Builder, Benefactor, Scapegoat of France's Golden Age - Why History Constantly Repeats These Three Stages of Grows, Peak and Fall

Analysing history, one can notice that a certain patterns keeps repeating themselves over and over again in the same sequence over the course of time. A while ago I wrote about lifecycle of countries, how they are born, grown, reach peak, then grow stagnant and stale on top, then decline and finally die over the course of time that is approximately 9 to 10 longer than human life.

This time around I will write about different, but related cycle, that I dubbed Winner, Loser, Scapegoat. First stage, the Winner, is where someone one way or another discovers a certain winning formula and successfully applies it to achieve a lot. Second Stage, the Loser, is where successor or successors, confident in effectiveness of the formula, continue to apply it until they literary lose everything. Followed by, the Scapegoat, where at the bottom of the barrel someone is put in charge of the unfixable mess only to become a scapegoat for its ultimate failure.

To being with a history of France. Its easier to understand because here each stage is represented by exactly one monarch. They are in this order Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI, even numbered sequentially.

Louis XIV the Builder

Nowadays Louis XIV, the Sun King, is mostly remembered for two things, building a luxurious Versailles Palace and saying "etat, c'est moi" which means "I am the state". He is symbol of autocratic absolutist rule, monarchial excess, lucury and priviledge. Looking at him now its easy to think that royal life is easy and you will be very lucky to be born one. That is misleading however and even downright incorrect if you look at his life closer.

Louis XIV reign begun when he still was a child. At the time France was literary tearing itself apart in a seamlessly never-ending civil war over religion and other things. However he managed to turn things around.

Historians write a lot about absolutism or efforts of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin as well as his mother Anne of Austria, even though French prosperity not only continued but only grew in even after they were gone. Historians however fail to notice the real source of Louis XIV success and power, money, that was the real foundation for his absolutist rule. Read my separate article about it. 

Louis XIV and his associates and advisers build a system that turned France from unmitigated dumpster fire into a pre-eminent power in Europe, similar to what USA is today. Foundations to this system were money that came from two main sources, Medici Bank controlled by famous Medici family of Tuscan Grand Dukes, who first became bankers before they they became rulers of first Florentine Republic and later transformed it into a Grand Duchy.

If you ever wonder, the Austrians, French major geopolitical rival also had wealthy bankers backing them. Bankers are the secret sauce of success.

However money by themselves is no guarantee of success as was later shown buy Louis XIV successor, Louis XV. Money has to be invested property to produce even more money. The biggest source of money back in the days were silver mines in Spanish New World, that made Spain a a wealthiest nation in Europe, something Louis XIV managed to usurp from them by the end of his reign. To get a share of that wealth Louis XIV invested heavily in piracy, yes piracy. French colony of Tortuga would provide pirates all across the Caribbean with a safe heaven to restock supplies, repair ships and hire crew all in exchange for a fraction of the wealth they plundered. Read more in my article about piracy. Some pirates, or corsairs to be precise, made big plundering Spanish, some failed but the biggest winner of it all was French Crown who organized the whole thing.

Then there was war. Louis XIV loved war and, just like famous Carolus Rex, personally led his troops in battle. Unlike Carolus Rex, Louis XIV is not known ingenious tactical exploits and victories against all odds. There is nothing to interest military historians in a crashing defeat of Bishopric of Strasbourg by combined force of Prussian and French armies. 

However, what Louis XIV lacked in tactical genius he compensated with strategic provenness. His approach was simple, fight countries that has money and no army, brilliantly simple and supremely effective. Luckily for him Holy Roman Empire on French eastern borders had a few countries just like that. Holy Roman Emperor who lost a lot of authority due to Peace of Westphalia, was no longer willing to protect these little states and France took full advantage of that fact. Before Peace of Westphalia, during 30 Years War, France actually spent a lot of money to make sure Emperor loses the war. An investment they managed to recoup in the wars that followed.

Finally, to avoid wars dragging out and waste money, Louis XIV would use his money to hire proven professionals. During 30 Years War, French at various point supported Danes, Swedes, Prussians and Saxons against The Emperor. That war left France with a list of trusted contacts who knew how to fight and win. Swedes and Prussians together with Swiss mercenaries became the spearheads of French aggression. French alliance with them kept French domination over Europe.

Thanks to that Louis XIV managed to make war profitable and made money every time he went to war. At a pinnacle of his military career he went for the biggest jackpot of them all, the entire Spanish Crown, including their silver producing colonies no less. With some compromises here and there he managed to win it for his grandson and died just a couple of years later.

All of the above made Louis XIV very powerful but also fabulously wealthy, he used that wealth to build Palace of Versailles and many other things. He invited nobles to live with him in Versailles to keep an eye on them and make sure they do not rebel, solving the Fronde problem of his youth.

All in all at the end of Louis XIV reign France had it all, unlimited power, ridiculous amounts of wealth, fame, clot culture, powerful allies and best armies out there. It would be inconceivable to think that a successor to Louis XIV would somehow manage to lose it all and make France an even worse dumpster fire than it was before Louis XIV, yet Louis XV managed just that.

Louis XV, the Benefactor

Louis XV is known as Le Bien-Aime, the beloved. That is because it was his successor Louis XVI who had to face the consequence of his predecessor's years of misrule. To contemporaries and even some historians Louis XV was the beloved one.

To be fair contemporaries had all the reasons to love Louis XV. He not only lived the dream life in the world his predecessor created. He enjoyed the wealth and shared it and the lifestyle it provided with the court around him. It's under him that French court could really reap the rewards of the efforts of Louis XIV. 

Among other things Louis indulged himself in romance with women, Madame de Pompadour (actual person even if such a name sound like a frivolous invention of a romance writer) was one of his extrametrical love interests, possibly a reason for his moniker 'beloved'. People both loved and hated him for that. Women loved him for his virility meanwhile men like Frederick the Great snidely quipped that his greyhounds are his Madame the Pompadour.

Louis XV lived life of excess and because of that historians like to negatively compare him to his predecessor, blaming it all on him. Such differences were superficial however, daily life of Louis XV maybe differed from that of his Louis XIV, but when it came to governance and important things Louis XV did just as Louis XIV did. Just like the Sun King, Louis XV had his own cardinals as chief ministers, who in turn placed capable people in charge of different affairs of the state. However, where Richelieu and Mazarin succeeded, Fleury did not. That raises the question why? Were mistakes made and who made them?

