Better Borders for Balkans

 

Responding to this hypothetical history post got me thinking that current post-Yugoslav borders are flawed and should be changed. These borders clearly do not work and direct cause of dysfunctional government in Bosnia as well as various political crises in Montenegro.  

Due to how Yugoslav internal borders were drawn, a lot of ethnic Serbs ended up in Bosnia, Croatia and Montenegro. Architects of post-WWII Yugoslavia probably hoped that these ethnic Serbs will prevent separatism, by pushing against independence of these three republics. 

When Yugoslavia indeed began dissolving in the 90s, these ethnic Serbs were mobilized by Milosevich to prevent independence of Croatia and Bosnia. That led to infamous Yugoslav wars with grievous war crimes, such as Srebrenica Massacre. Serbs did not want to see their empire gone and went as far as open genocide of Bosnaks and Albanians to keep it.

Eventually NATO had to interfere twice to finally stop the bloodshed. Serbs had to lay down their arms and accept independence of all former Yugoslav republics as well as Kosovo. 

However, it does not mean Serbs accepted this as new reality went to rebuild the countries, they ended up in. No, Serbs continued their ill-conceived struggle by other means. Similar to American south, who after losing the Civil War, went on to continue their ways by other means. If they cannot have slavery as before civil war, Sothern states introduced Jim Crow laws to keep discriminating against black people. If they cannot be re-united with Serbia, Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro will work to destabilize and obstruct governments of these countries in order to spoil life for separatists, just to spite.

Bosnia

Daton Agreement may be ended war in Bosnia, but it gave local Serbs too much power to effectively sabotage effective functioning of Bosnia's government. Turning Bosnia into two-part federation between Serbs on one hand and Bosnaks and Bosnian Croats on the other is unworkable on many levers. 

Current Bosnia keeps worst qualities of both former Austria-Hungary and former Yugoslavia. Giving Serbs, but not Croats their own federal entity makes Croats question fairness of this arrangement. Similar how Czechs, Croats, Romanians and Poles used to question why only Hungarians get autonomy in Austria-Hungary and not them as well. All these people did eventually get their independence from collapsing Austria-Hungary.

The biggest problem of Bosnia however is its Serbian entity, Respublika Srpska. Government in Banja Luka may be had to accept formal authority of Sarajevo, but they never committed themselves to prospering within Bosnia. In contrast they wish to sabotage independent Bosnia as much as possible and current Bosnian constitution gives them plenty of tools to achieve just that. They block all the useful reforms, prevent Bosnia from joining NATO or even European Union, that Serbia itself it trying to join. 

In this efforts Banja Luka gets support not only from Serbian radicals such as Vojislav Sheshelj, but even Russian and Belarussian politicians. Various anti-Western people give politicians in Banja Luka money and moral support to do their obtrusion.

No matter how much goodwill and effort Bosnaks in Sarajevo have towards making their country work, so long as Banja Luka continues its obstructionism, Bosnia cannot move forward. It's not just a generational problem as one article claimed. Bosnaks in Sarajevo wanted their country to work even in 1992, its Bosnian Serbs and sometimes even Bosnian Croats who prevent it from happening.

Sure, one simple solution to Bosnian Serb problem is to change Bosnian constitution, turn the country into unitary republic and abolish government in Banja Luka. However recent Montenegro experience shows why this simple sound solution is not as good as its sound.

Montenegro

Unlike Bosnia, Montenegro is a unitary republic. Ther are not any special provisions for ethnic minorities to have veto power over any issues like in Bosnia. However, that does not solve Montenegro problems.

Significant number of Montenegrin Serbs keeps voting for anti-independence pro-Serbia parties. Until recently it kept Montenegrin politics in pro vs anti-independence deadlock. A single man, Milo Dukanovich, kept power in Montenegro from early 90s until something like 2020 for one simple reason: the only alternative to him were people who would want to make country into a province of Serbia. Pro-Serbia politicians eventually became cunning and started to downplay their Serbian loyalism, while trumping up corruption accusations against Dukanovich in order to win over voters who are discontent with status quo. That lead towards 2016 political crisis as well as more recent one.

While current Montenegrin government by Europe Now looks like 3rd way alternative to both Dukanovich and Serbs, but it's too soon to celebrate final victory over Serbian loyalism. Popularity of pro-Serbian parties remain high among people who identify as Serbs.

Kosovo, North Macedonia and Balkans in General

Current Kosovo de-jure borders contain a small but well-organized Serbian minority that effectively function as a Serbian exclave. Pristina attempts to extend its authority there are not getting anywhere.

North Macedonia has Albanian rather than Serbian minority. However, they too tried to become independent of Skopje government. Their leaders deny it nowadays, but that is likely the truth.

