Why Corruption Ruins Life in Russia

Here there used to be a video that outlined the corruption issues that plague Russia. It shows how money, embezzled by Russian officials kept Russian cities derelict and underdeveloped compared to those in neighboring Estonia.

However shortly after I linked it here, the video was deleted. All I could salvage was the link that it used.

https://youtu.be/X6xZ2OgrGSk

I do wonder who and why is behind this brazen attack on freedom of speech. Here I found a similar enough text version of the similar article.

Anyhow to sum up the video: if you want well developed cities and embankments then you need to join European Union. In Russia Putinist government officials do nothing and let the whole place dilapidating and collapsing.

Here is also a link to an article about war in Ukraine and city of Narva on BBC.

Current Military Situation in Ukraine

Current military situation in Ukraine is not conductive towards better territorial arrangement. Russia controls too much of Middle Steppe region, Kherson and Zaporizhian Oblasts. At the same time Kharkiv oblasts with its capital that used to reelect Gennady Kerns for the role of mayor stays with Ukraine

Purely geographical wise it also has some issues. While Dnipro River does provide for an easy to defend natural border, it gives Russia too much coastal areas. It still leaves a salient in the east, sure it is much more defendable than the previous one, but still.

Russian Interests in Ukraine

In several of my proposed solutions to Ukrainian question I mentioned term 'buffer state'. That means a state that exists as a natural barrier between two other states, preventing them from interacting with each other. Such buffer states are needed when contact between two states separated by the buffer state is undesirable for some reason. Typically, because it is in the national interests of one of these states, but sometimes both.

Examples of such buffer states are many. For example, Belgium, Afghanistan and North Korea.

Examples of Buffer States

Belgium is a little bit of a special case here. as it when it was created Netherlands, France and UK all vied for control over this lucrative area. Creating independent state allowed them avoiding complicated disputes over who gets what there and in practice UK has the highest level of influence in Belgium.

Belgium continues to exist despite northern part of the country wants to secede from the south one. However, if that were to happen southern part (Wallonia) will likely unify with France and UK does not want that. Because of these reasons Belgium still exists. 

Afghanistan makes almost a textbook example of a buffer state. It is geographically located on economically insignificant and hard to travel land. It is inhabitant by hostile warlike people who do not like any outsiders. Finally, its borders, including its infamous 'pan handle' that goes all the way to Chinese borders that completely prevent any travel from north to south or back other than through the Afghan territory.

All of the above forces any military invasion north or south of the area to first fight through the hostile Afghan people before you even able to reach the area you actually want to invade.

For a modern US army with its aircraft carriers and strong navy that sounds like moot point. As navy can sail, attack and invade nearly anywhere. However back before carriers or even aircrafts were invented this was a significant consideration. Especially for a mostly land based army such as Russian one.

Afghanistan in their current borders was created by the UK back in the end of 19th century. Back then Brits deliberately helped Pashtuns from the south of modern Afghanistan to conquer significant areas in the north, inhabitant by various other ethnic groups such as Tajiks or Hazara.

They done it not out of kindness of their hearts and concern for Pashtun wellbeing. Doing so served UK's national interests in two major ways.

Russia, who was at the time conquering various countries in modern Central Asia, was getting dangerously close to borders of British India, modern Pakistan in this case. UK was concerned that Russia might try to invade British India, so they made a preventive move and established Afghanistan with its current borders as a means to separate British India from anything further north. Thanks to that Russia would have to fight Afghans first if it wanted to get to British India. If Russia indeed attempts something like that UK will have plenty of time to reinforce British India, providing Russia even manages to get through the Afghanistan in the first place. Such an elegant solution allowed UK to use Afghanis as free guards for its British India and saved a lot of money on military.

Second reason was to tie down the Pashtuns themselves. Pashtuns resented that UK conquered their territories south of Kyber Pass and occasionally tried to take them back. By giving these Pashtuns an empire full of different ethnic groups who resent Pashtun rule, they tied down Pashtun forces to pacification duties. That way Pashtuns could no longer attempt to reconquer the south as withdrawing from the north would make Tajiks and other northerners to revolt and overthrow Pashtun rule. Yet another convenient solution to UK national interests in British India.

Why Russia Needs Buffer States

To put it simple it is to insulate itself from better quality of life offered by the European Union. As much as various people of Putin's regime like to say Russian people are some sort of special people that prefers Putinism to liberal democracy of the West, they themselves know that is complete bollocks.

The only thing that keeps Putinism alive is relative ignorance of Russian population as well as rather abysmal economic situation in countries on Russia's immediate borders. This lets Putinist ideologues win people over with a rhetoric of 'Russia is more prosperous than Ukraine, that means Putinism is better than EU and democracy'.

While Ukraine is indeed poorer than Russia it will somewhat work, however, should Ukraine become more prosperous than Russia, then it will in contrast encourage people in Moscow to take up arms against Putin's regime.

Thus, Putin takes action to prevent prosperity in Ukraine. That is why such extensive shelling of the civilian areas in Ukraine.

Ukraine together with other countries on Russia immediate borders do serve this purpose from Russian government point of view.

Ukraine and Belarus have special role in all this as Russian do tend to compare themselves with these people much more so than say with Finns or even Latvians.

Solution

Government in Moscow cannot stand any prosperity on its immediate borders and will interfere in its neighbor's life to prevent any kind of positive development.

However, while Moscow does need buffer states it does not need them to be large or include any particular areas. Thus, a number of small states that will put a distance between Russian and Ukrainian borders will allow Ukraine to develop unimpeded by Russian interventions as Russia will mess with new border states instead.

In fact, it does not even matter if these buffer states will be created from Russian or Ukrainian territory. However, this is a good opportunity to reconfigure the borders and make them more meaningful overall. 

Sloboda Ukraine Republic as well as Don Republic can make for nice new states. They will remove toxic assets from Ukraine while simultaneously create a space between Russia and Ukraine to prevent countries from messing with each other.

Ukraine-Proper Oblasts redistribution

I mentioned that current oblasts do not correspond to historical regions, but that is not the only flaw the oblasts have.

Oblasts' borders are yet another trick Soviet government used to foil Ukraine. Oblasts are created to be as unmanageable and ungovernable on local level as possible. 

That was done to make them dependent on central government on pretty much every issue. For Soviet style government it works but for Western style empowered regions that is woefully inadequate.

Almost nothing in any of the oblasts could truly be accomplished on local level alone and central government has other concerns that to micromanage every oblast. 