Mistakes were certainly made, particularly in form of alliance with Austria against Prussia. However the biggest issue was not in these mistakes. Louis XIV made mistakes too and recovered from them, why Louis XV could not do the same?  The answer is the fact that reality around him has changed so much. Because of that doing all the same things his predecessor did, yielded Louis XV completely different result.

So, what did change? Actually, all of it, pretty much everything that build fortune for Louis XIV suddenly and rather abruptly ended for his successor due to no fault of his own. However, everyone, not just Louis XV, was too rich and indulgent in their enjoyment of the wealth to notice the problem until it was too late.

To begin with Golden Age of Piracy, through which Louis XIV made a lot of money to finance nearly all he was famous for, came to an end and it was entirely Louis XIV own doing. War of Spanish succession resulted in French Bourbons taking Spanish throne from their rival Habsburgs, a great success and pinnacle of Louis XIV great war efforts and at the same time foundation for all future ills that befell France in the coming 17th century. 

When Habsburgs ruled Spain, France supported Tortuga corsairs in their plunder of Spanish Treasure fleet, because stealing from rivals was all good and no drawbacks. However, when a grandson of a French king took Spanish throne, that suddenly became a problem. Tortuga Piracy suddenly became stealing from relatives and potentially weakening their grip on Spanish crown. Habsburgs have not given up on regaining Spain one day so help new Bourbon Spanish King, his French grandfather closed corsair shop on Tortuga. Corsairs did not take well to this change at all. They moved to Bahamas and continued their plunder just as before, but this time without paying French crown any tax on what they plunder and now also targeting French own shipping. Several decades of joint naval effort was needed to finally put them down, that cost a lot of money and naval lives. 

End of Golden Age of Piracy was a big financial loss for French Crown. It was also very ungrateful towards people who helped build all this French prosperity, as ungrateful as Putin's regime is towards businessmen of 90s who helped build Russia he now rules. However the worst thing was of course loss of revenue corsairs used to bring into treasury. However value of Spanish Crown outweigh these considerations in the eyes of French court. Back then they had other sources of revenue, like Medici money and financial expertise and war for wealthy Low Countries Provinces in Holy Roman Empire.

Out of these two sources, Medici dynasty died out in mid 18th century and even if cadet branch of bourbons inherited their Grand Duchy of Tuscany, by that time Grand Duchy was bankrupt and could no longer support France financially.

Finally, there was war, that used to pay. Here they fucked up eventually. It worked until it did not. Diplomatic revolution led to France having to fight an "army with a country" and no money instead of a country with money and no army.  Not to mention France used to be allied to Prussians so they should have known better how good these solders are.

Nowadays in retrospect it is easy to say it was a mistake but back then it did not look so bad. On the other hand the alliance did outnumbered Prussians significantly, Prussians were good soldiers but it was always a secondary power and client state of France, how well it could fair against its former master? France was promised Austrian Netherlands (modern Belgium) in exchange for helping Austrians with Silesia, a financially and territorially sound deal. Overall it was not too far fetched to expect a fast victory, that somehow always slipped away further and further but somehow was always within striking distance to keep chasing it. Fate was playing tricks with France.

7 years of that could not have led to anything good and it did not, money was spent and nothing was gained as a result. They did not won, Austria did not regained Silesia so it refused to hand over Austrian Netherlands too. France wasted money, lost territories in India and Americas and gained nothing but debt.

As you can see, Louis XV was not as bad as they make him out to be, but luck was not on his side. All ingredients of success that dependent on him were still there, he did the same things his predecessor did, but results were not the same. Why? Because reality have changed and methods that worked in the past, stopped working in the new evolved conditions. 

Louis XVI, The Scapegoat

By the time Louis XVI have taken over, things already looked grim. Half of original French Louisiana and lucrative Indian outposts were lost by his 'beloved' predecessor. France was loosing money. What did he do about it, the same thing The Sun King would have done, went to war. The result, like The Sun King, Louis XIV, Louis XVI won. Unlike the former however, he failed to capitalise on it due to sheer misfortune and that bankrupted his government, he ended up being guillotined during French Revolution.

Fate gave Louis XVI a chance that in certain regards looked surprisingly like the event that kickstarted whole French prosperity in the first place. 30 Years' War where French determined support for opponents of Holy Roman Emperor's opponents paid off in the end in the form of Peace of Westphalia. French ended up mediating that peace deal and it shaped it into something that ended up benefitting them immensely through weakened Holy Roman Empire that pave way for future French conquests in the east. Before Peace of Westphalia Alsace, Lorraine and a few other areas used to be part of HRE and in the years after they became French. Could a lucky break give Louis XVI a similar event where some other rebel will emerge out of vast holdings of some rival empire at French borders? 

Such an event did indeed emerge and it was famous American Revolutionary War for independence from the UK. France went on full in, supporting the Americans until they won. Afterwards they invited both parties to Paris to sign the peace and even drafted a peace treaty that immensely benefitted themselves. To avoid too much deliberation or alteration on the terms they showed Americans draft of what they wanted them to sign only a day before the actual signing ceremony. One can say they did all they could to make it a success. 

What happened next have shattered all their hopes and sealed their grim future. In a single day Americans managed to negotiate a better deal with British directly and next day signed it instead. Instead of regaining east Louisiana and extensive protectorate rights on native tribes, as French draft outlined, French got nothing. They spent money and effort helping out Americans but got nothing in return.

Louis XIV played it by the book, but somehow results were different. Some ingredients were missing. What went wrong?

Perhaps somehow Americans and/or the British and their mentality was different from Germans when it comes to deals? They were willing to talk with opponent directly. That particularly applied to the British, who instead of scorning the Americans as ungrateful and disloyal for rebelling against British rule, decided its better to listen to them and got a better deal as a result.

Possibly undue overtness of French own benefits set them off. France did not gain much explicitly in Peace of Westphalia, benefits came from sort of unforeseen circumstances as well as gains made by French allies. After loosing much of his former authority over princes of Holy Roman Empire, Austrian Emperors no longer saw them as maybe wayward, but parts of him country and no longer cared if some of them got nibbed by the French. In contrast French draft of Treaty of Paris was overtly beneficial to France, too overtly to not alert other signatories.

A Balance of Power principle, later documented in Congress of Vienna. A coalition effect (Rooting for underdog effect). Chinese may call it Curse of Heaven as this is more or less inversion of their Mandate of Heaven. 

Back before Peace of Westphalia Holy Roman Empire was seen as the preeminent power in Europe militarily and diplomatically (financially it was Spain that was not so coincidentally ruled by Habsburgs just as HRE was). France was but a little state on the fringes of that Empire, surrounded by Habsburg holdings on all sides. Back before peace of Westphalia most of Europe feared power of Holy Roman Emperor and were willing to aid his opponents no matter who they were, to create balance of power and avoid hegemony or any single state and/or ruler. Since then, however France have usurped this status from HRE and now this Balance of Power Principle worked against them in favour of their weaker opponents.

