Why Kazakhstan Was Most Supportive of Continuation of USSR

After Belavezha Accord was signed, Yeltsin and the crew had to placate Kazakhstan that everything will be alright, and they were the last to agree to dissolution. Kazakhstan was one country that mourn it actually. More than Russia itself.

Russia came up with Belavezha accord after Ukraine voted for independence. Belarus agreed only after Russia. Kazakhstan then for two weeks argued with them, they should not do it, but they were the only one at that.

Kazakhstan probably benefited from USSR existence more than other places in the Union.

Before Russian conquest of Central Asia, all the development was concentrated in what is now modern Uzbekistan. Then Russia, but especially USSR went to pump a lot of development in Kazakhstan instead, draining some from Uzbekistan in process, letting Uzbekistan to get dilapidated and overpopulated.

Because of that Kazakhstan felt all cozy in USSR, but was worried that without USSR, Uzbekistan will come to claim domination over Central Asia once again.

Russian Stereotypes about Different Countries - Slavic Trio

 

This group includes Russians themselves together with Belarussians and Ukrainians. In USSR some republics were closer than others and Ukraine and Belarus were the closest two. 

Government spared no effort in portraying these three countries and their people as "brotherly nations", convincing people that unlike other Soviet Republics who are friendly but distinct, these three are, if not one and the same people, then at least as related as biological brothers.

It was easy to people to believe that. Unlike Baltic people, Ukrainians and Belorussian use the same Cyrillic alphabet as Russians do. They are also part of the same Orthodox Church as Russians are. Their languages are close enough to Russian, that some might call them a dialect instead. 

In addition to the above there were enough cultural and other similarities between these three people, as the opposite to the rest of USSR.

Language Issue

Soviet government, while nominally acknowledged that Belarussian and Ukrainian are district languages, informally called these languages a country/outback/outdated dialect and encouraged people in Belarus and Ukraine to switch to "proper, modern" language instead (Russian language). 

Nationalistic people in Belarus and especially in Ukraine called it Russification. However, USSR used to crack down on nationalist critics as anti-Soviet.

Partly because of that there is such mess with languages and identity in modern Ukraine and Belarus. As some people in Ukraine and Belarus switched to Russian during USSR times for convenience and career opportunities. Others in contrast stayed true to their native language. That created divided cities and regions where some speak one and others the other language. Descendants of those who switched to do not feel like switching back and those who stayed true now wish to undo the Russification.

USSR's ideology claimed that their state as international union of "free and equal socialist" nations, so they considered any form of nationalism as separatism aimed at destabilizing the "free and equal union" Nominally USSSR opposed Russian nationalism as well, claiming than any sentiment that puts any nation individual interests above the union is wrong. However, more often than not it was other republics who felt the squeeze.

One such example would be language. Since USSR declared Russian language a "language of international communication", promoting usage of this language was seen as facilitating unity and international cooperation. In contrast promoting other languages, such as Ukrainian was seen as anti-unity and sedition.

The map in this article shows distribution of each language in all three countries. You can see a lot of Russian language on fringes of Ukraine, especially border areas. In contrast Belarus is 50% Russified.

Outcomes

The fact that some Ukrainians and Belarussians switched to Russian language and identity, created a diffusing of boundaries between these people.

To many of Russians in Russia these two nations were more of an extension, or alteration of Russian one, rather than entirely different people, such as Latvians.

Dubiously drawn borders, that split same economic regions between these three nations, rather than separate distinct economic areas from one another only added to this perception.

USSR wanted people to think that three are inseparable from each other, did a lot of fiddling to make it seem so and mostly achieved its goal.

How Propaganda prevails over the reality

Because of all of the above, it is much easier for an average person in Moscow to believe Russian Propaganda narrative. 

Instead, a Nazi coup, supported by Western powers, sounds like a more plausible explanation. After all, why else would basically Russian people want to be independent of their own country and ally with its enemies instead? No way they will do something like that on their own volution...

Reality, that Ukraine never really liked Russia, felt betrayed by Tzars during the Khmelnitsky uprising and always wanted to be independent and European. However, reality goes against everything that propaganda and stereotypes used to claim and people in Russia still believe. That makes reality implausible and unbelievable. So, people turn to believable fiction, cooked by Ostankino liars.

Ukraine

As the final part, I will cover stereotypes that exist about each nation. Ukraine has more stereotypes than Belarus. Ukrainians also appear in Russian jokes a lot more often than Belarussians.