Because of that oblasts have to be redivided. In Ukraine proper they should be made bigger and in South-East generally smaller but with exceptions.

Here are new oblasts for Ukraine Proper.

Historical Regions of Ukraine

Volhynia 

First of the Western Ukraine Regions.

Unlike Galicia that lies south, Volhynia is flatlands, much like most of Ukraine.

However, unlike many other regions of Ukraine there is no any major rivers in the area.

Historically unlike Galicia was once part of Lithuania before was transferred to Poland, but it was not part of Austria while Galicia was.

Historical Volyn consists of modern Volyn and Rivne oblasts, as well as parts of Zhitomir and Khmelnitsky oblasts. 

I think they should be reunited under name Volyn

Galicia

Map also includes Polish part of Galicia. Lemberg is modern Lviv

Galicia is the remaining southern part of Western Ukraine

Uncharacteristically for the rest of Ukraine, it is mountainous region that goes all the way to the Carpathian Mountains that used to divide a lot of countries in Europe. 

However, despite or may be because it is different this area is almost a heart of Ukraine, or a brain.

It is home to Lviv, a cultural, linguistic, artistic and civilizational capital of Ukraine.

It is in this region that Ukrainian Insurgent Army fought for Ukraine's independence from USSR for the entire decade.

For this reason, is also an area most hated by all Russian chauvinists who decry all of its inhabitants as Nazi Banderites and even believe that the rest of Ukraine could be turned into another Belarus if only Galicia disappears.

For these reasons Galicia should be strengthened and enhanced to keep Ukraine together.

This area mostly consists of modern Lviv, Ivano-Fankivsk and Ternopil Oblasts.

Considering Russia managed to heavily smear term Galicia I would suggest that united oblast should instead be called Western Ukraine Oblast or Greater Lviv Oblast, however that should be up to the inhabitants.

 Podolia

Podolia means territory along the valley. In this case valley of Bug River.

This region is far from Russia but close to Moldova who is smaller than Ukraine.

Because of that it probably preserves the most pure Ukrainian culture without much influence from either Poles and Austrians in the west or Russians in the east. Moldovan influence in the region most likely limited to vine manufacturing.

The area consists of all Vinnitsa oblast, most of Khmelnitsky Oblast as well as parts of Cherkassy, Kirovohrad and Odessa Oblasts.

Kyiv

I think Kyiv should unite with Kyiv Oblast and that Kyiv oblast terrioty should be further enhanced with remainder of Zhytomyr Oblast as well as southern parts of Chernigov oblast.

Kyiv city will only grow further, and it needs space to grow.

Chernigov oblast should instead get northern most part of Sumy oblast.

How to better reorganize Ukraine

I will start the post-Soviet borders series with Ukraine. However I will also cover some areas from Russia. Current Russia-Ukraine borders dissect many natural geographic regions in half. The only way to do them justice is to unite them into their own new countries. I will outline these countries in the second half of this post. As I will begin with Ukraine proper.

Overview of Ukraine

Problem with Ukraine is not that it lacks statehood or nationhood as some pro-Russian patriots claim. Rather current Ukraine is a amalgamation of several different nations, who have little in common with each other. Because of that they cannot understand each other at all.

They fight for control of the country in order to turn it towards their interests. However, no matter who wins the other side is left dissatisfied and ends up plotting comeback or a coup.

The simplest division is division in two halves. As for example [residential elections of 2004, similar results happen during 2006 parliamentary and 2010 presidential elections. Only recent Zelenskiy's victories somehow managed to partly remove this division.

In fact, even names of the political parties of election opponents do suggest their different visions for the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukrainian_presidential_election

Yuschenko's Our Ukraine, colored in orange, suggest patriotism and care for the country. They truly believe in their country and want to assert its independence and identity. Russia likes to label everyone who shares this sentiment a Nazi. Moscow scares Russophone part of the country that 'Nazi' plan to exterminate all the Russophones in the country and uses it to justify its aggression.

Yanukovich's Party of Regions often labelled as pro-Russian, but it is more of a parochial local interest's party. They are mostly united by common opposition to any central authority and very heterogeneous inside. Some of them are pro-Russian and Russia likes to exploit their opposition to Kyiv in Moscow's interests.

Middle areas (colored in lighter shades of each color) have somewhat diffused views on the whole identity issue and often serve as a moderating effect that somewhat connects the country together. 

Each of these regions deserve a separate section of the article to outline their history and how did they become what they are.

Ukraine proper

I will begin with orange-colored areas. It would be appropriate to call this area Ukraine proper. It is the area of country's identity, culture and language. Its cities are century old. It has history, self-awareness and shared identity and values. These areas went through good and bad times mostly together and emerged with shared identity, values and destiny.

This part of a country had a rich history that explains how it became this way, you can read about it here

Its history is mostly of preservice. They got betrayed by their neighbors many times and sometimes betrayed them as well.

They existed under different empires who mostly did them no good, thus they developed strong independence streak. Also these experiences allow them to know their options and seek alternatives to the conditions they do not like.

They did not like it when first Poles and then Russians tried to assimilate them and erase their distinct identity. They developed strong sense of identity, attachment to their land and culture together with desire to protect it from foreign interference.

Another aspect of this area is that it is more self-sufficient than the other parts of the country. Unlike South-East these areas are mostly agricultural or have industries that aim at local consumption. They existed in different empires and economies. So they could also adapt to changing economic realities.

Further subdivisions of Ukraine Proper

This area can be further subdivided into Galicia-Volhynia area around Lviv and Rivne and the Central Ukraine Around Kyiv. They have somewhat different history and geography, but overall, they are equally ancient and share enough traits to function together as a single nation.

Even further they can be divided into its historical regions. Galicia, Volhynia, Podolia and  Polesia, Kyiyavia (Dnipro) and Siveria (Chernigov). Each of these areas has unique character, heraldry and local identity. Ukraine should consider redividing its western oblasts back into these historical regions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_regions_in_present-day_Ukraine

I think bigger territorial units in the west of the country will allow it to better utilize its potential.

Zakarpatska and Chernivtsi Oblasts are somewhat outlying places here. Zakarpatska Oblasts used to be part of Czechoslovakia and home to ethnic minority of Rusyns or Hutsuls, it is also the most geographically isolated part of the country. Chernivtsi Oblast was once part of Romania and Moldova, however nowadays it mostly has Ukrainian majority.

