Kamil Galeev [@kamilkazani] さんの連ツイより
※参考図書
Eric Nelson『The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding』
You could add Russia to the list. Strange it may sound, its pattern of expansion was similar. Except it was potamic rather than oceanic. In this respect it kinda resembled Portugues expansion in what is now Brazil. And yes, Russia struggled to go far away from the rivers, too https://t.co/XcB37JUvrD
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
Consider the map of Russian admiralties till 1680-1800s. Some of them look "logical" being located at the cost, like in St Petersburg or Arkhangelsk. But Kazan or Voronezh are deep inland. They would build ships there and then go down the river to the sea. Irkutsk is even better pic.twitter.com/R4qvWcgggw
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
Irkutsk admiralty didn't build ships. But it prepared all the equipment & components for the Okhotsk shipyard. It was a very northern Okhotsk that was the initial Russian stronghold on the Pacific. Alaska was colonised from there. What is now Vladivostok was annexed only in 1850s pic.twitter.com/DLmFjGg462
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
That's a very sketchy map of how Russian transport routes changed over time. It reflects the general trend of Russia going south. Older centres of population and economy were situated much further north than they lie now. That happened in Siberia with the Transsiberian railway pic.twitter.com/P0GCnw5clD
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
European Russia used to be a much more northern country, too. Consider a single parameter – a number of households from provincial cities who paid the musketeers tax in 1682-1683. That doesn't reflect the population numbers but may kinda reflect the size of the middle class pic.twitter.com/zmS4Uvy0QZ
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
Until 1700s Pomorye, literally the "land by the sea" located by the White Sea and the Arctic Ocean was by far the richest and the most commercial part of Russia. Then the St Petersburg was founded and Peter I prohibited foreign trade through Pomorye, so it gradually declined pic.twitter.com/WipcpIOLkJ
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
Pomor people are the exception being the only originally seafaring culture the Russia had. They were indeed sea going and ocean going people. Russia however was super potamic and overwhelmingly relied on rivers as the means of communications. At least till the railways were built pic.twitter.com/dXUgwuBYER
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
What is important to understand is that historically since at least 1600 Russia has been going south, with its demographic and economic centre shifting closer and closer to equator. But back then it was *expanding* south, expanding not only geographically but also demographically pic.twitter.com/msjakfOKO0
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
Now Russia is shrinking. It's ageing and depopulating. But it is depopulating unevenly. The North, Siberia and the Far East are getting empty with people leaving en masse, while Krasnodar is the fastest growing city not only in Russia but possibly in Europe. Russia's moving south pic.twitter.com/RbX49Wnf7q
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
That makes total sense. First, climate. Siberia is hard to live in. Yes, it has tons of resources and industry, but with Moscow taking everything, it keeps Siberia in poverty. As a result people are voting with legs and moving to the warmer places. Like the Black Sea coast pic.twitter.com/gpwL15ciuN
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
Second, logistics. Most all of Russian trade is being done via seaports located in only three regions – St Petersburg, Vladivostok and Krasnodar. Three points of access to the relatively warm seas that Russia has. And Krasnodar is the warmest of all. It's usually not freezing pic.twitter.com/M7TfPbJQaO
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
No wonder that now most of Russian internal migrants go to one of three centres. It's either Moscow, St Petersburg or Krasnodar. While Moscow and St Petersburg are old imperial centres and Moscow is super unsustainable, being a geographic anomaly, Krasnodar grows naturally pic.twitter.com/k9JPMqMQeN
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
Siberia getting empty, Russia is shrinking southwest. In this context war with Ukraine makes sense. It lies too close to new Russian demographic and economic centres. Indeed, Krasnodar & Rostov interest groups are major beneficiaries and supporters of this war. They're doing well pic.twitter.com/N4Xrz01Y4V
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
Two conclusions. First, policy makers hoping to use Russia against China may be delusional. The war in Europe is natural with Russia shrinking southwest. Conflict with China though would be unnatural. The rule of Moscow depopulates Siberia leaving it empty. No ground for conflict
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
With the demographic and economic centres shifting southwest, Southwest has too powerful interest groups, which Moscow now has to negotiate with. Which is not the case with Siberia. Krasnodar has way more saying in Kremlin than any Siberian region
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
Second. Many presume that the disintegration of Russia should it take place, will start with some ethnic republics. I don't think so. It will probably start in one of these ones. The end of🧵 pic.twitter.com/DPwJC7J3To