Russians' propaganda and jokes Ukrainians and selfish, greedy, parochial, superstitious and stupid. Clearly propaganda does not flatter Ukrainians. According to the stereotypes, Ukraine is somewhat of a Homer Simpson of the family. 

That, of course, only increased dislike of Russia and Russians among the Ukrainians. However, Russians do not take them seriously enough.

There are plenty of Russian jokes about Ukrainians. Possibly only Georgians and Jews have more jokes about them than Ukrainians.

Surprisingly enough there are also jokes about Ukrainians hating Moskovians and trying to ruin them. Use of Ukrainian slur for a Russian person, 'Moskal', in these kinds of jokes might confuse an average Russian on who are they referring to. It could as well be just the inhabitants of City of Moscow, whom the rest of the Russia also hates for being snobbish and thinking that life does not exists outside of Moscow Ring Road.

Ukrainian Nazi, whom Dmitri Kiselev likes to blame for current War, have real origin in Ukrainian Insurgent Army, that fought the guerrilla war against the USSR in 40s and 50s. While actual UIA soldiers were not Nazi and fought Germans as well, the Soviet propaganda called them Banderites and portrayed then as Quisling-like Nazi collaborators.

Even when the Soviet Army defeated the insurgents, the propaganda kept of parroting about 'Banderites, hiding in the forests of Western Ukraine.' Dmitry Kiselev later used these 'unfinished' Banderites as basis for his Nazi in Ukraine narrative: Banderites seized power in independent Ukraine and now plotting various war crimes against Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians alike.

Belarus

Belarussians are often portrayed as simple, but friendly people, who like their potatoes. Most of few jokes about Belarus revolve around potato and Kolkhoz.

Simpleton dictator, Alexaner Lukashenka fits Russian stereotypes about Belarussians really well. That is part of what makes him popular in Russia itself.

For a western reference, the closest thing will probably be Goofy or Donald Duck. Unlike Ukrainian, Belarussian language sounds very funny for an average Russian person. Some websites even used it as part of their 1 of April jokes.

In general, however, Belarussians seem less offended by Russian stereotypes, compared to Ukrainians. 

Russophones in Belarus might think that all the jokes only about those who speak Belarussian and do not apply to Russophone themselves. Only some Belarussian speaking, who are minority in their own country, people will be offended.

Reasons for that is that Belarus is much more Russified, compared to Ukraine. Ukrainians mostly see their language as part of their national heritage and identity and therefore zealously oppose any afford to it or their identity. In contrast Russophone Belarussians adopted soviet outlook on language issues, thus they consider those who speak Belarussians country bumpkins and enjoy laughing at them themselves.

Sure, recent events with Tikhanovskaya and protests might eventually change the way, Belarussians see themselves and the world, but that remains to be seen.

Russian Stereotypes about Different Countries - Introduction

Stereotypes often shape the way; people see other people and countries. Other people are complicated, and it is expediate to simplify them into some easy to digest and understand stereotype. Sometimes these stereotypes are very far from reality, but they often hold powerful sway over people, nonetheless. Like Myth of Liberator Gorbachev continues to re-appear even in more informed videos.

Thus, I decided to write a comprehensive article about myth that persist in Russia about various countries in the world. I do know that many of it is vastly inaccurate and does not reflect reality of people in question. However, these are the thing Russian media, education and even entertainment perpetrate. Thing average guy on the streets of Moscow or Ekaterinburg likely to believe.

It is important to understand these stereotypes, as some of Russian geo-political actions, such as war in Ukraine as well as people's reaction to it, are direct consequence of these myth. 

Former USSR

I will begin with former USSR. 15 Soviet Republics, united in an "unbreakable brotherly union" were a common theme of various "educational" propaganda. United, but with their own unique colorful characteristics, similar to four countries of the UK. They are often grouped together in geographically related groups: Baltic trio, Slavic trio, Caucasian trio, Central Asia, Moldova on its own.

Slavic and Baltic trios represented the "us vs them" dichotomy: Slav trio is Russia's extended family; Baltics, and especially Latvia, is an example the collective West as it is understood by people in Russia.

Russian Stereotypes about Different Countries - Baltic States

Baltic States

Baltic states include former USSR but current European Union and NATO members of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Of these Latvia in particular has a special place in Russian mythos.

Russians tend to view Baltics as basically Europeans. The fact, that they use Latin alphabet as well as follow Catholic or Lutheran Christianity as the opposite to Cyrillic alphabet and Russian Orthodox Christianity in Russia itself adds to this perception.