Overall areas of Ukraine proper, including Sumy Oblast of the Slobozhanshina should all stay as parts of Ukraine. They are the core of this county that keeps it afloat and together.

South-East

Areas in blue are called by many names, including Novorossiya. However, locals sometimes call it simply South-East. That name is actually perfect for the area without any particular identity, that is confused as to what they are. Here I will explain what they are.

A more detailed history can be found via this link.

Overall being a colonial area people there are opportunistic and pragmatic. Their ancestors took advantage of economic opportunities in the area and migrated there. Nowadays their descendants in this area also look for opportunities to prosper further.

Because of their diverse origins, they are also able to get along and adapt to people of different cultural background. They are likely able to assimilate them as well.

Economy of this area is in a very challenging situation. As Russia founded and built these cities, they made their economies dependent on links with the rest of Russia, thus making separation difficult. Russia done so fully intending their separation from Russia proper as hard as possible.

So even if average inhabitant of South-East has no particular loyalty to Moscow, their economic situation makes ties with Russia beneficial. Because of that some people there are nostalgic for the soviet past.

To make matters worse during 19th and 20th century mining coal in Donbas area was very profitable but not so nowadays. They are experiencing their first economic downturn and really angry about it. No one in the area could remember any worse times than these.

Since people settled the area during the Russian Empire times Russian language is more prevalent there than Ukrainian one. Though in areas closer to dividing line both are spoken.

Further Subdivision of South-East

South-East is actually more diverse than Ukraine proper. While differences in Ukraine proper are mostly superficial and fundamentally they are all very Ukrainian, they all are flavors of one Ukrainian nation. 

Different areas of South-East in contrast have little in common with each other. People in Dnipro area are very unlike those in Donbas. Those of Odessa are also much unlike those of Kharkiv. Most places have no loyalties beyond their cities or oblasts. However even some oblasts have several key cities who a quite different from each other. For example, coal and steel Kryvyi Rih has more in common with Donbas than with Dnipro, despite being in the same oblast.

I will go over these areas one by one in separate articles and put links here:

Sloboda Ukraine

Donbas

Crimea

Odessa

Middle Steppe

Middle Steppe

The remaining areas of South-East, roughly Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhya, Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts a lot more mixed and has more Ukrainian influences than the rest of South-East.

Russian Empire era settlers shared this area with Cossacks who remained as well as settlers from other parts of Ukraine who used security provided by the Empire to settle the fertile steppes. Unlike other types of settlers, they prioritized proximity to core Ukraine. Because of them Ukraine proper gradually diffuses into South-East and there is no clear boundary between two.

Then in Soviet era some cities such as Dnipro, Zaporizhya, Melitopol and Nikopol were made into engineering powerhouses (naukagrad-s), where many universities educated people were designing aircraft engines and other high-tech stuff.

Nowadays this area consists of mostly Ukrainianized small towns and countryside. However at the same time, like sore thumbs, mostly Russophone big cities stand tall surrounded by the country some of them struggle to understand. A country that literary speaks a different language.

However, they are a lot more connected and integrated with the rest of Ukraine than more outlying areas.

Unlike Odessa these cities are not even coastal, so their independence is completely impossible.

Reorganisation

First of all, all large cities in the area should be given as special city status. Similar to what I proposed for Odessa. In addition to above-mentioned nauka-grad-s, industrial Kryvyi Rih and maybe also Pavlohrad should get it as well. Those that are close together geographically, like Kamanskie and Dnipro should be united into one Greater Dnipro City Area.

Then more rural steppe should be reorganized around smaller towns, or cities connected to agricultural industry.

It should not be the kind of federalism like Russia proposes that will give them veto over national affairs, but rather the kind of proper local government that can focus on local issues without pulling the blanket with other areas of the country for control over the limited oblast resources.

That way each of these areas can have a proper governance that looks after the interests of the area.

Odessa

Odessa was founded as Russia's main trading port in the south.

Lots of people from Europe participated in its development, growth and even governance. Some of them are immortalized in monuments and main street names.

During its heydays as main port of the Empire it was Russia's third largest city, behind only then capital Saint-Petersburg and Moscow. It was close to Moscow in size.

Fortunes of the city though declined during Soviet isolationism, so there is little nostalgia for Soviet times compare to Donbas and Crimea.

However, that does not mean they are happy with their role of a port for just Ukraine that they have at the moment as it cannot support the same splendor it enjoyed during ther Empire times.

Because if its economic role Odessa shaped up as a multicultural city of the world. Back in the days it attracted shrewd and cunning people from all over the world who all wanted to enrich themselves during the city's economic boom. Nowadays their descendants also look for the best deal out there.

They are not like miners of Donbas who cannot adapt to obsolescence of mining coal in mines and now work in construction in Moscow. Neither they are patriots of Russia in Sevastopol, a city whose entire economy and identity revolves around Russian navy.

Odessa is a trading city between worlds and spheres of influences that can actually look outward for better economic prospects.

City of Special Status

Returning Odessa to Russia is not viable as it is too isolated geographically to resume its role as major trading port.

Turning Odessa into a City-State like Free City of Danzig while can appeal to some in the city, but fundamentally also unviable. Ukraine has alternative options to divert its trade should Odessa secede. That will make city even poorer.

Thus, it should continue as part of Ukraine. However, its current status as oblast center is not viable.

Odessa should be made into a special city. Similar to what Kyiv currently has and what Sevastopol was when it was part of Ukraine. Coastal areas on the east side of Dnistro, should also be made part of that Odessa city region.

That way city's government will have one clear focus and will be able represent Odessa's interests better.

On the other hand other areas of Odessa oblast, that are neglected by city centered government, should be reorganized into separate oblasts. 

Areas west of Dnistro should be made into a separate Ismail Oblast, how they used to be once. This areas are very isolated from the rest of the country geographically and should be given its own government who looks after their own interests.

On the other hand, areas east of Dnistro, that are not coastal should be split between Mykolaiv and Vinnitsa oblasts. Vinnitsa should get far north parts of Odessa oblast, that are part of Podolia historical region and Mykolaiv oblast should get the rest.

Crimea

Back in 18th century Ottomans directly ruled cities on the south-east coast of the Crimean Peninsula, those that are south of Crimean Mountains.

The only city north of these mountains was Bakhchisaray from which Crimean Tatars terrorized the whole steppe east of Dnipro. On some maps these areas are shown as part of Crimean Khanate, however in reality back then steppes were free and did not belong to anyone.