That shows a broader mindset of people of this region. People are loyal to their ethnicity rather than their land. Serb stays Serb in Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro and everywhere else. So are Croats, Albanians and other Balkan ethnicities.

Solutions

One solution is to adjust borders to be closer aligned with current ethnic divisions. That can be supplemented with land swaps and various resettlement programs.

One issue with this solution is that Serbia will benefit most from that solution. After all the trouble Serbs caused to the region it does seem unfair to reward them in such a way. However, all these ethnic Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro are not going away by themselves. They will keep causing problems if simply left to their own devices. 

However, a small but functioning Bosnak state in Sarajevo is better than a big dysfunctional current Bosnia.

The actual borders should not be simply current Bosnian federal subdivisions. However biggest ethnically Serb areas of Bosnia, that are close to Serbian border, can easily be transferred to Serbian Jurisdiction. Same for ethnically Serb areas of Montenegro and Kosovo.

Bosnian Croats and North Macedonian Albanians should also be allowed to join Croatia and Albania or Kosovo. After Serb areas are removed from Kosovo the rest of the country should be allowed to unite with Albania.

After that Bosnia can be converted into unitary republic, with a government that actually develops the country rather than settles old grievances between ethnicities and obstructs governance.

Governance in Montenegro will also be simplified. Without people who vote for Serbian loyalists, politics can be about how to run the country rather than over whether it should be independent or not.

North Macedonia is more complex issue here. Such a solution can destabilize the county. After they finally agreed to change their name to progress with EU and NATO ascencion, taking their territory might look like betrayal.  

Russia's Patriots and Liberals

 

In my previous article I mentioned a division between Russian liberals and patriots. Here I will explain how that works.

Some people erroneously think that Russians are united behind Putin, who enjoys a near universal popularity. That is of course not true. Putin has his supporters, but also his opponents who exist despite his best efforts to eliminate him.

Unlike other countries that often have two main parties that represent main division in society, in Russia "official" parties exist only to prop Putin. Putin's opponents are routinely denied the right to register their parties.

Nonetheless society informally but broadly divides into two big groups: patriots and liberals. These groups are as at odds with each other as Republicans and Democrats are in the US, possibly even more so. I will begin with patriots.

Patriots

Patriots are stereotypical pro-authority, pro-Putin Russians who often set stereotypes about the country in the West.

This term typically carries an apolitical positive connotation in Western countries. One can love their country and hate tories at the same time. 

In Russia however word patriot is used politically. It's akin to a nationalist in the West and can be as derogatory as term 'tory'.

The reasons for that are in Soviet mythos. USSR claimed itself to be an international union of all workers. Thus, it was against nationalism in theory. However, USSR still wanted to cultivate a sentiment similar to what nationalism is in other countries. At first it was called internationalism, for example in official propaganda surrounding War in Afghanistan, USSR forces were called international contingent. Afghan war veterans were called warriors-internationalists. In modern Russia it gradually became patriotism.

In contrast word 'nationalism' was typically used for minority separatism and always used negatively by the government. This confusion of terms leads to current misunderstanding between Russia and the West.

Term patriot in Russia does imply a set of political believes and stances. It's always paired with anti-Western sentiment, as well as pro-state and pro-military attitudes. It typically implies pro-Putin vies as well, but not always so.

Modern patriots broadly consist of former pro-USSR-system Communists, pro-state government employees who are joined but all sorts of extreme right, neo-nazis, monarchists, neo-imperialists, Eurasianists, neo-Cossacks. A broad array of diverse views, sometimes conflicting with each other. 

However, in general, this group is more cohesive than their opponents. They hold mostly right-wing by western standards believes, but typically call themselves either centrists or in case of communists left.

The reason for that is that Communist Party of USSR began as radical left-wing community of intellectuals. However, after they took power and evolved from a radical revolutionary party into a one-party state governing party, the nature of party began to change. They gradually shed their more radical left wing believes and adopted many that are associated with the right in the West. 

During late USSR CPSU was closer to a typical Western right wing rather than left wing party. It was pro-military, pro-police, pro-state, pro-political dogma, pro-status quo and against any dissent or change. The only exception was economic and cultural spheres. However, collapse of USSR made them abandon their unique economic policies and replace them with reactionary pre-trust-busting right-wing ones.

Despite being mostly radical reactionary right for the most part, some of their vestigial believes make them somewhat different from typical right-wing party of the West. For example, their tendency to see their militarism as internationalist patriotism and zeal to bring global justice rather than nationalism. It is that tendency paired with long history of Soviet internationalist mythos, that allows Putin portray War in Ukraine as internationalist intervention against Ukrainian Nazi.

Liberals

Patriots like to call everyone who disagrees with them a liberal. Sometimes they also use terms, democrat or traitor, but liberal is most common and most descriptive. By this definition liberals are many indeed. 

