Here is my video and text that deal with the history of relations between Russia and Europe. I need to note that my seemingly harsh position on Russia doesn't mean any bias against Russia or Russians. I could say not less harsh words about Britain and Englishmen, for example. Their role in the downfall of our race is too high. But I would leave it to native Englishmen to deal with this matter. For me it is much more appropriate is to shake up the Russian heap of historical dung. It needs to be done; it poisons Russian collective mind and prevents Russians to accept their true racial identity and to reject false Eurasianist dreams. It is why those harsh words are needed. And it is why even harsher actions will be needed in the future. But all just actions must be preceded by the words of truth; the light of truth must illuminate the path for just actions.
[youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgUlaS6psas[/youtube]
The historical template of the Russian foreign policy towards Europe
In view of the ongoing events in Europe the question of how it all came about this way becomes ever more relevant. Many people ask themselves: what led to this situation? What was the cause of starting this seemingly useless wholesale destruction?
Yet one question that Americans ask frequently is why people in Eastern Europe are so hostile to Russia and distrustful of any of its moves?
To answer these questions and to understand the underlying dynamic of the ongoing events we need to look into history of the relations between Europe and Russia.
In many cases the established historical patterns are repeated again and again in later times. The force of tradition is too strong in all aspects of life even when people think that they act on their own volition.
The formation of those historical patterns take centuries but once established, they are too strong shackles to brake them. These mental shackles live their own life and compel new generations to repeat the same mistakes that past generations encapsulated into these patterns. It is why the seemingly sane and clever people sometimes say stupid things and act like if they were mad.
The best example of the established historical pattern is European Christianity. The Christian ideology for centuries imposed its dogmas on the collective European mind and compelled many generations of European rulers to conduct policies that were contrary to their own ethnic interests. Even now, when Christianity is no more the official ideology of Europe, the influence of Christian ideas on decision-making is overwhelming. The modern European rulers frequently refer to the Christian teachings when justifying their actions and inactions. For example, the open-borders policies are fully compatible with the original Christian teachings and I would say the inevitable long-term result of the centuries-long dominance of Christianity in Europe. Everything that is now going on in Europe and the West is the culmination of the original Christian worldview. Therefore, we can see how the dominant ideology, the established historical pattern, can determine the lives of many future generations.
But now I will speak about other issue. The example of the Christian pattern was made in order to show how it works. Here I will look into less known historical pattern. The pattern of the Russian foreign policy toward Europe. It is frequently underestimated and even entirely disregarded. But however anyone views it, it works and exerts its harmful influence on all actions and perceptions of Russian leaders and Russian populace.
It must be noted that Bolshevik revolution had substantially changed the overall Russian mentality. But the overall historical template of foreign policy didn’t change. The Marxist ideology only aggravated it; made it yet more toxic. The Christian Orthodox messianic delusion was substituted by yet more aggressive and uncompromising communist messianism.
It must be noted that the original rift between Russian principalities and other European nations was mainly defined by the rift between Eastern and Western versions of Christianity. Byzantium played its harmful role in setting Russians against other Europe and cultivating the burgeoning Russian messianic spirit; the well-known idea of the “Third Rome”.
Very emblematic in this regard is the canonization of the Russian prince Alexander of Novgorod as a saint by Russian Orthodox Church. This ruler was the one whom we can justly designate as the originator of this template of Russian foreign policy. And it is precisely for this, for his enmity toward Europe, why Orthodox Church put him so high in its esteem. Therefore, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the centuries-long pattern of the Russian foreign policy is the Orthodox messianic pattern. There is no wonder why the current Russian leadership so often refers to the Biblical allusions in explaining their motives. They are right in their own coordinate system; in their own closed world-view; in the same way as Angela Merkel was right when letting in millions of Asian and African immigrants; in her own eyes she acted like a true Christian must act.
Therefore, to better understand the current events, we must first understand the prevalent historical patterns, the established templates of foreign policy of each of the actors involved.
To understand the fact that the whole Russian history of the last centuries was determined by the same pattern, we need only to look into the historical record; how many times Russia fought against Europe and for what reason.