When Russia took over in 19th century, the term Crimea was used exclusively for the peninsula itself. Russia begun building cities all over the peninsula that eventually dwarfed Bakhchisaray, just as the new Russophone settlers dwarfed original Tatar majority of the peninsula.

Russia had two primary uses for the peninsula.

First it was a naval base for Russian Black Sea fleet. The entire city of Sevastopol was built to host this naval base. 

Second purpose was hosting various summer palaces of Emperors and other important dignitaries of Russian court who all craved warm Crimean weather and its beaches.

During Soviet times Crimea became a resort destination for Soviet citizens, similar to Hawaii and Florida in the US.

Geographically it is very isolated from the rest of the Ukraine, it is almost an island.

I have a total population of 2 million people, that is the same as Kosovo. It also has the same kind of ethnic composition with majority of population are ethnic Russians but there is around 10% Crimea Tatars in the area as well.

10% is what is left of people of the former Crimean Khanate. They do believe that they should have claim on the peninsula and have good reasons to do so, but the reality is that they are small minority on the island.

Crimean Protectorate

While Crimea by itself will make a geographically viable country. Crimean Tatar population need some form of international protection as ethnic Russians do treat them poorly.

Also, while it is geographically viable, economically it is not. Even Russian tourists prefer Antalya and Hurghada nowadays and no one else will want to vacation there.

Thus, some form of international status for the peninsula is desirable. 

It should first become a UN or better EU protectorate or a condominium with Russian Federation.

Theoretically Russia can keep souverains over Sevastopol and its naval base there. Similar to how UK has Akrotiri and Dhekletia on Cyprus, but that is not very desirable.

Alternatively whole or mostly whole Crimea should stay in Russia where it will become a playground for Russian oligarchs who will live in palaces build by Russian elites of the old.

Crimean Tatar areas then should be given to Turkey for protection.

Island can be partition in even smaller areas, but that would be complicated.

Donbas

Donbas is Ukraine eastern most area. It was settled and developed during 19th and 20th centuries. It is heavily industrial areas with steelworks and coal mines. The area is heavily populated as well.

Back when mining coal in mines were still profitable the area was very prosperous and was even called heart of Russia.

Donbas never knew anything, but heavily polluted air and prosperity until open pit mining made mines obsolete.

It is like West Virginia and Detroit combined, but worse. Its mining population as willing to blame everything on Ukraine as UK miners are still willing to blame mines closure on Thatcher government.

This economically depressed region is with a huge population it is like a burning powder keg waiting to explode. 

So, from economic perspective it was very fortunate that these areas decided to secede from Ukraine and become independent nations.

Geographically it is just like Kharkiv very close to Russian border. Across the border there are also mining town just like those in Ukrainian Donbas.

Economically this area is heavily dependent on Russia as most of its inhabitants work in construction in Moscow and bring home remittances from this work.

Because of this fact this area is important for Russian economy but very detrimental for Ukrainian one.

Donbas Republic

Miners on each side of the border has sympathy for fellow miners. They all suffer from the same economic ailment and mining character of this area serves as an identity fot the area. Thus, it will make sense for them to unite the Donbas area into one nation that can be called Donbas Republic.

Though areas north of Donets River should go to Sloboda Ukraine Republic instead.

Territory can be made even bigger like that of the civil war era Don Republic

This can become another viable new buffer state on the borders between Russia and Ukraine. Economically it will be dependent on Russia though.

This area is somewhat more important geographically as it includes isthmus of Don River. However final borders of the Republic can exclude the istmus and cities like Rostov.

Sloboda Ukraine

I will begin with the most outlying region of them all, so called Sloboda Ukraine or Slobozhanshina. Back in the days it consisted of Kharkiv oblast as well as half of Sumy Oblast. 

This area was first to use term Ukraine for itself. Sloboda part of name means 'free' and together give Free Ukraine.

However, this name is a misnomer created for propaganda purposes, it was never a part of Hetmanate and was always ruled directly by Moscow.

The term free used to mean free of taxation. Back in the days Moscow exempted this area from taxation to encourage settlement.

Even though this area also calls itself Ukraine, its idea of what Ukraine is, is vastly different from that of the rest of the country. 

It is a completely different from Ukraine proper area, that also happen to use term Ukraine to refer ot itself. 

Compared to the rest of the South-East, Sloboda Ukraine was settled about 200 years earlier. Because of that this area can be considered South-East's older brother. However, it was settled under Moscow rule just as other parts of South-East.

Sloboda Ukraine Republic

This is first of my new proposed nations that will take areas from both Russia and Ukraine and unite them into a meaningful new nation state.

Because city of Kharkiv itself is very close to Russian borders, it is geographically and economically anchored to that area.

On Russian side of the Border city of Belgorod is equally close to the border.

The twin cities prevent Russia and Ukraine from going their own way.

Because of that it would be natural to take these two oblasts and make a new nation out of them. I think they will make a good nation together. 

Northern parts of Luhansk Oblast that are mostly agricultural unlike the mostly mining towns south will make a nice addition to this new nation.

Russian Kursk Oblast can also be added to this new nation.

City of Sumy can also be added to that nation, but I think they are better off in the Ukraine proper.

Both Belgorod and Kursk located in Russia's dark corner and are often overlooked by Moscow. So being part of small nations will allow these areas to be heard and cared for much better than being part of big Russia.

Politically it can be a win for both sides. The area in question has little strategic value for Russia, but creating this state can help Russia recover some of its lost reputation and lift some of the sanctions imposed by the West.

Ukraine on the other hand will get a buffer state on its border with Russia and expense of a problematic region.

Since new nation will consist of areas of both Russia and Ukraine, it will not look like loss for either side.

World too will benefit from a neutral buffer state that will divide warring states and prevent further wars. 

Another Proposal for an Australian Flag.

I recently found this new awesome flag and decided to suggest it as a new Australian National Flag.

It has several good advantages.

It looks very aesthetically pleasing. Striking colors, clear image and idea.

It has good symbolism that truly represents the country:

• Red for the color of the land
• Yellow disk for hot summer sun and the bright future.
• Kangaroo is a local animal that is unmistakably Australian.

Kangaroo is rather apolitical symbol that can unite the country.

Kangaroo will make the flag very recognizable internationally. Canadians will shoot themselves out of jealousy, as this flag is much more unmistakably Australian then their Maple leaf Canadian. Canada what?

While it uses same basic colors that aboriginal flag, it is not an aboriginal flag. Aboriginals are not universally loved in this country no matter how much progressives support them. Thus, a compromise solution that can somewhat appeal to both sides can unite those who support more aboriginal representation with those who oppose it.