Just sheer luck or lack of it in this case. No one in their sane mind could have predicted that negotiations to end American Revolutionary War will end up this way. Only looking at that in retrospect does this outcome seem natural, back then hardly anyone would have bet on United States lasting two decades as an independent state, much less becoming a global superpower, it is now. Back then people would only bet on whether it will be UK or France who will annex them in the end.

In view of the above, one should ask if it's really fair to blame Louis XVI for all the bad consequences such as French Revolution. Was not he but a helpless victim of the tides of history beyond his control who did all he could, but it was not enough to change the ultimate fate of France.

Fundamentally, even if he could foresee all the outcomes, what could he have done differently to avoid such a fate. Avoid helping Americans in their War for Independence? That would not have erased consequences of 7 Years War however or French decline that have already started. Ultimately decline would have still resulted in revolution, because no one wants to go with less. Years of prosperity under Louis XV gave French people standards of living that was simply impossible to maintain. There was no path to victory, only several alternative path towards the ultimate collapse.

An Ever-Repeating Pattern.

The above narrative, Story of Three Louis-es, is but a one example of this same pattern repeating itself over and over again. Take for example capitalism of 19th and 20th centuries, that increasingly face the same problems, France faced before the revolution. 

In 19th century capitalism, was growing and booming like France under The Sun King, Louis XIV. All sorts of new factories were built, new cheaper and better commodities became available, it was growth all around that gradually build the world as we now know it, just like the Sun King build French prosperity together with his Palace of Versailles.

That was followed by the Golden Age, that includes both Gilded Age of 1920s with Art Deco skyscrapers, trains, jazz and many more, as well as post WWII prosperity with large cars and suburban homes. It was like Louis XV era.

Finally, it is no followed by a decline of Louis XVI where people in charge did all they could by the book created by the original capitalists of 19th century but fail to get the same results.

Collapse of USSR was capitalism own French Revolution and Wild 90s were an attempt to build a new system in a revolutionary chaos.

That was preceded by various attempts to somehow fix the system in 80s, just like Louis XVI ministers tried to somehow fix all of France's ills immediately prior to the revolution.

Currently we are somewhere close to the end of Bourbon Restoration, where attempt to put it all back how it was before French Revolution was abruptly ended by July Revolution.

Fundamentals between these two seamlessly unrelated eras are also similar. Just like Louis XIV made money with his wars and Tortuga corsairs, early capitalism actually created value, new goods and methods of productions were actually better. It was not just paper secondary economy that was booming but actual primary one. It was not just an improvement on paper, actual value was created and brought into the system.

The Golden Age was but an era of spending and enjoyment, with occasional pitfalls here and there. It was so good, no one could care less for some petty details like primary economy. People of Guilded Age partied like no tomorrow, just like courtiers of Louis XV. Strong believe that this system is so solid, nothing could ever take it down, was the dominant thought of both eras.

Finally late 20th century was like reign of Louis XIV doing all the right thing by the book but somehow getting different results. One might say Cola Wars was the same kind of death-kneel war for capitalism, like American War for Independence or 7 Years War was for French power. A lot of money was spent not on creating new and better value but merely on an attempt to steal this value from a competing corporation. A tug of war not dissimilar to struggle over lucrative lands of Silesia or equally lucrative American colonies. Nonetheless no matter how lucrative these lands are, they produce the finite number of resources and what one power have gained is something the other lost. In the same way struggle for equally finite cola market is not creating of new value but merely attempt by one megacorporation to steal from another what is essentially a finite market than can only produce finite revenue.

In contrast capitalism of 19th century created new markets by introducing new goods. Not dissimilar to how Tortuga corsairs brought new money into French economy. Fundamentally Spanish Treasure Fleets brought this value into Europe, French corsairs just redistributed it. However fundamentally value was coming from without.

However, all this money spent on Cola Wars and similar competition efforts for finite markers, had to be recouped somehow. Just like money spent on 7 Years War and American Revolutionary War. Thus a Financial Crisis of 2008 and several others of its kind, were the price we all paid for money wasted by the capitalists on their competition.

I am not endorsing socialism or the like, as fundamentally its but a opposite side of the same capitalist coin. However, a new socio-economic system for modern times is certainly long overdue.

As a General Principle

There are always 3 key stages, that are: the builder, the benefactor, the scapegoat. Alternatively, you may call them: growth, peak, fall or winner, loser, scapegoat as I originally wanted to title this article. 

In astrology there are always three signs between cardinal points, marking solstices and equinoxes and dividing the circle into four equal sectors. Each sector consists of exactly 3 signs, the first of which is cardinal, followed by a fixed and finally a mutable one. This trio is not dissimilar to the pattern I outlined in my article. A cardinal sign creates a system, a fixed one flourishes through it and finally a mutable one presides over collapse and gives way for a transformation for a new system to emerge. Roles played the three Louis-es during French hegemony and yet again repeated in the capitalism era.

In astrology these principles repeated again and again over the same never-ending cycle. However, there are 12 signs in total, that means the same pattern repeats itself four times in a somewhat different manner, before it gets back to the same point where it all begun. In real life, era of French hegemony of three Louis-es was replaced with British hegemony and capitalism that went through the same 3 stages as French hegemony. And before French hegemony there was Spanish and Portuguese and Ottoman hegemony, that was different from French one. However, we can go all the way back towards previous British hegemony under Normans and Plantagenets, sometimes informally called Angevin Empire. 

After something finally fails, we try something different. By the time we have tried four different things all repeating the same stages of growth, peak and fall, we long forgotten how it all begun and start anew with that thing. Why world works this way is everyone's guess. However, each system has its lifespan, after which it exhausts itself and demands change. 

Perhaps that is due to the fact that people in charge, no matter who they are, grow increasingly more and more demanding and oppressive until eventually people have enough of their bullshit and unite to take them down. When people had enough of Ottoman's abuses and domination, they helped Russia, kicked them down a peg. Now that world is tired of Russian abuses and hegemony, it is now helping Ukraine kick down Russia. So, life goes in circles.

However, it's probably not true that nothing changes at all, and everything repeats at infinite. It's more of a spiral where each new turn of a cycle is on a higher floor than the previous one, a spiral of 4 sectors, each 3 stages long, just like four seasons, each 3 month long, is how world moves on towards its future.

