception as much as a matter of reality.

They are pretty much the first step in Westernization not the totality.

And I doubt that Russia needs to become Catholic or Protestant (do you consider Latin America Western ?) , but removing the structures of power between Church and State will do wonders towards Russia becoming less Orthodox.

The only way for Russia to become Catholic is to subject the Moscow Patriarchy to the Holy See based on full comunion according to the principles of the Council of Florence - preferably during the reign of Ivan lll, and then Latinise the Church during the following centuries while creating Jesuit schools across Russia.

 

[JohnBull]

These reforms will stop Russia from being perceived as a backwards tyranny. Being "Western" is a matter of perception as much as a matter of reality.

(...)

Whose perception?