Since Australian Flag has 1:2 proportions, we can also place a southern cross on the black bar closer to hoist.

However, a much better option will be to make connection between red and black fields triangular in shape. It looks better. Also, it gives the whole composition a more dynamic feel.

Thus, the final design is what should be out flag.

Russia is a Sick Man of Europe

First a little bit of history. Back in 19th century when UK and Russia were two biggest great powers, and played the so-called Great Game, in which the two divided the world into spheres of influence. There was so called Eastern Question: 

What to do with the Ottoman Empire. 

Ottoman Empire used to strike fear all across the Europe in 16th and 17th centuries. Back then it was almost undisputed superpower. However, nothing lasts forever, and fortunes of the Ottomans started to falter. After the Great Turkish War it began to wane. It could still hold most of its ground in early 18th century but lost more closer to the end of that century. By the middle 19th century, Ottomans were no longer able to defend itself and thus so-called Eastern Question came to be.

Russia wanted to conquer all the Ottoman Empire and simply annex it. However, that would have been contrary to the interests of the UK, as that would have made Russia much stronger than UK. So, UK France and Sardinia-Piedmont (future Italy) interfered to save the Ottomans and fought a bloody Crimean War

Ever since a question of what to do with the faltering empire occupied minds of UK's politicians. They did not want it to just fall prey to Russia but did not want to guard and protect it with their own armies either.

UK tried to reform and modernize Ottoman Empire so that it would be able to somehow stand on its own. However, curing this so-called Sick man of Europe, turned out to be an impossible task. Endemic corruption, inflexible vested interests and overall unwieldiness of this multiethnic and multi-confessional empire collapsed it on its own head, and it fell apart into multiple new mostly ethnic based nation states at the end of WWI. Modern Turkey too emerged during these times and even put a final nail in the coffin of the old Ottoman Empire when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk conquered Istambul and dethroned the last Sultan, later he also deprived his successor of the title of Khalif of Muslims 

Modern Sick Men

Almost 200 years have passed since Crimea war and more than 100 since final collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The two centuries since their zenith in the 19th century, by 21th century two great powers of 19th century are now themselves Two Sick Men of Europe.

One of them recently gone so senile as to quit European Union, believing it is still as great and powerful as it was in the 19th century. Brexit was a mistake UK will regret if it manages to get back to its senses.

The other sick man is much sicker than UK. Instead of senility it suffers from the terminal cancer of endemic corruption and inflexible vested interests, that pits common people and businesses against police, secret police and bureaucracy. you can read more about how this cancer kills Russia here

 

How badly Russia is sick.

Because of the reasons outlined in the article about siloviki Russian society is completely divided against themselves and almost completely dysfunctional. 

In fact, Russia suffers from all the same problems that killed Ottoman Empire. Corruption, cancerous vested interests. 

All these issues among other things led to a dysfunctional military that is too stuck in the past to be viable on the modern battlefield. 

What Russia and Ottomans have in common

Back in the days Ottoman Empire had a very powerful and effective military that conquered them their empire. Russia too conquered their empire by force of arms and not so much by anything else. Both countries used to be military hegemons whose military might was that much above that of their neighbors. For both this power eventually declined to the point where they could no longer defend themselves.

Both Russia and the Ottomans used to control a lot of territory and rule over diverse groups of people of different ethnicities, skin colors, languages and religious believes. The way they did it (and in case of Russia still do) was different from modern Western multiculturalism, where diversity more or less evenly distributed across the country, everyone lives side by side and there is no at least visible discrimination based on culture. 

In Ottoman Empire millet system provided different rules and treatment based on religion and other factors. Modern Russia is opaquer on this but back in the days they also discriminated based on language and religion.

In both counties ethnic minorities were mostly conquered people who lived compactly in one or the other area of the country where they were majority. That compact living allowed most of them to achieve independence in their local area and create nation states for themselves.

Ottomans eventually collapsed into rather monoethnic and nationalistic modern Republic of Turkey, that discriminates against everyone who is not Turk and do not speak Turkish as native language, such as Kurds for example.

Russia still holds some control over various minority ethnicities within its borders. Some of them want independence more than others. 

Ethnic Russians themselves not always hold much loyalty to the country as they perceive it as working in the interest of Kremlin and the elites and not in the interest of Russian people as whole.

Russia cannot become a nation state.

However, one other issue that plagues Russia is that it is impossible for it to become a nation state in a modern term of the world.

Since most modern states are nation states and all western system states are nation states, the term probably requires further explanation. You can find it here.

Ottoman Empire used to have their military prowess and Islam as their uniting factors, however when their military power declined in the era of nationalism this was not enough to keep various parts of the empire from wishing to secede and form their own nations.

Because of how heterogeneous it was, Ottoman Empire could not become a nation state in a modern term of the world. It can be a state but could not be a nation. Because of lack of such nationhood, it fell apart into several smaller nation state.

Russia is just as heterogeneous as Ottomans were. Lots of ethnic minorities do not feel loyalty to the country.

Ethnic Russians are a lot more concerned with their Indvidual or family needs and do not trust the county or fellow countrymen. Many want to emigrate. They do not hold much loyalty to the country as they perceive it as working in the interest of Kremlin and the elites and not in the interest of Russian people as whole. 

No matter who ends up taking power in Kremlin, they end up using it for personal benefit of themselves and their cronies while pushing everyone else aside.

Aside from that the county is too large and unevenly developed. People in Moscow and some other western areas are as developed and advanced as the west. Hinterlands on the other hand are as backward as Africa or even worse. People overall are not willing to spread development evenly across the country but rather wish to get where it is better.

Country has too large of a territory with too many contradictory interests in different parts of the country. What is good for Moscow is not necessarily good even for Krasnodar or Novgorod. Much less something further away like Vladivostok.

Because of that this country has no future as it is.

Solutions

Solution is the same as for the Ottomans: to split the country into a number of relatively small countries. Lots of modern countries were carved out of old empire and while some of them are rather dysfunctional, others doing relatively well. Those that are struggling often have poorly drawn borders that put groups with conflicting interests in the same country. Overall, the situation is much better that it was back then.

These new countries should be monoethnic and have cohesive geography and economy.

When carving out new countries we should make sure that each of new countries have one primary industry. That is needed to avoid several different interest groups constantly competing for control of the government to divert all the resources towards their needs at expense of everyone else.