How Absolutism Really Worked

Nowadays certain pundits extol alleged virtues of autocracy and absolute rule by a dictator. They however fail to realise that such an absolutist autocratic rule is merely an illusion, perpetrated by those who do not understand how things really work.

To explain how absolutism worked I will use example of absolutist rule in France. 16th and 17th century French monarchs known to have ruled as absolutist monarch who never called parliament and made all decisions himself. While this indeed happened the reason for this was not that somehow people back then were more accepting of autocratic rule and certainly not because French rulers were somehow strong or charismatic to rally people behind them. Far from it, the reason for such an autocratic rule was money.

To begin I need to explain roots of parliamentary power. Parliament or Estates General in French in their original Medieval form had power to raise money authorize expenditure, that is it. Parliament never controlled what King can or cannot do, but it had power to either pay for it or not. That gradually evolved into a power to control the King only because things cost money and without parliament paying for any of it, king could not afford anything.

King had power to call parliament, still a ceremonial thing in British Parliamentary system. However, during Middle Ages such calls were not ceremonial, but very often of Kings own private initiative. King did it not out of kindness of his heart and love for democracy and parliamentarism but entirely due to the fact that he ran out of money and now has to ask for more.

Deliberation on whether all present in parliament should chip in and take their own money out of their own purses to bail out their King went just as smooth as one would expect. Neither side liked it but there was nothing they could do about it. The civilians needed King and his knights, later his military, to protect them from Vikings, bandits and other such problems and King needed money.

Negotiations in Parliament were terce. King would get their way more often than not, but not always completely without consequences. For example, British gradually extracted concession on governance and use of the money they provide for the king. That gradually led towards Parliamentary rule in UK and British democracy.

Most Kings wanted to be rid of this onerous task of parlaying for money, but most could not. The only way out of it was finding alternative source of money. 

One such source was a credit from wealthy bankers like Italian Medici. Medici's money was the real source of French absolutism, together with profits from Tortuga Corsairs (as I explained in a separate article), plunder in numerous wars and reparations from defeated opponents. Flushed with cash from all these money streams, Louis XIV could easily ignore Estates General, proclaim etat c'est moi and rule as absolutist monarch without pesky parliaments or democracy. People like it too, but not because they were enamoured with how strong or beautiful Louis XIV or had some love for a "strong hand" or the like. What they liked is the fact that King stopped begging them for money and they now get to keep more of it for themselves.

However, absolutist French fortunes did not last forever, when Golden Age of Piracy ended and profits from Corsairs with it, Medici died out and few unsuccessful wars drained coffers on supporting soldiers instead of brining much needed loot, King had no choice but call back that pesky parliament and beg for money.

French people who according to some historical pundit "love their king and will never go parliamentary like British did" of course understood the urgent need to bail out their king with their contribution. Just kidding, it resulted in French Revolution and beheading of the King. Looking back some historians call Louis XVI who was forced to call parliament a weak and ineffective King, that is however completely misses financial reality of the matter and the fact that his predecessor squandered wealth in 7 Years War, due to being stupid, more on that in another article. By the time Louis XVI got reigns, it was already too late to fix anything, he was but a scapegoat.

The above money principle works as a general rule from places like nearby Britain all the way to Ancient Rome. British Charles I was beheaded by parliament because he was poor and in need of cash to support his standing army and tried to extract money from them without their consent, bypassing parliamentary rules. Louis XIV could rule as absolute monarch because he had enough money without need to recourse from collecting from citizens/subjects. Meanwhile Louis XVI lost his head like Charles I because he too had no money like Charles I and also wanted to collect from citizens. Even Julius Caesar back in Ancient Rome managed to become an absolute ruler only because he has massive wealth he plundered from Gauls in his Gallic campaigns. Absolutist rule of Roman Emperors only continued for as long as there were still Gauls to plunder and when they run out of Gauls the entire system collapsed together with Roman Empire itself. People who say barbarians destroyed Rome simply do not understand how economy, and, by extension, world, works.

You can even explain Nazis with this. Germans supported Hitler not because they love war or autocratic rule by a strongman, but because he promised Germans Jewish money, Polish land and slave labourers to work it all. References to Rome in Nazi symbolism are not coincidental either, Caesar did not treat conquered Gauls any better than Nazis treated those in concentration camps. Hitler was clearly imitating Caesar's economic model.

Even current economic woes can be explained with exact the same principle. Capitalist system sources of wealth started running dry, so it fails to pay its stakeholders their due and now seeks to prop itself up at expense of the bottom tier of society, much like Louis XVI tried to do after a several ill-conceived wars run his treasury dry. More on it in a separate article.

Why Iran Holds Out Much Longer Compared to Venezuela and How the US can Win This War

 

We began 2026 with a rather groundbreaking announcement. The US raided Venezuelan capital defeated presidential guards and kidnapped its leader, Nicolas Maduro. After the successful victory the US demanded that Venezuela comply with the US demands on how to run a country or else. Only after a few days of complains and demands for Maduro's release, Venezuela accepted its fate and begun complying with the US directives. 

It was a resounding victory. So, resounding that the US immediately planned to deal with its other adversary in a similar fashion. At the end of February, it begun bombing Iran. However, after the initial success and killing of several key leaders, the Iran campaign stalled and by now global economy starting to feel the problem.

So, what went wrong? Why Iran continues to defy Americans when Venezuela folded near immediately? 

To begin with an analysis of Venezuela. Venezuela is both typical Latin and typical American country. That is why American analysts and intelligence figured them right and devised the plan that worked. 

Lefty causes are popular in Latin America and in Americas in general. In a typical Americas fashion Venezuela was flashy and visible about its leftism and opposition to the US. They invited Russians to Caracas, became friends with everyone who hated the US and supported various anti-American causes

Behind that flashy bravado however was a rather soft underbelly. They made no real preparations for an actual fight with the US. That allowed Americans to easily get them. 

Typical for Americas Venezuela relies entirely on maritime shipping and has no alternative supply routes. After the US blocked their ports, it was only a matter of time before they would fold. Kidnapping of Maduro was just a grand finale of the battle that was already won when the US established a blockade.

In the end of the day "socialist" allies of Venezuela could do nothing but watch as the country easily falls to the US plans.

It's important to note however that it's not that Russia did not want to help Venezuela or did not care what happened to it. Russia would have wanted to help but it could not. Russia simply does not have the naval capacity to challenge the US blockade. As much as Russia wanted to, there was nothing it could do. 

Simple geographic fact of existence of Atlantic Ocean prevents Russia from supplying Venezuela by rail, Russian preferred mode of shipping.