However, they are very diverse group with vastly divergent believes. Some could hardly imagine working together with some others. There were many attempts by, Yavlisnkiy, Nemtsov, Kasparov and Navalniy to unite the opposition, but so far with only limited success.

Traditionally liberals would be considered right as the opposite to CPSU left. However confusing mix of left and right in CPSU believes that are more schizophrenic than syncretic in nature, led to an equally confusing set of counter-believes. Despite being broadly pro-Western, believes of Russian liberals are hard to compare to any Western ideologies. 

On a political compass it would be bottom most arrow that points to Liberty. One of the most consistent tenets of both CPSU and Putinism was loyalty to the county and the state: Authority arrow of the political compass. Thus, liberals who oppose it, champion individual liberty instead: bottom arrow of the political compass. In a way, a theoretical anarchism is probably the closest thing towards Russian Liberal believes.

However just as Putinism is ambiguous on its economic stance, mixing new liberal economy with some of the traditional Soviet social security. Putinism is willing to bend economic policy any way to maintain authoritarian state and people's loyalty to it. 

Russian liberals tend to have divergent believes on future economic policy. Some lean towards left, others towards right. Individual freedom is a great thing many people in Russia want, however it is hard to build a party around it. Double so without cohesive economic policy, that would outline what work and finance will look like.

However, success of Czech Pirate Party gives us a good example of the kind of liberal party that will work in Russia as well. Syncretic economic policy, anarchist style black flag and internet piracy is possibly the only common ground that can unite Russian liberals.

Russian Stereotypes About Different Countries - Europe

 

Unlike former USSR republics, Europe has more diffused stereotypes about it. Post-Soviet states are not well known globally so USSR could easily push uncontested narratives on what Latvia or Georgia is. With Europe it was not so simple.

Many European countries as well as the US have a great divergence in opinions about them between Russian patriots and liberals. I will write about liberals and patriots in a separate article.

In general stereotypes about Western Europe characterized by a lot of attention to bigger European nations, such as France, Germany and UK as well as relative obscurity of the rest of them. There is also a lot more interest and knowledge about Western Europe compared to Eastern one.

Germany

That might come as a surprise to many, but Germany is the most liked of all European countries. Both patriots and liberals like it, even if for different reasons.

Liberals like to focus on great level of quality of life in Germany. Germany is associated with quality manufactured goods, neat streets and buildings, science, technology - civilization in short. Liberals wish to have all these things in Russia or in their lives at least. For that reason, some do choose to immigrate into Germany.

On the other hand, patriots respect Germany for its military prowess. They tend to spare Germany of their usual anti-western conspiracy theories. In contrast they view Germany as an example of military might, Russia should learn from in order to fight as good as them.

Both sides tend to agree that Germany is fine example well organized and run county, so they wish to imitate it, even if for vastly different reasons. Even jokes hardly even mock Germany.

UK - England

UK tends to be the favorite country for most liberals. Compare to Germany UK is more democratic and liberal.UK also has more international standing and renown compared to them as well. Compared to the US, UK has more culture, sophistication and tradition. So, for an average liberal UK came as clearly superior to both the US and Germany. People like Abramovich, buying expensive properties there and even the entire soccer clubs are a proof of this sentiment.

In contrast patriots tend to hate the UK. They are the secondary target of their conspiracy theories after the US. UK is not especially known for military prove-ness, which gives patriots no reason to respect them as they respect Germany for example. So, they instead mock it like they do with the rest of Europe.

Overall popular image of the UK in Russia is best described by Around the World in 80 Days movie, with Phileas Fogg would be the most stereotypical Brit out there. Various jokes about the UK do support the image of it being a very pretentious country that values manners a lot and has great penchant to ceremony, to the point of absurdity sometimes. Patriots scoff at it like a Manchester man would call someone like Fog a twat, but liberals tend to like the UK for just that.

Scotland, Wales, Ireland

Just like many people outside of post-Soviet space have little idea of what Latvia or Georgia is, thinking them being Russians. Average Russian has little idea about UK's consistent countries, thinking of them just being England.

Scots actually played an important role in Russian history during the Peter the Great times. Russian Navy even uses Scottish Saltire in inverted colors as its ensign. There is an Order of St. Andrew as well. However, reasons for that are forgotten by contemporary Russians. Saltire, called (St.) Andrew's Flag, is considered a native Russian symbol or military might and patriotism.

There are some jokes about Scots and Irish though, but I think they copy English stereotypes about these people.

France

France is especially loved by Russian women, who consider it to be a country of love and even fawn over Franch movie actors.

Men, who simp after women, also like France. 

Most Russian men however have little interest in France. However, stereotypes perpetrated by women, do exist among them as well.