Geography is also important, if there are any areas that are too remote geographically from the rest of the country, they are likely to be overlooked by the governments. That is not good so we need to avoid it.

Current Russian oblast borders are poor guidelines for good new country borders as they come across the economic areas to. That was done to make oblast's governors dependent on the central government as current oblasts could not function as viable independent counties.

To create viable new courtiers most of the time several oblasts have to be merged together into a single county. However, it is not always so. 

Some oblasts should be split, and each part should be then merged with different sets of other oblasts.

Ideally new countries should have around 5 to 10 million people each, but that is not essential.

Some ethnic minorities should get their own countries, but only if they are large enough and live homogeneously. In areas where ethnic minorities and Russians are mixed, more nuanced approached is needed. Either there should be land swap to create ethnically homogenous states or they should be merged with neighboring areas with Russian majority.

Areas with more or less equal distribution of Russians and ethnic minorities like Tatarstan, will likely result in ethnic violence similar to Lebanon or Iraq if created independent in current borders.

It is also possible to do it in stages. Carve new countries from some parts of Russia and leave the rest united for the time being. Areas close to western borders are most prime candidates, as they are more exposed to cultural and technological influence of the West and are more likely to become successful nation-states then areas in hinterlands.

I already suggested some such countries in my Veishnoria article, but it is possible to go even better and finer than just that.

How Nation-States came to be

Nation States are states by people for the people. First such states emerged only recently. The US was first such state and France after Friench Revolution was second. The UK after beheading of King Charles I and Dutch Republic could be considered prototype nation states.

Before French Revolution France was King's State or Kingdom. Louis XIV famously said Etat c'est moi or 'I am the state' in English. He meant it very literary, as it he owns France as if a private property does what he wishes with it. Back in the days of Louis XIV this was norm and most other states in Europe and the world functioned this way. They were states of the monarch and his loyal servants and for the monarch and his loyal servants. 

Sure, even Loius XIV had to share spoils of the state with his subordinates to keep them loyal. These servants were the top-down close shop elite of the state who were the only one who benefited from the state.

French Revolution changed that. During the course of revolution people of France obtained self-consciousness as nation and wrested control of their country from their King. King and his supporters however did not want to give their country away, so a fight ensured, Louis XVI, a successor to the XIV, was even beheaded as revolutionaries suspected he wanted his country back.

Once things in France settled in revolutionary way, other countries in Europe felt alarmed that these developments in France set a dangerous precedent that will put their own rule in question. At these times no country in Europe had any form of legitimacy that stemmed from its people. All of them were also a King's and elite's states that worked on for elites. The elites were afraid that when people learn of developments in France they too will wish to have a stake in the system, to make it work for them. Elites did not want to share power with the populace.

Thus, former enemies put their differences aside and united in containing an idea of nation state for good. They defeated Napoleon and restored the rightful monarch to French throne as per King's state principles of the old. 

Back at congress of Vienna they all thought that they destroyed the dangerous ideas of Friench Revolution and things will come back to how they used to be. King's and their elites will go on to governing for themselves as they always did. 

They were wrong. Idea of a nation state did spread all over the Europe. Just 15 years afterwards France again overthrew the king and replaced him with more popular pretender. Over the rest of 19th century half of the Europe followed the suit and transformed into nation states.

Those who resisted this change, like Austria (later Austria-Hungary) for example, only managed to hold out until WWI and fell apart in nation states at the end of the world.

The idea took much firmer root over the 20th century and by now most of Europe and Western world in general consists entirely of nation states. That became so normal that some do not even understand how it was before this change.

Seeing the trend, many non-nation states started to adopt some trappings of a nation state in order to disguise themselves as nation states. They hoped doing so will avert revolution and full transformation into a nation-state. Fundamentally however these disguised non-nation states only strive to preserve their systems of rule of the elite. The distinction between nation-states and non-nation states did blur.

Over time they became so paranoid that revolution will happen in their country and kick them out of power, that grew to think that nation states as a group want to destroy them. Just like they used to vehemently oppose Napoleon simply out of principle that he has no right to rule a country because he was not of royal blood. When Russia, China, North Korea and Iran complain that the US sponsor the protestors in their countries, that is because of that paranoia.

However, revolutions happen from the desire of people of the countries to have a stake in the country and not be pushed aside by the elites who think they are better than common people.

By the turn of the century there are still many non-nation states here and there, they are mostly outside of Western World. Countries that border Western World of nations states, such as Russia or Belarus but not nation states themselves attract most attention. Particularly those where there is ongoing struggle between people and governing elite, like Ukraine and Belarus. However, there are many others. 

Siloviki are the cancer that kills Russia

Terminal cancer that ails Russia is its police, KGB/FSB, FSO, Officers of the military and other such forces (militarized structures that which analogues in the West often has 'Force' in its name, like Police Force for example). Often, they are called Siloviki.

Loyalty of Siloviki is maintained by giving them privileged treatment, ability to abuse their powers to enrich themselves or to exploit ordinary people simply for their amusement.

Non-siloviki hate siloviki's special treatment, their abuses and their illegally accumulated wealth. Some to them want to end their tyrannical rule. Similar to how Rose Revolution in Georgia and Euromaidan in Ukraine ended siloviki rule in these countries. 

However, siloviki zealously guard their privileges and status. If people protest, they don riot gear and beat them. If someone like Alexei Navalnyi releases videos criticizing current system, they arrest him. Or poison him with polonium or Novichok if they happen to live outside of Russia. If someone were to reform the system from the top and eliminate these abuses, they would be more than willing to stage a coup and remove such a person from power.

Siloviki is the cancer that kills Russia, they destroy everything around them in order to keep their power and privileges. They are all to well entrenched on every level of the government system to simply remove them though.

Putin and Siloviki

Putin too looks after siloviki's interests to stay in power and stay alive. He started war in Ukraine because siloviki need it, not because he himself is so found of such conquest. Because of that any speculation for internal coup to remove Putin for the war in Ukraine is completely off the mark. They need this war, not him.

Putin is silovik himself, being part of SVR makes him so. 

What unites Siloviki and Bureaucracy

Siloviki may claim that they are patriots who look after country's interests as they understand them. However, it is a lie. Siloviki are united by their corruption and abuses of power. By their elevated status that they do not want to lose.

They steal together and then protect their ill-gotten goods together. Those who do not steal are not part of their closed club or thieves in disguise.

Why Siloviki need War in Ukraine

To put it simple, it is to eliminate any opposition to their continued rule. 