No land connection and weak navy makes it impossible for Russia to do anything about it.

Now we will look at Iran. Iran is not in Americas, and their mentality is quite different from those who live in the new world. Unlike say Venezuelans, Iranians are subtle and more concerned about security and self-preservation. 

Immediately after the Revolution Iranian government have been planning for revolution prevention measures. IRGC, Basij and such are all products of such measures. So are atomic weapons program. Possibly only regional proxies are purely ambitions, but they too could be considered a defence measure, someone Iran can rely on in times of war.

This level of preparation is very different from Venezuela, that only talked big but hardly invested in any allies or proxy networks. Back in the days they used to have Evo Morales in Bolivia, but a simple election removed him from power and Bolivia was no longer on Venezuelan side. An Americas thing. Evo was a free ally for Chaves, he did not spend a dime acquiring him, but that also meant it was just as easy to lose him.

Iranians are not like that; they support proxy networks that are independent of elections. They finance these proxies and through that make them dependent on Iranian government. Regardless of whether Houthis, Hamas or Hizballah like Iran or not, they cannot just ditch them as without Iran they will have no money to continue their operations and even existence. Thus, they will not desert Ayatollahs regime in Tehran.

I am not saying all that to claim that Iran is somehow too tough to be defeated, far from it. However, difference in mentality and approach to life making a victory over Iranian regime a lot more complicated compared to how it was with Venezuela.

Now for a real trump card that actually keeps Iranians in this fight, Russia. I mentioned earlier that Russia could not help Venezuela even if it wanted to. In case of Iran Russia actually can help. Unlike Venezuela, a naval blockade will not stop Russia from aiding Iran as they can ship weapons overland. 

One might look at the map and notice that Iran and Russia do not share the border. How can Russia still ship anything to Iran overland? The answer is through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. 

Kazakhstan is one of Russia's closest allies. Unlike Venezuela, they do not wear it on a sleeve for all to see, but when Russia needs something, they can readily get it from Kazakhs. Both countries are autocratic and have no freedom or press or free elections, making them both vary of American interventions for the purpose of spreading democracy or popular protests to that end.

Thus, shipping weapons using Kazakh freight rail is a no issue at all. Russian ministers could just call Kazakh minister of transport, and he will easily purge domestic freight schedule to make way for Russian arms shipments to Iran. 

Its more or less the same with Turkmenistan as well. To being with Kazakh and Turkmen rail networks were originally built by USSR when the two were Soviet republics. All these rail links are still fully operational. 

China is linked up by rail with all of them too.

Thus, despite the American naval blockade, Iranians get all the weapons and other supply they need to continue their fight by rail though Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. They are also able to use this network to ship its oil and gas to buyers such as China and keep revenue flowing. 

However, there is one more final service Russia provides that keeps Iranian regime in the fight. That is an asylum guarantee. 

Even before the war with the US was a thing, members of Iranian regime were concerned that a revolution may topple them, and they will have to flee the country. Unlike the Shah before them, they will not be able to settle in the US as unlike Shah they are hostile to Americans. They needed an alternative safe heaven and Russia have provided it.

A Russian safe heaven is not just something Iranians will only think as a last resort when Americans will be at the gate. That is how Venezuelans or people in Americas think. That is why this eluded the US analysts, when they made decision to start a war. That is why Iranian war dragged out for so long.

A guarantee of Russian asylum is what influences everyday policy decisions in Tehran. The regime cracked down on protesters because they knew they could always flee to Russia and be safe there even if they completely alienate their own population.

That very same guarantee is what keeps Iranian regime in the fight. Even if the US invades of bombs Iran into stone age, the regime members who led to that with their stubbornness will not have to suffer from any of that. They have Russia to accommodate them.

That very same guarantee gives Russia a leverage over the Iran too. Unlike Venezuelans, Iranian regime fears their own people and do not trust them to treat them well in the event of regime change. Thus, when choosing between safety of Moscow and mercy of their own people, they will pick Moscow. That allows Moscow to dictate policy in Tehran.

Russia benefits from high oil prices and more wars in general. For Russia it will be beneficial to trap the US in some never-ending quagmire war. Not only it will keep oil prices up and Russian revenues with them, but it will also distract the world from its own war in Ukraine. Not to mention to pull a fast one on the US. 

Russia is bewildered by American role in the world and would like to make American wars as hard on the Washington DC as possible in order to deter them from starting another war to overthrow another Russia friendly tyrant somewhere in North Korea or Turkmenistan.

If the price of creating a trap for the US is complete destruction of Iran as a country, then it's a price Kremin is willing to pay. Kremlin loyal members of IRGC are certainly willing to deliver it. They will not suffer the consequences. Their families and children are already in Moscow, picking curtains for the mansions Russia already provided for them. When this all is over, leaders of IRGC will join their families in Moscow as the US, Shah and Iranian diaspora would be left with rebuilding Iran after the mess the old regime left behind.

Because of the above, Iranian regime have still not capitulated to the US demands and continues to resist. Certainly, some members of the regime, who did not get a cozy deal from Kremlin, would want to make a deal, but they are completely overruled by those who did. 

Because it's mostly the IRGC leaders who made this deal, a peace in Iran is impossible until the entire organisation is destroyed. A more moderate members of Iranian regime are unable to make deal with the US also because IRGC threatens to kill them if they do. Finally, IRGC has their own structures and supplies and would likely be able to continue the fight even if a president or Shah in Tehran will make a deal. Russia may be able to supply them even if new Iranian government will outlaw them completely.

All of the above makes the Iranian war much more complicated compared to Venezuelan interventions. That does not mean that Iran cannot be won. A smart revised strategy will be able to make a difference needed to topple the IRGC grip on power. 

Rail links from Iran to Turkmenistan, and possibly other countries, has to be destroyed. All IRGC bases have to be levelled with the ground too. All leaders of all IRGC and linked structures have to be purged, assassinated or otherwise removed. If possible, their families in Moscow too should be targeted. That will make them doubt they made a good deal with Kremlin. Possibly more. 

Intelligence sources from NATO and other US friendly country should be consulted to confirm the details and make a more comprehensive list of targets. 

These measures will finally allow the US to tip the scales and break the spine of the Iranian regime and destroy their ability to resist the US in future. Unlike Venezuela, they cannot be just decapitated, but the structures that keep them in the fight can be precisely identified and then surgically targeted to remove those who would rather destroy Iran than let the US win. The US should do just that.

Iranian situation is more complex than that of Venezuela, but it's not hopeless. The US has a path to victory and should use it to win this one for the free world and American glory.