Jokes about French often reflect this stereotype as well. Russian men think that if a French man does not think of anything but women, it is a good reason to mock him and laugh at him.

Italy

Not an often-remembered country in Russia, but that spares it from patriot's conspiracy theories and their anti-Western hate. Italians are considered to be an expert on fashion and shoe design. Culture and architecture are also among the things Russians know Italians for.

Spain

Spain remembered even less than Italy and most stereotypes about Spain are the same as that of the rest of the world. Corrida, flamenco (Spanish Guitar), resort destination.

Netherlands

Thanks to legalization of Marijuana in the Netherlands, this country has developed a reputation of being a constantly high stoner of Europe. Even if other countries legalize Marijuana and by now Netherlands are not the country with the most permissive laws in that area, this stereotype persists.

Once again Netherlands played an important role in Russian history during the times of Peter the Great, but that is not connected to present day Netherlands in Russian public mythos. Russian navy however used many Dutch terms as part of their naval jargon. Many are basic words of Dutch language, but sailors consider them to be sailing terms. For example Geus: only Russia and Netherlands call it that. 

Greece and Cyprus

Greece has a particular special place in Russian mythos. 

In Russia Greece associated with antiquity a lot more than Italy. Russia mostly uses Greek names for Olympian Gods, rather than Roman ones. In Russia many know who Zeus or Ares are but consider Jupiter and Mars only planets. Various stories from ancient Greek times are told among the people, I am not sure how many are of actual Greek origin and how many are actually Russian in origin but attributed to Greeks. 

People like to visit Greece to sightseeing as well. Common Orthodox Christian faith also a reason for special connection between Greece and Russia in the eyes of more religious people.

Turkey

Turkey is Russia's most popular vacation destination. However, people hardly think too much of it. For most, Turkey is just a place to swim in the sea and work on their tan on the beach.

Serbia - Yugoslavia

Serbia is second most favorite country of Russian patriots, after Belarus. Russian liberals do not particularly care for it.

Russian patriots unironically love Serbia for their war crimes, passionately support their desire to retake Kosovo and so on. Both they and Serbia itself share common conspiracy theories about evil west plotting against Slavic brotherhood. Both refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing on their part. Russian patriots would defend Sheshel and all the Serbs sentenced by Haage tribunal.

Russian patriots and anti-western Serbs make one common conspiracy bubble together.

Eastern Europe

The opposite of Serbia, Eastern Europe in general is a target of an especially bitter hatred from Russian patriots. 

Patriots believe in Soviet myth that USSR liberated Eastern Europe from Nazis and from that believe that Eastern Europeans should be forever grateful to USSR and Russia for that. For that reason, Russian Patriots see Eastern Europeans quitting Warsaw Pact and joining NATO and EU as a betrayal by an ungrateful traitors. Patriots often say things like "they would all be dead in Nazi gas chambers if not for us". That is both factually inaccurate and pretty unfair in my opinion, but such sentiments persist.

Once again Russian liberals do not particularly care for this part of Europe, which is a shame. I had a good experience with one Polish girl for example. Polish language is rather cute too. Liberals do not hate Eastern Europe, as they themselves would like Russia to join NATO and the EU, but they do not defend them from patriots either.

I do not specify individual countries as this part of Europe is often overlooked by Russians. Most will have hard time telling Hungary from Poland apart. Even Americans have jokes about Poles, but Russians do not.

Scandinavia - Sweden

Scandinavia and especially Sweden has an important but unseen presence in Russian psyche. There are number of Volvo cars in Russia for example. Also, wars between Peter the Great and Charles XII of Sweden shaped Russian military in many ways. There is even a legend that after Swedes surrendered after Poltava, Peter the Great invited them to a banquet to celebrate Swedes as people who taught Russians how to fight. I heard it in this wording.

Another Swedish influence is Karlsson-on-the-Roof book by Astrid Lingren. Most people in Russia likely consider this character to be uniquely Russian, even though he is not. Even Wikipedia article about this book features an image of a Russian post stamp with images from Russian cartoon adaptation.

All of that however hardly associated with modern Sweden or even Sweden at all. In that regard Sweden's role is similar to that Scotland and Netherlands. Though Sweden is not as associated with homosexuality as Netherlands is with drugs.

Differenses between Communism and Fascism

If you take that difference between fascism and communism to be on the franchise level. 

Communism is universalist and sees every worker (waged employee) as part of its franchise and claims to work for this socio-economic demographic no matter their ethnicity, its globalist. For every worker in the world.

Fascism instead sees its ethnicity as part of its franchise, it claims it works only for their people. Only for our people. You can make it civic fascism as well, only for citizens of the said country rather than ethnicity.

Fundamentally however they boil down to who they sacrifice for the benefit of their demographic. 