It must be noted from the outset that, despite of the widespread Russian popular idea that Russia was always the victim of invasions from Europe, in reality it almost always was the other way around. Even when Russia itself was invaded by Europeans, it was in reaction to previous Russian invasions or as a preventive measure against an imminent Russian invasion.
It must be noted that the official Russian historiography invariably tries to portray all historical events, any wars that happened in Russian history, as something started by others; Russia is always a victim of aggression, never the source of it. Because of this warped narrative the bulk of Russians continue to believe that Russia didn’t invade anyone but always was a victim of invasions. The vile Europeans always were the schemers whose only occupation in life was to invent yet another way to harm Russia and take its lands. This perception is deeply engraved in the Russian collective psyche and it is hardly possible to change by any logical reasonings.
By the way, this narration will be accompanied by historical maps; many of them are Russian. And those maps are made too with the original intention of showing any war as an invasion from Europe and Russia as a purely defensive actor. But, despite of this bias, these maps are valuable for depicting the area in question and overall troop movements. It is why I present them throughout the narration.
The event that could be described as foundational to this pattern is the invasion of Swedish lands by prince Alexander of Novgorod in 1240. It must be remembered that it was done despite of the fact that at this time the main enemy for Russians were Mongols who since 1237 plundered Russian lands. But instead of going south and attacking Mongols, Alexander decided to turn against his ethnic brothers. He repeated it in 1242 by attacking Baltic lands. In the same time he accepted Mongol dominance and paid tribute to them.
The invasion of Baltics had become some kind of pastime of all Russian rulers. Almost everyone since then tried to take it.
• Ivan the Third invades Sweden and Baltics in 1495-1503;
• Ivan the Terrible invades Sweden in 1554-57 and Baltics in 1558-85;
• Boris Godunov invades Baltics and Sweden in 1590-95;
• 1609-1618 the Russo-Polish war. One of the few events started not by Russia but by its neighbors. Poland, using social chaos in Russian lands, invaded its western borderlands. But this invasion could be judged more as an insurance policy against the eastern troublemaker. Using the opportunity, Sweden invades from the north and regains its lost territories (Ingrian war of 1610-1617).
• 1632-34 Russia invades Poland, trying to recapture Smolensk.
• 1654-67 using internal troubles in Poland, Russia again invades Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. In the result of this war Russia was able to capture Smolensk and Ukrainian lands to the east of Dnieper river. This war substantially increased the might of the Moscow state. The main geopolitical counterweight to Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was weakened.
• 1700-21. The Northern War. Peter the Great starts it for the sole purpose of territorial acquisitions. His aim is to challenge Swedish supremacy in the Baltics and to gain access to the sea. Baltics once again had become a theatre of war between Russia and its western neighbors. This war was a complicated affair; there were multiple participants that tried to gain their own ends. But for Russia it was purely the war for territorial expansion to the west. Despite of huge human and material losses, Russia gained new territories; Latvian and Estonian lands were annexed by Russia.
• 1733-35 Russia meddles in the Polish civil war.
• 1741-43 Sweden tries to regain its lost territories but fails; Russia annexes yet more Swedish lands.
• 1756-1763. The Seven Years War. The global conflict in which Russia took part, once again invading Europe; its main objective was to defeat Prussia and to annex as much Polish lands as possible. The war ended indecisively to Russia.
• 1788-90 yet again Sweden tries unsuccessfully to regain its territories.
• 1768-1772 the war of Bar Confederation. It was a mixture of a civil war and the war against Russian influence in Poland. This war ended in the First Partition of Poland between Russia, Prussia and Austria. Yet one significant fact is the first use of mass deportation of undesirable population into Siberia. Many Polish noble families were forcefully resettled there in order to prevent further uprisings against Russian rule. It set a precedent for similar actions in the future.
• Russian-Polish war of 1792. The main theaters of war were in Ukraine and Lithuania where Poles and Lithuanians successfully resisted the numerically superior Russian armies. But at some point, the Polish leadership decided to seek a diplomatic solution, thinking it would give more advantageous peace terms with Russia. But when truce was declared, Russia forced through the most disadvantageous terms on Poland, strictly reducing its independence and annexing much of its territory. The Second Partition of Poland took place.