How to Solve Romanian - Moldovan Unification

After Moldova became independent from USSR most people there thought it will be as temporary as last time. Eventually they will reunite with Romania like they did when they declared independence during the collapse of Russian Empire in 1918.

Despite expectations reunification did not happen. Gradually mood in Chisinau shifted towards maintaining independence. Moldova replaced shared with Romania anthem with uniquely own and at one point even renamed shared language into Moldovan, the latter was later reversed.

Idea of reunification never died however and ever since Romania have joined EU and NATO keeps gaining more and more ground. People on both sides of border want it, many politicians agree but more in theory than in practice. So far reunification seems as far as ever.

The biggest obstacle to unification is often considered to be Russia. Certainly, Russian national interests are against such a move, but Russia also is far away and currently has enough on its plate with war in Ukraine, Palace scandal and many other issues. Russia certainly will not be happy to see former Soviet republic to reunite with Romania, but will it stop it? Russia might as well limit itself to strongly worded condemnation and leave it at that even if could do something about it. 

More so, even if Russia really wanted to stop it, right now there is nothing it can actually do. Ukraine stands in the way of any military action in the region. Russia cannot use its navy for a naval invasion and moving troops through Ukraine is clearly impossible. Russia simply cannot stop reunification.

Does that mean there is nothing more to fear and the path for unity is clear. Far from it.

One issue unionist often overlook is interests of local elites. They typically label people Voronin and Zinaida Greceanîi as merely Moscow puppets who do Kremlin bidding. That will be an oversimplification. Surely interests of these people are often converge with that of Kremin but they actually have independent and much more ulterior motives to pursue them.

Local Chisinau elites have but a simple ulterior motive to oppose reunification. Retaining their power and influence. In an independent Moldova they are members of parliament, ministers and other important officials. In reunified Romania they will be nobody with no jobs and no future. Bucharest has its own elites who will not want to make room for a Chisinau crowd. 

Even if Bucharest will think of some arrangements, like places in Romanian major parties, that will still make this people dependent on good will of local elites, that may disappear eventually as children of Bucharest elites will grow up and some vacancies will be needed to give them a cozy jobs, who do you think will be purged first.

In fact, situation is worse for pro-Romanian parties than it is for pro-Russian ones. Pro-Russian politicians would be able to reinvent themselves as Russian minority interest party in Bucharest and have an iron vote to keep them in parliament, similar to what UDMR is. Pro-Romanian parties have no such opportunities as most people will likely desert them for Romanian parties. 

Thus, as much as an ordinary Romanian walking streets of Chisinau and most other Moldovan cities wants to be reunited with his Romanian brothers. People who sit in cabinets of power in that very same capital has a different opinion.

Sure, Bucharest can blame Moscow for making it this complicated.

Yes, during USSR times CPSU deliberately cultivated these Sovietised and Russophone elites to be the ruling class of USSR. Yes, these people are now standing in the way of reforms and prosperity of the countries they ended up being placed by Soviet regime. They are the problem, but they will not just disappear because one says so. A clever solution is needed to actually get the out of the way.

If you look at it from their perspective, they too have no easy way out. They cannot go back to Russia as Russia has no place for them and consider them Moldovan. Moldovans on the other hand consider them Russians and want them out of their country. Thus, maintaining this weird balancing act is the only option they have. Appease local population to prevent uprising, keep relationships with both Russia and EU to keep themselves in power.

Is it hopeless then? Not really. There is a clever solution that can break the impasse.

The solution lies in a Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein is a microstate in Europe that is ruled by a sovereign prince. Technically it's just one of the leftover states from Holy Roman Empire times. That however does not explain why it survived when former HRE states were absorbed into either Germany or Austria. The reason for that is the fact that Liechtenstein is ruled by powerful and influential courtiers of Habsburg Austrian Emperors. Liechtenstein was left behind so that these people will retain their power and influence even if the state they used so serve no longer exist: Austrian monarchy was overthrown and it became a republic. Yet old Imperial Austrian court have not disappeared completely, it was left behind in tiny Liechtenstein.

Liechtenstein example can serve as a solution to Moldovan question. A tiny microstate can be created for Chisinau elites while the rest of the country can then be reunited with Romania. It can be Principality of Orhei, centered around that town, for example, or in some other place.

This will solve most of the Chisinau elite's problems. A small state like that will be a lot more stable than whole of Moldova. With a small population it is much easier to keep standards of living high enough and people content. Such small state will not be swayed by public opinions, pushing it towards EU or Romania. Being so small no major players like Russia or Romania will care to control it. That will make governing it much easier than governing in Chisinau. 

Despite being small, a state can still enjoy full sovereignty and international recognition. This the elites will feel safe there. A deal with Romania and Ukraine to that end can ensure that all international legal formalities will be followed on, and state will enjoy no less rights and recognition as Liechtenstein. The new state can be legal successor of current Moldova.

A surprising Liechtenstein solution can solve the Moldova problems and allow Romanians on both sides of Prut River to finally be reunited in NATO and EU. Hopefully the people in charge will read my blog and implement this solution.

Parallels between Soda and Geopolitics of 19t and 20th Centuries

There is a saying that history repeats twice, ones as tragedy and then again as farce. Things like Cod War are sometimes seen as a parody of sorts on the much bigger and more important Cold War. Here is how sodas ended up imitating politics. Colours reversed but otherwise a point.

Coca-Cola - USA and 1st world - The original recipe that won the world. Iconic logo and design mostly unchanged since 19th century, ingredients however have evolved rather dramatically. Undisputed leader that stayed on top since inception to present day despite strong challenge from Pepsi

Pepsi - Soviet Bloc - Was created from the start to beat Coke and become No 1 soda producer. Mirrored Coca-Cola lineup one to one with rival offers. Waged costly Cola Wars against Coke, spending billions on ads and celebrity endorsements. In the end Pepsi lost but managed to carve out 2nd place in the big 2. Later went through long soul searching and various redesigns of logo and identity in hope of getting more popular. One consistent feature of design, Pepsi globe, mirrors globe on USSR and Comintern logos.

3rd party coke - 3rd world - Many small alternatives to the big two. Different logos, mostly same taste but cheaper ingredients and worse quality. Most are almost completely unknown to boarder public and have only regional presence. Some try to claim some niche or local identity, other simply presented themselves as cheaper alternatives to Coke. Most identities are based on not being in the big 2, just like any 3rd world dictator who claims to be independent of big superpowers.