From Russian point of view, Europe and the West in general is like these three. Something these countries themselves do like to take pride of, despite some skepticism in some parts of Europe.

Russian attitude towards the Baltics and via them, towards the West as a whole, is a combination of envy and hatred. In part Russians envy a quality of life, organization and civilization these could achieve. Some want to be like them, to westernize and better themselves. 

The other part of country instead hates them for doing better than Russians themselves are, they see Baltic people as arrogant snobs who look down on Russia and hate everything Russian. This stereotype is supported by Russian media, However Baltic people themselves sometimes fit this stereotype with their own effort. 

Latvia

Of Baltic states, Latvia is the most familiar to Russians. Latvia fits Russian stereotypes better than the other two, so it gets more attention from Russia.

People in Russia typically heard of total of three cities there: Riga, Jurmala and Daugavpils. Some would visit Riga for architecture sightseeing or Jurmala for a Russian music festival.

Russians like to think that Latvians are basically Germans and Latvia is little Germany on Baltics. On that Latvians would like to agree with them, even though they would disagree on many other issues.

Russia hates Latvians for being Nazi even more that they hate Germans themselves for the same thing. Latvians in turn hate Russians for occupation and annexation of their country.

Before there were Nazi in Ukraine there were Nazi in the Baltics. 

Conflict between Russophone people and the native Latvians over language rights is often extensively covered in Russian news. Russian news often portrays attempts of Latvian Government to reduce Russian language presence in Latvia as Nazism, discrimination and Russophobia to fuel anti-Western sentiments in Russia itself. Latvian government just keeps doing its thing, thus keeping the hate going. 

I would not be surprised if Russian government is actually encouraging them to do it for their own propaganda objectives. After all someone has to produce some evidence of Western Russophobia for Kiselev's TV shows, otherwise he will sound like some conspiracy theory loon. Lativa seems like the guy for a job.

Estonia

Russians tend to view Estonia as simply Lativa 2.0. 

Around half of what I have written about Lativa applies here as well, but to a lesser degree. Same conflict between Russophones and native Estonians. Same occasional appearances in Russian propaganda, like over that Bronze Soldier incident and protests.

However, people know little about Estonian cities, culture and such. Much fewer visit the country. Overall, this country fits the propaganda stereotype much less than Latvia does, so Russian propaganda do not feature it as much. 

One thing that only applies to Estonia and not to Latvia is Russian jokes about them being very slow. There are similar Russian jokes about Finns as well. Thus, at least Russian humor connects Estonians to Finns rather than Latvians and Lithuanians.

Lithuania

Latvia 3.0, hardly a surprise.

In fact, people of Russia know surprisingly little about this last Baltic state. It fits stereotypes the least, so Russian information space simply gloss over it by lumping it together with the other two Baltic states.

Compare to that West seems to know and understand Lithuania a lot better than any other post-Soviet states. You might even say that they view post-Soviet space through the Lithuanian lenses. From Western perspective Lithuanian experience is most simple to understand. However, that too is misleading.

Lithuania manages to be the most understood post-Soviet state for an American and least understood post-Soviet state for a Russian at the same time.

In actuality Lithuania is the most functional nation of all Baltics and even the whole post-Soviet space. You might even call them the only post-Soviet nation, as all the remaining ones are much more confused and divided internally. Read my other article about nationhood. Not even Russia itself has the same level of national cohesiveness: understanding of shared fate and desire to fight for their future as a group.

Partly that has to do with the fact that unlike Latvia and Estonia, Lithuania was actually its own independent nation once, a big one at that. Back in the days, they managed to create an effective army to fend off both Teutons and Mongols, a well renown warriors of their times. Together with Poland, they even managed to defeat Teutonic Order for good. They expanded and eventually became the biggest country of their times, they territory included all modern Belarus, around half of Ukraine and some parts of modern Russia. Later Lithuanians entered union with Poland, at first, they prospered together but then perished together with them during the partitions of Poland.

Another reason is that ethnic Russians here are only second biggest minority after Poles. Both are only around 7% of total, unlike Latvia where they are around 40%. Because of then society is not divided between native Lithuanians and Russophones as much as in Latvia and Estonia.

Unlike Latvia and Estonia, Lithuania did not bother with non-citizen status for Russophones, just giving citizenship to everyone. Because of that it is not featured in Russian news over the language issues, cementing its status as the most obscure Baltic state.