Communism first sacrificed all upper classes: rich, business owners, landlords, nobility. Later they went after overly well-off peasants (farmers), who were doing slightly better than their less fortunate neighbors. After they run out of well-off peasants, they went after real, but increasingly imaginative "enemies of the state". Any perceived disloyalty to the system could get you to concentration camp, Gulag, Pol Pot camps and the like. Sometimes there was not fault at all, just KGB needed to fill their quotas for the camps, so they just round up a random dude from the street and send him to Siberian Gulag. 

Fundamentally it became a system where absolutely nothing could guarantee your own security in face of Gulag and KGB. Not even friends in high places.

Fascism instead chooses to sacrifice people of different ethnicities. First there were Jews when they run out of Jews, they took Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland, then other parts of Europe. All that was in search of sacrificial labor for their concentration camps. Nazis however refused to take from their own German ethnicity, with exception of political opponents of the regime and such. Thus gave them no option but invade other countries. Eventually they got defeated and it did not work for them. 

However Nazi system had a reasonable level of guarantee that so long as you are ethnic German, you will not be subjected to concentration camp. Unlike communism, where no one was safe from the reaper. 

How Anicent Rome's Citizenship Used to Work

Romans only recruited citizens of Rome. They did not recruit from conquered people.

They used mercenaries as auxiliaries, but they were always their own military units with their own commanders, who negotiated terms with Roman generals. Romans never made a non-Roman person a legionaries of a core Roman units.

Close to Roman collapse, they expanded citizenship to all the conquered people, but that did not save the country.

They were not generous about citizenship. Romans had clear distinction between citizens and aliens. Sure, empire was all around the Mediterranean, but most of its inhabitants were considered foreign aliens under Roman Law.

Only people born in City of Rome itself and to parents with Roman Citizen status would be citizens themselves.

Right and Privileges of citizens only applied within city limits as well. Outside the city it was a different legal jurisdiction.

Areas south of Rubicon in Italy were organized similar to Rome itself, but they had their own governments, citizenship and so on. They were like foreign countries, with whom Rome had diplomatic relationship and a military alliance. Unlike NATO, Rome was sole power responsible for defense of them all and the rest simply paid Romans for protection.

These independent Italian tribes arise first, then they established relationship with Rome.

In Greece there were city-states that used to be completely independent, but then ended up allying with fellow city-states for mutual defense until two military alliances emerged: Achaean League and Aetolian League.

Rome achieved something similar with other Italian city states, but there was no rival league like in Greece. They were all part of Roman League, but not citizens of Rome.

Areas north of Rubicon and outside Italy were outside of any legal jurisdiction. Roman military could do whatever they wanted there. At first, they invaded, pillaged and captured inhabitants to turn into slaves or gladiators. Later they established a military administration there. That run as tyrannical dictatorship with general running provinces as they saw fit and using military force to enforce their rule.

Senate could appoint and remove such governors. However, when their tried to terminate Caesar's tenure in Gallia, he staged a Coup and then Rome itself became a dictatorship. Then Senate assassinated him to restore rule of law.

Another Idea for a New Australian Flag

 

This one inspired by Canadian Pale. 

Blue starts on white background look better than the other way around. Southern Cross is the most locally recognized symbol of Australia. 

Blue for True Blue phrase that means something very Aussie. I used darker shade of blue for aesthetic reasons. 

While because it makes good contrast, but also because this color is popular in the country. A lot of cars and buildings are of this color for example. 

Overall vibe of the flag is cool and refreshing. It gives the most contrast with summer scorcher that people here struggle with. It also gives summer vacation vibe with beaches, surfing, pool and so on.

Why Killing Hitler Would not have Changed History.

Goebbels is the brains of the party; Hitler was the face but someone else can be new face.

Party worked precisely because Hitler was a believable angry everyman who is fed up with BS around him and do not hesitate to rant about it in public.

Trump managed to pull this off as well, as rich as he is, he somehow believably parroted all he grievances of the poor. That made him President.

Goring is the opposite of that. He would have ruined the party. If someone like Goring could do it, then DNVP could simply win the election in their own right without NSDAP.

Rohm had SA, but hard to say if he can match Hitler's appeal. Visually he is closer to Goring.

Strasser the most promising of them all. With him as the head it will be 50/50.

On one hand his National Socialism is what attracted a lot of people to NSDAP. He and Hitler were two main reason people liked NSDAP. For many Strasser's National Socialism was more appealing than leftist's international Socialism. After all, why share our wealth with foreigners, who are not Germans. In that regard Strasser's National Socialism was like nationwide dividends system with clear exclusion of outsiders.

However, DNVP found him unacceptable. NSDAP did not have enough votes to govern in their own right, so DVNP made them an offer of coalition government in exchange for ditching Strasser and Rohm.