Dr Pepper - EU - Actually has a different flavor from the three above. Has its own dedicated fans who praise it as the best. "Intellectual beverage for initiated." Despite that remains far behind in popularity compared to big 2 and limited reach. Shares burgundy color of brand logo with EU Passports.

Schweppes - British Empire - Actual inventor of soda (i.e. carbonated (flavored) drink) as well as that of carbonation process that gives soda its bubbles. Has gazillions of very unique and different flavours, most of which are liked by 3 people something. After long independent run Schweppes is now part of Dr Pepper's Empire and continues to be available to few of its fans.

Surprisingly accurate, it's almost a conspiracy theory. Just like that, global geopolitics are explained with simple soda comparison. So next time when someone suggests replacing Capitalism with Marxism, remember that it's as different as Pepsi is from Coke, which also has plenty of fans who say they taste different. I myself can assure you that Coke tastes better than Pepsi, but I also like Dr Pepper or Cherry Coke.

Why UK Succeeded in Colonising India While Others Failed

 

There was a curious series of videos on Youtube that raised this interesting question, that I placed in the title of this article. UK was neither the strongest colonial power in the area, nor was it the first to discover India. India was rules by powerful Mughal Empire, that was not an easy target for colonialists to dismantle. Yet in the end UK succeeded while then much stronger French and early discoverer Portuguese failed. The series of videos I mentioned above did a good job of chronicling how British take over happened, but it did not answer the ultimate question of why that happened? Here I will answer that question for you.

To begin with a Mughal Empire. Modern Western sources like to praise this state as both very powerful and very enlightened even by modern standards. Powerful is simple, they had more soldiers, more and often better weapons, more money and more everything compared to any coloniser in the area. Enlightened needs clarification. Mughal rules were very educated: versed in many languages as well as in culture science and technology. Westerners who visited their court, were impressed with its level of culture and sophistication. As rulers they supported religions tolerance and multiculturalism. They patronised arts and build many famous Indian landmarks such as Taj Mahal, that is probably the most famous Indian structure in the Western World. So how could such wonderful people lose their country to colonisers?

The answer to that does not lie in some evil western weapons or such, but rather in the problems within Mughal Empire itself. To begin with I had to point out the obvious, Mughals were not of Indian origin. Just like many others before and after them, they were descendants of foreign invaders who conquered their empire with force and later made India their home. For those who came after the conquest was complete that fact might be unobvious, after all Mughals are born in India and rule from Delhi in India, however for locals that was not so. 

Mughals like other conquerors were Muslims, they preached religious tolerance but that was due to the fact that most of their country was Hindu, and they had to somehow coexist with it. For a European both Islam and Hindu equally foreign but for Indians Hindu is a local native faith and Islam is the faith brough in by conquerors from the West: Iran is west of India even if its east of Europe. Officially Mughals preached religions co-existence, but in order to advance in society one likely had better chances if they were Muslim or converted to Islam. That certainly did not sit well with Hindu majority.

Finally Mughal court used Parsi as its official language. Parsi is Iranian language, no one in India speaks it natively. Yet Mughals insisted that their subjects have to learn their language to speak to them rather than the other way around. It was not just language either, Mughal rulers liked Persian art, architecture and other such things. Taj Mahal too was built in Persian, rather than Indian style, a fact likely missed by many tourists who visit it every year.

All in all, Indians did not feel like Mughals were one of their own but rather saw them as foreigners who occupy their land and rule it as they see fit. 

That provoked an uprising. A Maratha Confederation/Empire was an attempt by Hindus to drive the Mughals out. At first, they were successful and nearly took over the country. Then the founder and the original ruler died and things went downhill. A succession war broke out between several contenders for the throne. That war gradually completely destroyed Marathas. There was always another princeling, wanting to take the throne and common Maratha solders kept killing each other for their ambitions. They would have completely destroyed themselves with this fratricidal war, unless they figured a way out. That way out was East India Company.

Relationship between Marathas and EIC begun way back. Maratha founders likely convinced them to lend them weapons, promising to pay back when they won. That later never came and when Maratha infighting begun, in leu of paying with money, different pretenders gave EIC right to tax people in areas they conquered. With taxing came administrative burdens too. Gradually Marathas pawned all their land to EIC.

Maratha solders defected to EIC too as EIC could pay them stable salaries and did not require them to keep killing each other. It may be called British Raj but most of the personnel especially military was local. Indian Sepoys and Nepalese Gurkhas were not only the military of British colonial rule but also important component of all British forces. They saw service in many British wars outside of India.

EIC did not just taxed land, they figured they could improve things by running more tea and cotton plantation, textile factories and then sell all that produce to Europe for money. That was the solution everyone wanted and liked. Europeans liked their newfound tea and preferred cotton clothes to those made from local materials. The money this trade made India richer, making this overall a successful business operation. EIC kept expanding its business opening more plantations and textile mills, employing more and more people, gradually this became the biggest business in the area.

EIC eventually capsized under its debts and was dissolved. Even before that many in UK's parliament were saying that scope of EIC operations have long since exceeded the trade in tea that it was created to do. By early 18th century it effectively ran a country much larger than UK itself. After Sepoy Uprising of 1857 EIC was dissolved and UK government took civil control over British India. 

That did not end British rule, it merely changed its administrative structure. Instead of being run by commercial executives, it was ruled but civil servants instead. The second part of the Raj saw creation of various civil institutions and other things, countries typically have. 

So, why the British Raj succeeded while both Marathas and Mughals faded into history. Because it managed to solve various economic and social problems that India had at that time. Fundamentally people preferred it to both Mughals and Marathas. As foreign as British were, they could bring them more prosperity and stability that either Mughals or Marathas could. Aslo British that generally loved India and all things Indian were preferable to Persophilic Mughals of Uzbek origin or local Maratha princelings who cannot pay their solders but expose them to unnecessary dangers.

Societies are complex structures. The more complex they get, the stranger are solutions, that are needed to fix their problem. That can apply to modern times as well. For example, one might find it strange why Western world is so obsessed with Japan and all things Japanese. Chinese would particularly be baffled by the fact that Japanese, whom they see as inferior to them in every possible way, are for some reason loved so much by the West and Chinese themselves are not. The answer to this problem once again lies in unique problems of Western society, Western family and Western women, that Western men seek solution to these problems in Japan and Thailand. 

That is also why we need Universal Basic Income to fix the economy.

Truth about 90s in Russia

I do criticize how KGB regime depicts 90s, its dishonest and misleading. However, a lot of time have passed since 90s. A new generation, who have not experienced it, have grown up and know nothing about it but what Putin's liars tell them to. So, I decided to write a separate article about actual realities of 90s, not tarred and marred by Kremlin's propaganda.