Being first to declare independence, secede from USSR and get diplomatic recognition, Lithuania became somewhat of a go to contact point on post-Soviet issues in the West. Lithuanian politicians received Freedom Awards from the US. They also often play an active role in various post-Soviet issues. Lithuanian politicians participated in Ukrainian issues ever since Orange Revolution and may be even before.

Final words 

I will continue this series with a separate article about other post-soviet groups and then other nations, such as UK and the US later. This one got so long already.

How Medieval Society Worked

Only every nobleman: baron and above (viscount, count (Earl), Marquess, Duke, Prince, King, Emperor) had a Coat of Arms

UK still has a system of rules of who was entitles to Coat of Arms as well as register of all of them.

These are modern hereditary peers. House of Lords members. I think life peers are also entitled to Coat of Arms. There are 700 something of them in total.

To give you an idea how many of them there were. Earl of Count is a ruler of county. Both the UK and the US states are divided into counties, so you can count the total number of them. Each would be headed by an Earl with a Coat of Arms. Under Earl there will be number of Barons, each running a Manor in the county.

Manor is a medieval farming organization. Modern farming done by a single family with the help of machinery. However, in Medieval times, Manor lords only supervised the farming and actual labor was done by peasants.

However, being Lord of Manor was more of a reward for them.

Their real job was to be a low tier military commander. Somewhat of an NCO equivalent. They had to have military training and use income to maintain their military equipment and a horse. They also had to maintain a number of knights and their equipment as well. Together they were like a fireteam or a section of medieval army.

All nobility and knights were heavy cavalry, dudes in full plate armor, with lance on armored horses. Peasants were sometimes used as other types.

Earls and Dukes were higher tier commanders, captains and colonels maybe. Medieval army had less ranks compare to modern one. Kings were like generals.

How Quartered Designs on Various Coat of Arms Came to Be

Quartered designs, that people imitate so often, come not from single time intentional design, but from mergers and such.

Two individual places had a simple flag each that followed rules of tincture and such. Then they merged and now symbols of each had to be displayed together so that everyone knows this is an army or person of united kingdoms, duchies or counties.

More ordinary personal example of this approach is hyphenated family. Both surnames were considered important enough to create new hyphenated one. Family of Johnsons merged with Morrisons. Their descendants were hence known as Johnsons-Morrisons

One well documented example is the UK. England used to have a simple red cross on white. Scotland simple white saltire (x-cross) on blue. However when Scotland and England united into United Kingdom, each place wished for their symbol to be on the united flag. At first they simply depicted them side by side, like in this article.

In the UK they eventually came up with more aesthetically pleasing version of the flag. Now iconic Union Jack. In many other places the resign remained as hyphenated as before. Some times adding more and more mergers.

The worst example would be Coat of Arms to two Sicilies. The bearer of this basically claims to be a descendant of everyone under the sun. Almost like John James Washington-Lincoln-Roosevelt-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Trump-Obama-Stalin-Tsedong-Genghis-Temur-Ceasar-Moses. 

Notice a presence of golden cross on white, the symbol of Crusader era Kingdom of Jerusalem. Rulers of Two Sicilies unironically claimed to be Kings of Jerusalem as well many other places all over the Europe.

LNP Party Room Problem

When Liberal and National parties of Queensland merged into one party, it created a peculiar problem for The Coalition. That is a party room distribution. 

Liberal and National MPs each have their own separate party rooms, they do not have joint Coalition Party Room. Thus, only MPs of their respective parties participate in all important internal governance of their parties: National MPs do not vote on leader of Liberal Party and Liberal MPs do not vote on leader of the National Party. 

That used to limit radical far right MPs influence on politics. Sure, Nationals do get some portfolios, but they have no say over who gets any portfolios on Liberal side of Coalition, or who will be new Liberal leader.

However, when LNP was created, instead of getting their own party room, they made a peculiar arrangement with the Federal parties: 2 out of 3 LNP MPs will be in Liberal Party room and the remaining one out of 3 in National Party room instead. 

That shifted the power balance in Liberal Part room far to the right. A lot of rural MP, who would have been in National Party room under old arrangement, were now in the Liberal Party room instead. That affected preselection of leaders in the Liberals. Suddenly radicals such as Tony Abbot or Peter Dutton could become leaders of this otherwise moderate party.