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 16, 2022
Great question. You see, many scenarios that kinda seem plausible ("Dagestan Rebellion") are unlikely to happen exactly because they're just too foreseeable. Muslim rebellion in Caucasus seems plausible not only to you, but also to Kremlin. So it took certain precautions (not🧵) https://t.co/TxdLTLKhsx
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
Regarding Dagestan, Kremlin identified potentially disloyal settlements. Such as Gimry for example. At the entrance to any of them they put a checkpoint with an armoured vehicle standing there 24/7. They check documents, don't allow any outsiders and kinda show they keep control pic.twitter.com/HHvi0sA6qV
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
To my best knowledge, they tended to put the National Guard from Tatarstan to guard potentially disloyal settlements in Dagestan. Kinda control Muslims with Muslims. These guys stand at the most risky positions, but overall Dagestan was full of federal forces when I visited it
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
Scenario of rebellion on the ethnic periphery seems plausible to the government. It took so many precautions against it and is monitoring the situation so closely, that I estimate a possibility of (somewhat successful) rebellion there as nearly zero. It's very well controlled
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
I think that the disintegration of Russia should it take place, gonna start in predominantly Russian regions. And ofc it won't do anything with the "popular rebellion", more with the separatism of the interest groups, once they find that being in Russia doesn't pay off anymore
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
I think that many analysts focus on wrong stuff, when discussing the political situation in Russia. Like "How many people support Putin?" or even worse "How many people in X. region want independence?". That's absolutely irrelevant. Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
The thing to understand about complex sociopolitical processes is that they happen by iterations. Agenda, goals, views change on every iteration. On iteration 1 almost nobody has any idea where it all gonna lead. Almost everyones gets it wrong, including the political leadership
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
The question "How many people support independence?" implies that first you build the consensus for it and then based on this consensus you pursue a policy for it. But that's not how it happens in reality. In reality the process takes many iterations
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
Consider the American Revolution. In the beginning, those who wanted to separate from the Great Britain for real were probably a tiny minority. To the contrary, most leaders and most Founding Fathers strongly believed in the British monarchy until almost the very end pic.twitter.com/Oy2DoVs06V
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
It was the British parliament that was seen as the true enemy. In 1774 Thomas Jefferson advocated for *increasing* the royal power over parliament. During the war members of Continental Congress addressed their lobster enemies as the "Ministerial Army" or the "Parliament Troops" pic.twitter.com/GN4Txy4hXc
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
Radicalisation of the American protest happened *during* the revolutionary war, after so many blood was spilled and all American attempts for reconciliation such as https://t.co/LehAFDdZKr rejected by their beloved Sovereign. Only then Founding Fathers turned away from the king
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
That doesn't necessarily mean that they all were sincerely loyal to the British monarchy. It just means that they were hesitant to break up with the British Empire till almost the very end. Declaring loyalty for the king = we don't want to cut the ways for reconciliation
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
In the course of war the Founding Fathers did indeed radicalise. And they adopted much of the English radical agenda and mythology. Jefferson suggested putting on the Great Seal of the U.S.
1. Children of Israel (= Christianity)
2. Hengist and Horsa (= English radicalism) pic.twitter.com/ItmlvXGP0x— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
Saxon England played a special role in the historical imagination of the English radicals. Since the 17th c. they would picture the Saxon England as kinda egalitarian and democratic society destroyed by the Norman invasion. Monarchy = continuation of the Normans pic.twitter.com/lAdnrM7qkh
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
This racialisation of political divisions occasionally continued for very long. As late as in 1911, a pamphlet of the last Liberal government questioned "Who shall rule: Briton or Norman?", painting the southern Tory strongholds as "Normans"https://t.co/4Z4bpKZekL
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022
By the end of the war Jefferson and Paine already acted within the old tradition of English radicalism, portraying the monarchy as the foreign Norman institution imposed upon the freedom-loving Saxon race. That meant they indeed were ready to break with the monarchy. The end
— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) July 17, 2022