Young people who are able to speak English and use internet freely, can see online how the rest of the world lives. They are envious of freedom and prosperity that people in Europe have and want the same freedoms and prosperity for themselves as well. 

Some can emigrate, but others who are stuck in Russia are prime candidates to organize a mass protest or insurgency against Putin and siloviki rule. Georgians and Ukrainians did manage to change the system so can they. People like Navalnyi further steer the youth towards discontent.

Siloviki having hard time appealing to them.

Siloviki can keep older people content with their rule by using TV propaganda, broadcasted freely from Ostankino TV Tower on many of Russia free to air TV channels. Most of old people who cannot speak English and do not use internet tend to belive lies that Dmitriy Kisilevor Vladimir Solovyev tells them.

However young people increasingly unwilling to believe what first channel tells them.

Siloviki is well aware of the sentiments young people have and opted to do something before young people of Moscow could organize a Euromaidan of their own.

A war gives them a good excuse to draft these young people into military and then send them to them to their death in Ukraine.

If some of them flee the country to avoid being drafted, that works too.

Either way they are out of Moscow and cannot organize a Euromaidan to overthrow siloviki and Putin.

From a Western perspective deliberately slaughtering their own youth is not only unduly cruel, but also detrimental to economy. It is as good as shooting yourself in a foot. 

People of these ages are the most productive and useful for the economy. They are those who build prosperity West enjoys. Because of that Westen analytics simply cannot fathom why would any government deliberately slaughter people of these age group.

However, Russia prosperity mostly comes from oil and natural gas. These things will continue to flow even if every single man younger than 45 dies and siloviki's ill-gotten prosperity will continue. Because of that Russia's siloviki are willing to send youth to slaughter simply for slaughter's sake.

History of Ukrainian South-East

All the way until late 18th century, these areas were mostly uninhabited. Just as Australia or western United States. In fact, some of the earlier peace agreements between Russia and Ottoman Empire even stipulated to not settle these areas.

These areas were buffer steppes between Poland Lithuania in the north, Ottoman controlled coast of Black Sea in the south and Russia in the east.

Zaporizhian Cossacks from Khortitsa island on one hand and Crimean Tatars from Bakhchisaray on the other fought each other and pillage everyone who tried to pass through the area, much less settle it.

However, in the end of 18th century Russia won a series of wars against Ottomans and annexed all this land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russo-Turkish_wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1768%E2%80%931774)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1787%E2%80%931792)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1806%E2%80%931812)

At the same time Russia completely destroyed Poland-Lithuania and annexed their lands as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions_of_Poland

Then they also defeated Napoleon and finally became that superpower Russian nationalists like to be proud of so much.

From this

to this in 100 years

From there on newly minted Superpower did not need Ottomans or anyone else agreement on anything, so it begun doing whatever it wanted to.

Thus, Russia begun colonizing the steppes. The Empire had grandiose plans for its newly acquired territories.

They founded Sevastopol as a naval base. Built palaces all around Crimea for the elites. Odessa as a main trading port and an import/export hub for the Empire. Dnipro and Zaporozhie for new agriculture hubs close to the river. Yuzovka (modern Donesk) for coal mining and steel making. And pretty much every other town in the area. Only a few towns like Ochakiv (Kara-Kerman) or Bakhchisaray existed there before Russian Empire

Of course, all these new cities that grew from 0 to several millions each required many people to build, inhabit and work there. So people came to settle the area from other areas of modern Russia, Ukraine and even the rest of the world. Hard to believe nowadays, but back in 19th century people actually immigrated into Russia. 

Some of them even have monuments and streets named after then in Odessa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_de_Ribas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derybasivska_Street

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand-Emmanuel_de_Vignerot_du_Plessis,_duc_de_Richelieu

From mayor of Odessa, he became Prime Minister of France, no seriously.

Back in the days the area had plenty of economic opportunities to take advantage of so people from all of the world came to settle there.

Russian Empire loved the region and it received a lot of investment and development, probably much to the charging of areas north of it.

However, there was economic reasons to invest in that area. Coal and Steel of Donbas for example were the key resources of the 19th century.

That prosperity more or less continued into 20th century, until it finally ended shortly before USSR collapsed.

Back during Russian Civil War parts of the area decided to become independent as Anarchist Society.

Free Territory Area had no particular name but Nestor Makhno's Black Army managed to control a lot of land in the South-East, despite being at war with Reds, Whites and Ukrainian Nationalists in Kyiv at the same time. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Makhnovia.svg

They too were eventually defeated by the Reds.

After the civil war communists decided to unite South-East with Kyiv area into one big Ukraine.

Kyiv government did claim steppes as their own as they did with many other areas all the way to Northern Caucuses. However, communists only gave them these areas.

From there on South-East settlers were told that they are Ukraine and over time they grew to think that all of Ukraine are same kind of colonial settlers as they are. USSR rather favored this misconception, and it was a tricky way of diluting stubborn nationalism of those in the Ukraine proper areas.

Ukrainian nationalists are also too stubborn to simply let go of these areas, no matter how unmanageable they are for Kyiv.

After Ukraine's independence however people in the South-East increasingly noticed that they have little in common with those further north, thus prompting some form of soul searching. Some decided to cling back to Russia much to the delight of the imperialists in Moscow who then falsefully claimed that all of Ukraine wants back.

History of Ukraine Proper

 This is a separate article about history of core Ukrainian lands around Kyiv.

These are the areas that were settled during the Kyivan Rus times. In good times these areas prospered and spread its way of governance via small princely states. From there the original Rus civilization spread to other areas west (only to Lviv as further west was Poland) and north-east into modern Russia.

Then came Mongol invasion that decimated most of the original Rus. What is now Russia mostly fell under control of Mongols and What is now Ukraine and Belarus under control of Lithuania.

Then, some-time after Poland and Lithuania formed a union under Lithuanian Jagellonian dynasty, Lithuania transferred southern areas to Poland. That was done as part of internal governance readjustment and further separated areas that became modern Ukraine from what became Belarus.

Back in the days borders between Ukraine and Belarus were much further north and I think it Ukraine-Belarus border should indeed be further north, similar to this map.

Dissatisfaction with this adjustment lead to Khmelnitsky uprising, as living conditions were much better in Lithuanian part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Lithuania part was multilingual and multiconfessional with no discrimination based on language or religion. In contrast Polish part was monolingual and Catholic only. Thus, Orthodox Ukrainian speaking people of modern Ukraine ended up suffering under Polish rule.