Because of that, the Australian politics overall shifted far to the right. What used to be fringe rural sentiments now suddenly seeped through to the mainstream. In fact, the whole mess of the 2010s should be blamed on this subtle party room arrangement.

The solution to this problem will be to replace this arrangement with something that reflects reality better. One solution is all rural LNP MPs sit with the Nationals and only urban with the Liberals. The other one is LNP is getting its own party room, elects its own leader who becomes second deputy PM if coalition wins, and they get some agreed on portfolios, just like Nationals currently do.

I do hope this will be solved, the sooner the better.

How Losers become Winners

I once wrote a large article about how once huge and powerful empires eventually crumbled and turned into dust. However, this process has its own opposite, how once outcasts and losers turned tables around and became great. In fact, some of these great empires clearly had a miserable beginning, with some others there is not enough information to be clear. However, there was no any cohesive evidence of any great power, that was destined for greatness from the start.

The US

We can begin with the United States itself. Give or take the only current superpower.US had near humblest beginnings out there. Some of it even preserved in stories about pilgrims of the Plymouth Bay colony, that is in modern Massachusetts, where Boston and MIT are.

What is now the US, began as leftover colonies of the Spanish. By the time French and British found out about the new world, Spanish and Portuguese pretty much colonized all valuable land there. So, these two and the Dutch hat to make do with what Spanish could not be bothered with. Modern US and Canada mostly.

The people who settled it were also somewhat of an outcast of the original societies from which they relocated to the Americas. 

For example, Pilgrims were followers of the Puritan Religion, one of the strands of the Protestant Reformation. However, their extreme version of the Christianity eventually provoked ire of British government, who ordered them all to either convent to Anglicanism or leave the UK. Those who left founded Plymouth Bay colony that eventually evolved into Massachusetts Bay Colony and then the US State of Massachusetts as well as other states in the New England Region.

Southern colonists came from more upper class, but no less unfortunate background. Planters of the South were second and third children of nobility. Nobles first born would be groomed to eventually succeed their father as next Lord (peer). However, there was only one title to inherit, so if any given baron had two sons, only one could become Lord after their father's death and enjoy the powers and privilege that brings. The second will do without, so they had no choice but finding their own place in the world and building their wealth from ground up. Some of such gentlemen found their opportunity in American south and set up cotton plantations there. Being sons of Manorial Lords, they organized these plantations in a similar way, substituting peasants for slaves from Africa. 

Middle states, such as New York and Delaware were once Dutch and Swedish colonies respectively. However, these countries could not profit from them, so they abandoned them. the British and the US picked them up. Dutch literary traded whole modern state of New York for what is now Suriname, back in the days Suriname was more profitable and prosperous, so Dutch ditched the big apple for some sugar plantations. 

The trend continued and even intensified when the US became independent. It became an immigration magnet for impoverished and discontent from Europe and eventually the rest of the world.

On the dais Statue of Liberty, that welcomes new arrivals by see there is even an inscription: "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." 

These outcasts not needed elsewhere became Americans and eventually took this country into greatness.

Russia

The US rival from Cold War times, where people sometimes like to pride themselves on not being a bunch of mixed origins immigrants from all over the world, is actually no less mixed than the US.

Back in Peter I times, there was even the special foreign districts where various immigrants from Europe will live. Eventually this practice was abolished, but the people from there simply intermixed with the rest of the population.

Both Peter I and Catherine II as well as all the monarchs between them employed Europeans on many important governmental positions. Scotsman Gordon build Peter I navy and Genevan Frenchman Le Fort built fortifications and artillery; the infamous Lefortovo neighborhood is named after him. Main street of Odessa, Deribasovskaya, is actually named after Jose de Ribas, a Spainard who participated in building this city.

Peter I was not the first who employed foreigners in Russia.

Kievan Rus was founded by the adventurer Rurik from what is now modern Scandinavia. Rurik too thought to improve his lot by going Viking, because back in the days Sweden was not as prosperous as it is now. Rurik and his Scandianvians intermixed with local Slavs and Finno-Ugric people. They relationships with Byzantine Empire brought some Greeks in as well.

Moscow and its state were founded by yet another second son of one Rurikid Prince. Once again older brother could inherit Kyiv or other established city and a younger one had to go to uncharted land and found his own city to rule over. 