Eventually Hitler betrayed Strasser in exchange for DNVP making him Chancellor and eventually Reichspresident. Afterwards DNVP and couple of other right-wing parties were merged in NSDAP, they banned all other parties and run the country as right-wing dictatorship. I think on responsibilities division side, ex-DNVP people were handling the economy and original NSDAP people propaganda and image.

Post Cold War Congress of Vienna

Watching video about Congress of Vienna that ended Napoleonic Wars, get me thinking that there are plenty of parallels between this and the end of Cold War. 

Cold War itself was akin to Napoleonic wars in reverse. Napoleon wanted to spread French Revolution by conquest. First Austrian and Prussian and later Russian led coalition eventually. Similarly, USSR was a revolutionary state that attempted to take over the world and spread communism. First French and British and later US led coalition attempted to roll it back.

Napoleon was eventually defeated in Russia. Similarly, USSR was defeated by Americans. USSR even had their own 100 days of Napoleon, when Rutskoy and Hasbulatov attempted to take power in 1993.

Just like Congress of Vienna had 5 Great Powers that shaped the world after, post-Cold War order was also shaped by their own victors.

The USA is new Russia.

The US clearly took Russia's role in that Congress, similarly, claiming sole credit for the defeat of Communism and wanting to take its own kind of reward for that.

European Union is new Prussia.

The other roles are somewhat trickier.

I would say that European Union is Prussia of that Congress. Smallest, but newest, the most advanced and the most ambitions of the great powers. EU, just like Prussia wanted to expand. Just like Prussia they did just that and took many former Eastern European states and even parts of Former USSR. It was somewhat backed by the Americans in that regard.

Just like Prussian and Russian expansion was opposed by the UK, France and Austria. The EU's and NATO's expansion is opposed by Russia, China and other old powers. Events in Ukraine, other post-soviet states and Eastern Europe do show us the same pattern of struggle between the powers. European Union wants to take these lands, citing popular support on the ground, Russia opposes it because some outdated notions of spheres of influence and such.

Eastern Europe is new Germany.

Eastern Europe and especially post-Soviet states do play role of German minor states. 

Austrian ruler was Holy Roman Emperor and through that was a protector of the Holy Roman Empire Member states/territories. That came to lapse during the Napoleonic wars and afterwards Prussia became expanding at their expense, culminating in creation of German Empire.

Eastern Europe was part of Soviet Sphere. USSR claimed they protected these states, even if states themselves believe they were oppressed against their will. HRE states also choose Napolean over Austria back during the Napoleonic Wars. Now that USSR and Warsaw pact are gone, Eastern European states increasingly joining or attempt to join the EU. Russia opposes that just like Austria used to oppose Prussia in 19th century. 

Korea, Taiwan and broader Southeast Asia is new Poland.

At Congress of Vienna, Russia consistently defended their unilateral decision to keep all the Polish-Lithuania lands to themselves. They threatened war and eventually kept it all with exception of Poznan Province and Malopolska that went to Prussia and Austria respectively. Russia justified it as reward for defeating Napoleon.

Nowadays the US protects Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and possibly other South-East Asian states from Chinese hegemony. China and Russia could only keep hold on North Korea and possibly Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. China is particularly outraged with that.

There is a monument placed where used to be borders between Russia, Austria and Prussia. Korean DMZ is not only symbolic but also practical monument of border between China sphere and the US sphere.

Russia is new Austria.

It would be logical to assume that Russia is France in this comparison, but I would argue that its closer to Austria than to France. Russia is more of a diplomatic than military power. Its time under the sun allowed them to cultivate lots of allies in many places. Russia is just as heterogeneous as Austria. 

Just like Austria, used to protect various small states in what is now Germany and Italy, Russia now protects various dictators across the globe: Bashar Assad in Syria, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Ali Khamenei in Iran. Modern Arab world and Africa are like Germany and Italy of the past. Just as divided. Ruled by dictators and most of the time subservient to foreign powers.

I do suspect that Russia will eventually meet the same fate as Austria did after WWI.

Middle East is new Italy.

We might say that Middle East is new Italy. Italy was divided and fragmented. Austria and Spain controlled significant number of small Italian states. Nowadays Russia controls Middle Eastern Syria and Iran for example. They partly control Yemen and used to control Iraq as well. Many other Middle Eastern States all have strong ties to USA, for example Saudi Arabia.

Italy was eventually united by Savoy (Sardinia-Piedmont). That was indirect as Garibaldi and his Redshirts were the ones who toppled all the small state government and delivered these states to Savoyard dynasty.

Savoy's closest modern equivalent would likely be Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran. I do not think Middle East will be happy about it though. Just like Savoy, Iran and Pakistan doing it indirectly through the proxies. Iran controls Hizballah that is active in many places across Middle East. Some speculate that Pakistan is behind Taliban. Both Iran and Pakistan have big friends among great powers. Russia is behind the Iran and the US is possibly behind Pakistan.