To begin with, elephant of the room, bandits. Yes, bandits did exist in 90s and occasionally they killed people, mostly each other, but sometimes other people too. Murder is a big news, unlike someone importing computers or TVs, so stories about bandits circulated around and got exacerbated. Listening to them know one might imagine it was like Fist of North Star or something, it was not. For most people life was peaceful, and all the scary stuff was only on TV.

Even among bandits not all were equally outrageous, some did wild things, but majority tried to not attract undue attention to themselves. Use common sense here, if you are breaking laws then undue attention will do you no good, police and public will be after you and before long you will either be killed or in prison. Most bandits did not do anything wild; they just rode their Mercs and BMW to settle disputes with other bandits and kept quiet. Mind you only some of these disputes resulted in shootouts and someone dying. 1% of people who did most outrageous stuff got remembered and their deeds retold over and over. The remaining 99% were all but forgotten. Those who really went wild were either idiots who died soon after, or some people with government connections, like police undercover, military or KGB, someone who really had nothing to fear. Now those very same KGB people claim they ended the "banditism" of "wild 90s".

Mind you, murders did not end when KGB took over, they just changed targets, instead of bandits killing each other now the regime kills wonderful people like Nemtsov, Politkovskaya, Navalny and many others. People who could actually improve Russia, unlike KGB-an dwarf and his henchmen who only drag it down back in Soviet monk-like ascetic misery. KGB killed some, other fled and Russia lost is best people. At least during 90s its people few would miss, who killed each other, and afterwards it the best and brightest who are destroyed by KBG regime. Also joining mafia, they knew what could happen to them, victims of KGB did not have the same choice, they are purely innocent victims.

Now to the real heroes of the 90s, the businessmen. They by far outnumber the bandits. For every one bandit there were hundreds of businessmen, big and small. Together they rebuild ruins of USSR into a modern country. They imported awesome foreign goods, TVs, computers, mobiles, clothes, music, movies and more. Together they transformed drab post-Soviet reality into something classy comfortable and stylish.

Businessmen of 90s are the only reason Russia is not as backward and dilapidated as Cuba or North Korea, Upper Volta with nukes. Without them there would be no computers, phones or internet. Russia would be a stone age country. 

In fact, without businessmen of 90s there would not even be food to eat or clothes to wear. All Soviet era production was not enough to actually feed or cloth the population. The monk-like austerity nuts in Soviet Gosplan thought people can survive with one pair of trousers per year and on a starvation diet. For normal people that was not enough but Soviet state refused to do anything about it. It was not until businessmen of 90s could import foreign goods, that people could finally have access to good food and clothes.

Businessmen of 90s did all that while fighting against ridiculous outdated Soviet era regulations as well as useless government bureaucrats who not only did nothing to help but actively interfere to extort bribes and generally be a nuisance. These guys were real chads of business, unlike modern Western small businesses who cry "help government" when they could not afford even paying their employees their salaries and government then think of something, like importing migrants or unpaid apprenticeships to keep these losers solvent.

While there were jokes about "Novyi Russki" with kitsch looks and low intelligence, most told by businessmen themselves. This was far from what an average businessman was. Most were classy people with awesome sense of style and fashion. They build themselves truly marvelous homes with cool design, state of art appliances and more. Sure, few got to see it as most businessmen were secretive and kept their prosperity under wraps, only inviting people from fellow business circles. You cannot blame them for being so secretive, Russian people are naturally envious and fuelled by Commie hysteria about "bandits robbing people" would not hesitate to steal or just vandalise out of spite.

Finally common people. Unlike commie and KGB propaganda tells you, people did not struggle or were robbed, at least not all of them. Employees of government owned factories and other people paid by government like doctors, teachers, military and police were in trouble, but that was only because government bureaucrats were not paying them their salaries or not increasing these salaries with inflation, essentially government fault. Government nonetheless blamed it on nefarious mythical "bandits" while in reality bureaucrats were simply pocketing salaries of common people and using them to buy themselves Mercs and other luxuries. 

Government paid sector, betrayed by government they trusted, ended up blaming bandits for their misfortunes, because commies like Zyuganov told them its bandits. In reality it was government who robbed them in the first place.

People who worked in trade, retail and other sectors paid by other people or employed by businessmen of 90s did well, not as well as their bosses but much better that people in these sectors did under Soviet rule. USSR used to shit on retail and trade professions and called them second class compared to factory workers or teachers. 90s got this reversed, USSR era government darlings were now in shit and people who sell stuff were new cool. 

Government paid sector did not took it well. That is why there were so many communist protests, all waving red flags and blaming Yeltsin for everything. Part of it was not even that government fucked them, but that people government always told them were lesser and less deserving than they are somehow ended up owning more and living better than the "good Soviets" who did everything government told them was right and end up poor and unpaid anyway. 

Yet when election came Yeltsin won and not because it was rigged, but because people who sell food, clothes and every other consumer good imaginable voted for Yeltsin to keep Zyuganov and his commies out.

Finally, freedom. During 90s, TV was the most awesome it ever was in Russia. No censorship from government allowed many awesome shows to flourish on TV. Some were critical of government or system, but most were original, creative and genuinely entertaining to watch. Newspapers and other media too were allowed anything they wanted. 

All that gradually came to an end after Putin seize power, now government destroyed all creativity and imagination. Only retarded sycophants who lick KGB's ass are allowed on TV and no one interesting have been on TV since 1999.

Freedom of speech took a fall too, now insane KGB regime jails people for saying obvious common-sense things. The regime completely lost sanity and common sense.    

Finally, relationships with the west. Nowadays it might be hard for some to believe that Americans and Western Europeans were very friendly to Russia back then, but it was true. They all just decided to forgive and forget years of Cold War, and all helped Russia to recover from collapse of USSR. They actually hoped and believed that Russia can be their friend in emerging world.

All these hopes were betrayed when Putin took over and started his purges. Even then they sometimes hoped that increasing rift can be mended somehow and they could be friends again. Now that looks silly considering war in Ukraine and Kremlin rhetoric about mythical Nazis.

This time around common people might end up suffering consequences for all the aggression and evil, Kremlin did and continue doing. 

So, this is how real 90s really were. Not how Kremlin told you they were, covered with thick coat of tar and bile, but how they really were. A few KGB agents disguised as bandits did all the nasty stuff and everyone else was trying to live and make things better. Some even managed to.

Some more information here and pictures too. Guess which one my relatives were connected to.