Moscowy founders were especially unlucky, because unlike other Rurikids, their first 2 attempts at founding a viable city failed. Rostov and Suzdal has enough fancy buildings for a princely capital, but poor location eventually forced princes to re-found their capital elsewhere. Back in the days, trade and shipping went over the rivers. Unless a city is founded on a river, trade and logistics becomes near impossible. However, founders of Rostov and Suzdal had to learn it from their own mistakes. 

Australia

It is sometimes mentioned that Australia begun as UK's penal colony. When UK lost American Revolutionary War, they had to replace American colonies with something. They choose Australia. Back in the days it was hard land to settle so UK opted to bring convicts here as a form of punishment.

Stories about taming this hard land do exist in Australian songs and national memory.

However, nowadays Australia is one of the most livable places on Earth. It is no longer a frontier. There are enough facilities to enable all modern conveniences.

On the other hand, warm weather, a lot of coastline and low population density makes for a desired spot in a world suffering from congestion and lack of free space and land to buy. It is like a luxury tropical paradise island, like those that celebrities buy. However, Australia is a continent size luxury tropical paradise. Future Monaco on steroids. Shame land prices hot so high before I could buy myself some.

Lack of excessive crime, corruption and other social issues that plague places like China and Russia also an important factor.

Anyhow in future Australia will be as important as the US is nowadays.

UK and Europe

Some people like to see the UK as an example of fanciness and high culture. However, that was not always the case. For a long time, England was a periphery state of little importance. Only after the 7 Years War, the UK got in the spotlight.

Austria allied England to counterbalance French alliance with Brandenburg-Prussia. England was considered as important as one single prince elector in the Holy Roman Empire, even if double titled Margrave and Duke. Just like England, Brandenburg too eventually became important and unified Germany around itself.

Before that high politics, technology and social advancement were done by Dutch France, Austria and Ottomans. Before even that by Spanish and Portuguese and Italians, everyone else was lagging behind. Before even that Byzantine Empire was an heir to Rome and everyone else was considered a barbarian.

Conclusion

History consistently proves that yesterday's losers, barbarians and outcasts often do become leaders of tomorrow.

Politicians of Different Generations

Sometimes it is hard to get a clear picture of how each generation is different from each other in politics. However, there is one country where, there is a politician for pretty much every generation imaginable. The country's name is Czech Republic

Andrej Babish of the Boomers

Babis is controversial and divisive figure of Czech politics. Compared to Trump and Berlusconi, he is rich and controversial businessmen, often engulfed in accusation of corruption and criminal investigations. He however remains popular among the voters of his age and older.

Petr Fiala of the Generation W

Fiala is in contrast looks like some sort of overly polished 'mister right'. He ticks various boxes, but behind this facade he is likely as much of a conservative demagogue as Tony Abbot is. Polish image combines with rather heartless cold gaze. This guy is more than willing to make life worse for everyone in the name of economy and call it the right thing to do.

Vit Rakushan of Xennials

Rakushan seems like the well-balanced all-round person who does not fall to the extremes. His party, that does not particularly stand for anything other than being local and independent of others, none the less manages to harness significant support. He works well as catch all protest candidate, he is not like other assholes, but at the same time not as crazy radical as Okamura who wants to quit EU for example.

Ivan Bartosh of Millennials

Bartosh leads rather uncompromising Pirate Party, that mostly focus on young people's issues. Began as anti-copyright movement, they eventually expanded their policies to a variety of issues, that they approach from internet native point of view. Most people in the party do work in information technology. This guy truly represents Millennials, and I would like to see more politicians like him emerge in other countries as well.

How Different Eras Were Dominated by One or Another Generation

Different generations have different characteristics as well as different understanding of what is important and what is not. However there happen periods in history, where concerns of one or the other generation become dominant and shape the life of everyone around them for decades or even longer.

Each generation 

Greatest Generation and Cold War

We will begin with Greatest/Veteran Generation (born before 1926). In their youth these guys saw how war destroyed their cities and lives into rubble. Many lost their friends in fighting. Many fought and killed on the battlefield. All these experiences made them hate and fear war. Trust their comrades and allies, rally around their flag. Hate their enemies and be ready to fight against them.

Because of that patriotism, security and material needs became dominant themes during the Cold War era. All the things they missed so dearly during the WWII times. 

By 1953, after Stalin died and Eisenhower replaced Truman as President of the US, these guys were firmly in control in both USA and USSR. They were more or less in control until the Eastern Bloc and USSR collapse in 1991. A period, known as Cold War: almost 4 decades of Greatest Generation rule.