Yugoslavia (Serbia) is new Saxony. 

Yugoslavia and Serbia fulfill role of Saxony. 

Congress wanted to give Saxony to Prussia, just like EU wants to absorb former Yugoslav republics. Back then Austria also used all their influence in attempt to Save Saxony and saved its core territory around Dresden and Leipzig. 

Nowadays Russia safeguards anti-EU regimes in parts of former Yugoslavia, especially its core lands: Serbia, self-proclaimed Republica Srpska in Bosnia.

China is new France.

I would argue that China is France. China is more homogenous, just like France. It does try to cultivate special relationship with the US, just like France did with Russia. Just like France, China has self-image of former grandeur and believes they deserve more prestige and glory on world stage. Just like France saw themselves co-equal with Russia, China sees itself as co-equal with the US. Just like France used to snub UK, China snubs Japan.

Just like France, China fancies itself a diplomatic genius, that will get all they want with their "long term strategy" and Belt and Road initiative. Just like with France these are baseless naivete. China, like France back then get themselves involved in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Japan is new UK.

And finally, the biggest winner of the Cold War: Japan, who is this world UK. UK was somewhat behind the scenes during the Napoleonic Wars. Just how Japan was behind the scenes in Cold War.

Just like UK was the most developed and technologically advanced state at the end of Napoleonic wars, Japan is the most developed and technologically advanced state onwards. Before Napoleonic wars UK was considered a primitive fringe country of no particular importance. East Asia (China and Korea) still think that Japan is fringe and more primitive compared to them. In both cases it's not true.

Post-Napoleonic UK's power came not from the strong Army, but rather from technology, navy, industrialization and more technologically advanced society compared to the rest of Europe. Back then world wanted the goods UK produced or traded. The rest eventually adopted the UK's ways. 

Nowadays people do want Japanese technologies, games and culture. Japan became trade and imitation paragon: the role, UK has back then.

Russian Stereotypes About Different Countries - Central Asia

This region has two somewhat contradictory images of it. On one hand it is land of primitive, stupid but good-natured people, who are willing to learn from Russia and grateful for what it's done for them. On the other it is a mysterious and strange land, where ancient eastern wisdom originated some time long ago.

Jokes about Central Asian people are probably the most derogatory of them all. However, stereotypes do not portray Central Asians as rich, thus spearing them from envy.

Unlike other regions, where people could at least tell Azeri from Georgian, here people confuse names of countries and people often using these terms interchangeably. For example, Ozbek speaks Turkic language and Tajik speaks Farsi dialect, but Russians may casually call the same person Tajik and Ozbek within the same conversation.

For Russians this whole region seamlessly blends together into a contradictory whole.

Many of the stereotypes I will outline below are not necessary connected to one or the other country in the region, but I will still mention, which country is closest to it.

Gastarbeiters - Uzbekistan and Tajikistan

Tajiks and Ozbeks in particular are associated with illegal migrant workers, called Gastarbeiter (calque from German language).

The low educated, poorly speaking, silly looking person from Central Asia, who builds apartment blocks in Moscow for measly pay is part of Russian understanding of this region. That is, he sends back home as remittances, while bribing police to avoid deportation back to Tajikistan and dodging racists who hate all "non-Russians". That is based on true issue.

In general Russia perceives this region as very poor and destitute, despite the fact that Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan actually relatively rich with oil and other mineral export.

USSR Built it - Kazakhstan

This is the region that fits best into colonial White Man's Burden narrative. Russia came and brought the destitute primitive people of Central Asia light of civilization. Kazakhstan in particular validates that narrative and vindicates those in Russia who think this way of USSR in general.

This narrative is mostly true for Kazakhstan only. Other places in Central Asia had different experience with USSR. I wrote a separate article about this topic.

Kazakhstan still hosts Russian Space Program launch area and surrounding infrastructure. Borat can into space.

Camels, Desert and Sheep Fur Hats - Turkmenistan

"Why do you study seafaring if you live in a desert? Because camels are ships of the desert." 

Bactrian Camels originate from there. So is a traditional Central Asian Sheep Fur Har and other exotic dresses. Desert nomad stereotype is actually well known in Russia. There are even movies about it, for example White Sun of the Desert.

Plav is a dish, that not only came to Russia from this region, but cohesively associated with it.

Here exotic things are truly exotic, not just oranges and watermelons, that do not grow in Moscow climate, but actually strange and weird things.

While a lot of the above applies not just to Turkmenistan, Turkmenistan has rather dubious reputation for eccentricity, due to various policies of previous president of Turkmenistan, known as Turkmenbashi.