That eventually led to a Khmelnytsky Uprising

When Bogdan Khmelnytsky entered Kyiv during his upring against Polish rule, he declared himself Hetman of All Rus as he attempted to revive the old independent Kyivan Rus.

However as uprising fortunes begun to decline, Khmelnytsky had to find some new allies if he was to avoid being hanged in Kyiv by Polish forces. Moscow was willing to help, but only on condition that areas of the uprising will become part of Russia. That is not what Ukrainians wanted, but alternative was death.

In the end of the day pragmatism won: Khmelnytsky thought of promising Russia anything now in exchange for soldiers for the war. Then somehow screw them further down the line at opportune moment. Moscow kind of expected them to do something like that so they too had a plan how to manage that from there on.

Pereslavl Union dragged Moscow into Russo-Polish War, in which they reached a separate agreement with Poles about dividing Ukraine in two halves. Ukrainians felt betrayed but there was nothing they could do.

The original state Khmelnytsky envisioned:

Became just the left bank of Dnipro River and the city of Kyiv.

Shown in Purple here.

In fact, it was not that much bigger compared to Russian province of Sloboda Ukraine (shown in green in the same map)

Separate Polish Western Hetmanate also existed for some time until Poles abolished it.

Hetmanate

As I mentioned before Khmelnytsky intended to call his country Rus, but Moscow who also called itself Rus or Russia vetoed that as Russian Tsar claimed to be only successor of Kyivan Rus and will not accept another Rus. That would have made them South and North Rus like South and North Korea.

Because of that Cossacks of Hetmanate did not call their country anything in particular. Terms like Territory of Zaporozhian Army were used sometimes. Hetman in Exile Phyllip Orlyk was the first to use term Ukraine in his constitution. My personal take on etymology is from term 'U krainy' which means 'in the country.'

Left-bank Hetmanate continued to haggle with Moscow over the terms of their union. Kind of like Hong Kong and Mainland China. Moscow saw Hetmanate only as intermediate stage, planning to eventually turn this area ordinary provinces. However Cossack army in Baturin prevented them from just abolishing the Hetmanate altogether, as these Cossacks would just fight Moscow army for their country.

During Great Northern War, Hetman Mazepa decided it was time to break up the Union and sided with Carolus Rex of Sweden in exchange for Sweden recognizing Hetmanate full independence with no further pre-conditions. However, Sweden lost the war in the Battle of Poltava. Mazepa and Cossacks who sided with them also lost their place in Hetmanate.

From there what was left of Cossack Army in Hetmanate could no longer resist Moscow's will, though Hetmanate was not completely abolished and redivided into Russian Gubernias with appointed governors until something like 1764

After abolition of Hetmanate, Russia tried to Russify this area but with little success. Tenacious and rebellious Ukrainians refused to be assimilated and managed to preserve and even develop their identity during these times as well.

During the Russian Civil War, Ukrainians decided it was their chance to become independent again and declared their independence once more. This time they sided with Poles, who also saw Russian Civil war as a chance to restore their own independence.

Ukraine People's Republic

Proposed borders of the new Ukraine were all rather different from the current ones. Many of them included areas that are far from current borders.

In practice none of that could have been realized. Just like last time Poles and Russian again divided Ukraine between themselves. Pilsudski who commanded Polish Army and actually fought Russians was against it, but he could not stop that.

On the separate note, during these times another revolver Ukrainian state, West Ukrainian People's Republic agreed to form a union with the Kyiv's UNR. That fact shows that both West and Central Ukraine have enough in common to believe in unified state.

Western Ukraine with the capital in Lviv avoided many of the calamities that befell areas around Kyiv, but it does have shared identity with the Ukraine proper.

Then finally during the World War II USSR managed to take Polish part of Ukraine, pushing Poland itself much further west.

Japanese can understand both worlds.

I started thinking recently that Japanese managed to become so successful because they can understand both East and West equally. 

Eastern and Western mentality is rather different. People might have a hard time understanding each other. So people who are able to bridge this gap can end up being very successful and profitable. 

May be that is the role Japan and Thailand play in the world. They can understand both western people and eastern people. Other Easterners possbily cannot understand West, while West in contrast cannot understand East.

However that can simply be, because Japanese are also somewhat in the middle between East and West culturally. Thus bost East and West can understand and relate to what they do. While they have hard time understanding and appealing to each other.

So what are your thoughts on that.

Post-Soviet Borders are Disfunctional Mess

Current war in Ukraine brings to light issues of various post-Soviet borders. This conflict is far not the only one. Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and even Central Asian countries all have plenty of border issues with each other, that occasionally flare into armed confrontations. In case of Ukraine, they even develop into a full-scale war.

While it is simple to blame Russia and Putin for starting this war, that overlooks underlying problems that let it happen in a first place.

When USSR collapsed, its 15 highest level territorial subdivisions became independent countries. Question of viability of these borders was deliberately overlooked to avoid disputes over borders. Such disputes in Yugoslavia led to lengthy Bosnian and Croatian wars where many died and those who dissolved USSR wanted to avoid this on a much bigger scale and with nuclear weapons.

However Soviet borders between various were not designed to create viable independent nations who would be able to function independently on their own. On the contrary, they were drawn to foster interdependency. To that end various hidden hooks were placed in all the former Soviet states, to make their separation from the USSR if not impossible, that at least as painful as possible.

That was done to prevent nationalists in different parts of USSR from pushing for independence as any such move would result in breaking of many economic links and make newly independent countries unstable and chaotic if not outright dysfunctional on their own. Economic co-dependency counteracted nationalism and tenuously kept USSR together in its best days.

However, USSR's economy took a deep plunge in 80s and nationalism resurfaced. It was a perfect storm that destroyed USSR and handed USA victory in the cold war.

However, issues with borders remained and they kept plaguing post-Soviet countries, preventing them from finding their place in the world. Different parts of these post-Soviet courtiers fight for control of their countries with other parts that have conflicting interests, world views and often languages as well.

Russia itself is as dysfunctional as many other post-Soviet states. Moscow elites run that country like that since time immemorable and, thanks to high oil prices, so far more or less managed to keep it afloat. However fundamentally Russia is not any more functional that your average post-Soviet state.

Thus Russia, Ukraine and the rest of post-Soviet states need significate border readjustments and, in many cases, break up into smaller states to turn them into viable nation states.

I will cover each country individually in separate blog posts. Some might take several.