Their fear of war, together with destruction and privation it brings, shaped this era. Both wanted to avoid the new war, but neither was willing or able to trust the other one. They both remembered Nazi atrocities and privations of war. They grew to blame Nazi for starting the war and therefore demonized Nazis as well as each other. 

Going without during war, made them value basic material good highly. Things such as food clothes and housing became priorities of each government during Cold War. Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society was one of the ways to address these material concerns of this generations.

Housing was a particular concern for both. The US had Fannie May and Freddie Mac to provide housing to its people. They keep giving out subsidized home loans all the way to 2008 to make sure no one goes without roof over their head. Both Khruschev and Brezhnev paid great attention to housing, possibly issues with Khruschev times homes, called Khruschevka, even led to Khruschev own downfall. Brezhnev first thing in his reign, did addressed all the design issues, Kruschevkas had in his later designs.

Raw memories of war atrocities made them un-willing to even consider that enemy on the other side of Berlin wall anything less that devil incarnate. Thus, propaganda was widespread and omnipresent. Of course, they eventually went overboard with that. What first begun as natural cautiousness against horrors of war, overtime became stubborn ignorant inflexibility.

Thus, all sort of security measures against traitors, who conspire with the enemy or even question the current system often were common. Loyalty to one's side was considered paramount to preventing enemy from attacking. So is high military and technological spending. These sectors saw huge progress during the Cold War Era. Computers became a thing, so is smart weapons that can fight on their own.

Boomers during Cold War Era

Boomers are those who were born after WWII ended. They grew up in Cold War era, build by Greatest Generation. Just like generation before them, once in power they decided to overcompensate and have everything they thought they lacked in their youth.

Boomers thought that Cold War Era, was boring, stiff, segregated, overly militaristic guarded and lifeless. So, to overcompensate for perceived shortcomings, they decided to become, universalist, pacifist, ecologist, equality and entertainment obsessed people.

Their parents and teachers told them about horrors of war, but they have never seen any of that actually happening. Because of that they did not care. To them war was nothing more than some tall story. A picture from a war movie, where soldiers throw grenades at tanks. Boomers have not experienced war and could not care less about its horrors of what not.

While they never seen war, they have seen plenty of war propaganda. It was everywhere, as fear of war was dominant in Greatest Generation mindset. However, all that talk made little to no sense to boomers. Greatest generation always talks about war, but war never happens. By the time of late Brezhnev, the whole Cold War propaganda started to feel like some joke meme, rather than a real danger of real enemy that might one day reign fire on their cities.

What their elders were telling them did not reflect the reality of boomers' experience. 

Leftist and Communist propaganda convinced Western Boomers that socialism is cool utopian society. It was cool to be a commie or a hippie back in 60s: you will be popular with girls even if Greatest Generation parents will be terrified at these shocking believes. Beatles were considered commies as well, at least their critics claimed they were. Some of their lyrics were about world without borders, war or religion were considered communist propaganda in conservative circles. So was being a hippie, it was considered as socialist, USSR inspired counterculture. 

On the other side of the Iron Curtain the very same Beatles were considered rightist instead. People of USSR could not understand lyrics, but the very fact, that that kind of cool music is produces in the Capitalist West, convinced them that it is not as bad there as propaganda claims it to be. Western movies and other Western smuggled goods further convinced Soviet boomers that West, and capitalism is cool. Across the Iron Curtain hippies were also considered decadent and capitalist, as this ideology originated in the West.

Greatest Generation talked of war and horrible enemies. Instead of enemy, boomers saw some interesting people who were probably having fun on the other side of that Berlin Wall. Unlike Greatest Generation who only looked at their enemy through the crosshair, Boomers grew to think that we are all one people, one world without borders. 

Taking down Berlin Wall was probably the only thing that united Greatest Generation of the US and boomers. The former saw it as an ultimate victory over their sworn enemy and later as realization of their utopian vision of world without borders.

Boomers after Cold War

Eventually, Greatest Generation members died out and boomers took control of society. They neglected the basics such as food and housing and instead went on to pursue their various passions.

While end of Communism and Cold War can be considered good, other boomer 'achievements' are of more questionable nature.

Boomers were bored with sameness of the divided and segregated world of Cold War, so they opened borders for everyone. That in turn became its own problem. All sorts of shortages and other issues are the result of that decision. Sometimes that increased crime. Competition for women and other valuable resources also increased.