Russian do like to mention Turkmenbashi in casual conversation. Some call Belarussian dictator, Lukashenka - Turkmen-bulbashi.as a portmanteau between the original title and Belarussian word for potato: "bulba"

Actual Reality

Before Russia got involved. This area was divided between, Kokand, Bukhara, and Khiva Khanates. Borders between them were roughly by the rivers of Amy and Syr Darya. Bukhara between the rivers. Khiva west of them, Kokand in Fergana valley. 

Areas around the three khanates were inhabitant by stateless nomads, who just lived in traditional nomadic way. There was no cohesive border between Russia and Bukhara for example as, steppe was considered no man's land in principle.

This steppe areas are now Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. In contrast the khanates were amalgamated mostly into Uzbekistan, with some parts given to neighbors. Because of that Uzbekistan suffers from conflicts between different elites that used to be their own nations.

Russian Stereotypes about Different Countries - South Caucasus Trio and Moldova

 

One can sum up Russian stereotypes about Caucasus trio of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, as somewhat of a flavor group. Moldova is not in the Caucasus and has more in common with Baltics than with South Caucasian nations, but Russian stereotypes about it are much closer to the Caucasus.

These former USSR republics are often associated with prosperity and various warm weather things, that are normally not available in core Russian Land. Exotic fruits, vine, art and music. Compared to Russia, their climate is milder and warmer. It allows them to produce fruits and other things that cannot grow in Russia itself.

However, that interest in exotic things, this region produces, does not extend into respect towards people who inhabit it. There are plenty jokes and stereotypes about Caucasian people and Moldovans. Probably more than of any other area of former USSR.

There is perhaps the theme that these lands are good, but people who inhabit them are weak, goofy and undeserving of such bountiful land.

Another thing, that unites Caucasus with Moldova is beaty of land. There are plenty of poems about picturesque landscapes of Caucasus. Moldova is also stereotyped as beautiful and fertile land where everything grows in abundance. In reality, nowadays Moldova and Caucasus hardly prosper, but stereotypes still portray them as lend from which there is plenty to take.

On other thing is that these three countries are vaguely associated with eastern mystique and ancient wisdom. If Baltics are example of western organization and way of life, then Caucasus is an example of the alternative eastern way. Most of this ancient wisdom likely originated from Iran (Persia), but it is through these countries that Russia got access to that. In this role it somewhat blurs with Central Asia as these stereotypes are never pinpointed on any one of either Caucasian or Central Asian contry.

Georgia

Georgia possibly gets the worst of stereotypes. Russian stereotypes portray Georgians as both very rich and very stupid as the same time. In addition to also portraying them as gay and cowardly. As I mentioned before there are probably more jokes about Georgians than about any other people.

Another stereotype about Georgians connects them to organized crime. Not all Georgians are criminals, but top gangsters are always Georgians. The term "thief-in-law" is often used to describe them. 

All that make people envious of the wealth, fortunate inhabitants of "sunny" Georgia enjoy. In reality in 90s Georgia was one of the most destitute post-Soviet states.

Azerbaijan

Stereotypical Azeri sells mandarin oranges on open markets. They sell other fruits as well. This association of Azeris with fruit trade is the most enduring in Russian mentality.

Azeris are often known as passionate salesman. Trait not very respected by Russians, but not especially hated either.

Most jokes about Azeris also revolve around trade and oranges.

In reality Azerbaijan has a lot of oil and the only one who prospers in the Caucasus.

Armenia

Armenia gets somewhat better reputation, compared to the rest of the group. Armenians are considered competent, witty and knowledgeable people, who can ask uncomfortable questions and get to the truth.

Armenians are also associated with humor. However, there are not so many jokes about them, so much as attributed to them. Evgeny Petrosyan is not actually Armenian, but people in Russia think he is. His surname is Armenian sound, but it's a stage name and not his real surname.

While French would take issue with Armenian "Cognac", in USSR they are widely known as Cognac manufacturers. Armenian Cognac had mixed reputation even in USSR, but that still got Armenians some good renown.

Moldova

Moldova is not in Caucasus, but still decided to include it here as stereotypes about Moldovans closer to those of Caucasian people than to Baltics. Alternatively, I could have given it a separate article on its own, but it would be a very short one.

Stereotypes about Moldova portray it as land of plenty where everything grows in abundance and people have nothing to want for. That could be more wrong for this poorest in Europe country. However other stereotypes, I list in this series, are also not representative of the truth.

In contrast Moldovan people are often considered Gypsies as much as their Romanian counterparts. 

However, Russia does not view Gypsies in purely negative light. Russians think that Gypsies have their strong points and even some wisdom. Some "traditional gypsy songs" are loved by people and even sung on parties. These are not originated from Moldova at all, even if Moldova has its own good music.

That in turn translates into some good will towards Moldovans.