Boomers love for entertainment eventually also went overboard. Sure, entertainment is good and such, but not at the expense of food and housing. Now we have some sort of event almost every month, despite the fact that housing, food and other basic necessities are in short supply. 

In the same vein, as a protest to their parent's obsession with housing, boomers became champions of nature and various outdoors things. Obsession with ecology and nature became one of the boomers' major causes. Retarded green initiatives, greenhouse gas emissions, wooden spoon and paper bags by now became hallmark of their retardation. Much worse than even the most absurd Cold War Era propaganda.

Boomers also became champions of women liberation. That may be sounds good in theory, but in practice that led to dysfunctional families, high divorce rates and overall dissatisfaction with relationship. Nowadays men and women do not want anything to do with each other and each seek better members of the opposite members.

To top it up there are plenty of single mothers and children who live in miserable poverty. Boomers carefree attitude towards unprotected sex led to excessive number of children for whom there is not enough resorces in the economy. All boomers' creations.

Finally, there are too many homeless people because boomers' priorities other things over hosing and social support.

At first boomers were freedom minded and egalitarian, however just like Greatest Generation eventually ended up inflexible in defending their system from boomer threat, boomers themselves eventually became dogmatic in defending their values against Millennial threat. Boomers refuse to see and acknowledge, that many of their values and undertakings created dystopia rather than utopia and insist that youngsters do not oppose these.

World, Millennials Grew Up In

Overall Millennials percieve the world, boomers creates as chaos, insecurity, poverty and misery.

Thus when Millennials will finally take over, they will work to compensate for shortcomings of the world they inherited from boomers.

Hints of what it will look like can already be seen in various social movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, Alt Right as well as people like Andrew Tate and Milo Yiannopoulos. 

The two major questions would be social security and women question.

Boomer's women liberation made women updateable, and Millennials are fully intended to reverse that. Girls should be prepared to get back to kitchen and make these sandwiches. Putting women back in the shackles can end up being literal. Islamic State attempted that among other things.

Poverty would be another issue; Millennials will make sure the economy will provide for them. Greatest Generation's materialism will make a return, paired with financial measures such as Basic Income. Housing once again will be priority. Since economy does not work for Millennials, they will have no trouble killing it to provide for themselves. In general, this area will likely see a huge overhaul, work as we know it will no longer exist.

Security will be made paramount. Unlike boomers, who embrace multiculturism, Millennials will prioritize their own people and their own values at the very least. The big question here is where they/we will draw the line between us and them. It will be important to end up on us side of the issue. 

Since Millennials are not innately racist, the question of drawing the lines will be more complicated. Perhaps stance on different Millennial issues will determine the lines, just like Cold War between East and West, there could be a Cultural Cold War between supporters and opponents of Andrew Tate (Maledom), or anime for example.

Other Generations

I avoided talking about intermediate generations, such as Silent Gen or Gen X. In many ways they are transitional generations that experienced a little bit of both worlds, so they have more balanced view as well as ability to function in both worlds relatively well.

In former USSR, Silent Generation was behind Gorbachev and Yeltsin. They filled the gap between Greatest Generation Brezhnev's style stagnation and Boomer's hypocritical corrupt Putinism. That era felt transitional and was often focused on justice and truth seeking, it was also filled with scary stories of mafia wars and constant change.

It is hard for me to tell West managed to escape Silent Generation era altogether. With exception of Biden, who followed after boomers' presidents, there were no Silent Generation US President.

In Australia we nowadays partly live through Generation W (pre 1972 Gen X and late boomers) Tony Abbot and Peta Credlin style conservative demagoguery. Unlike other more clear eras, this one seems to be somewhat blurred and confused with no clear beginning or end. Tony Abbot lost Prime Minister-ship very fast and not even in Parliament anymore. However, these kinds of views haunt politics and society to an extent. You can feel the effects of conservative demagoguery if you are inside this mess. May be that is because Rupert Murdoch influence in media.

Some other countries have similar conservative demagoguery parties, such as Front National of Marie Le Pen and Alternative for Germany, but they did not manage to take power in their countries.

Millennial Era

Each generation used to languish at the sidelines of politics in the world that is ignorant and indifferent to their troubles and needs. 

However, both Greatest Generation and Boomers eventually managed to get their own era and make things go their way. Other generations to a certain extend succeeded at this as well.

Thus, I am eagerly awaiting the beginning of the Millennial era.

Finally, we will be able to solve our problems and reshape the world to suit out needs and wants. 

Fuck the other bastards, its Millennial time.