• The dissatisfaction with the peace terms with Russia led to Kościuszko Uprising in 1794. It was defeated by superior Russian forces. After it, Russia finally destroyed Poland as an independent state, absorbing bulk of its territory. It was the Third Partition of Poland.
• 1798-1800 Russia invades Italy, Holland and Switzerland as part of anti-French alliance (War of the Second Coalition). Despite of some successes, the Russian advance was checked and the war ended indecisively for all sides.
• In 1805 Russia as part of The Third Coalition enters central Europe; it is thoroughly routed in the battle of Austerlitz and withdraws.
• In 1806-07 Russia participates in the War of the Fourth Coalition against France and its army once again enters Central Europe. In the battle of Friedland Russian army was defeated and Russia compelled to sign a treaty of Tilsit. According to this treaty Russia was forced out of Polish heartland and had to stop cooperation with England and any further attempts to invade Europe. But, despite of its obligations, Russia at once started to prepare for a new war against France and preserved its clandestine trade relations with England.
• The ever-growing threat from Russia and its concentration of military forces on its western borders compelled Napoleon to start his campaign of 1812. According to his own words the only aim of this campaign was once and for all to secure Europe from the constant threat from the East. Despite of initial military successes, Napoleon was not able to annihilate Russian army and the whole affair ended in disaster for his army. The Polish factor played a great part in this war. Poles constituted the most trustworthy part of Napoleon’s army; they saw this war as an opportunity to regain their independence.
• Using their winter success, Russia, despite of its huge losses in manpower and materiel invades Europe once again (in winter campaign of 1812 Russian losses were even greater than the French ones but Russia had abundant human resources to rapidly compensate those losses). It was the War of the Sixth Coalition. This time, in alliance with England, it is able to defeat France and enters its territory in 1814. It was the pinnacle of Russian power. The new world order established after 1815 solidified Russian supremacy in European affairs. The core Polish lands were once again annexed into Russian empire, thereby depriving Poles of their political independence, although preserving their limited autonomy.
• As a sideshow to the main events in central Europe, in 1808-09 Russia invades Sweden once again and captures whole of Finland (which was part of Sweden at the time).
• Polish Uprising of 1830-31 was a logical continuation of the centuries-long struggle. Started in Warsaw, this uprising rapidly spread into Lithuania, Belorussia and western Ukraine. Initially, insurgents had a success against local Russian garrisons but tsar Nicolas the First sent a numerically superior army that crashed insurgency. Poland was deprived of its autonomy status and was transformed into ordinary region of Russian empire.
• Russian invasion of Hungary in 1848-49. This event can’t be judged definitely. On the one hand it was yet another invasion of Central Europe by Russian forces, on the other hand this invasion was asked for by Austrian emperor in order to quell Hungarian rebellion. On the side of Hungarian rebels fought many Poles, including those who fled Poland after 1830-31 uprising. For them it was a continuation of their struggle against Russian imperialist monster.
• Crimean War of 1853-56. The war between Russia on the one side and Turkey, Britain, France and Piedmont on the other side. The war had started after Russia invaded Romania with intention of further expansion into the Balkans. In order to check this spread of Russian influence, Britain reacted forcefully by starting all-out war against Russia. In the result of this war Russian army and navy were defeated and Russia compelled to sign peace, abandoning all its claims in the Balkans.
• The polish uprising of 1863-64 was yet another attempt by Poles to restore their independence. Using the opportunity of weakened Russia (as the result of defeat in Crimean war), Poles rebelled. Alexander the Second successfully suppressed this rebellion and severely punished its participants. Many of them were sent to Siberia.
• The uprisings of 1905 in Poland were the part of the overall revolution in Russia. It wasn’t especially significant event in military terms but it further polarized the Polish population and Russian majority of the empire.
• Russian invasion of Germany and Austria in August 1914. Somehow the official historians prefer to forget this hard fact that it was Russia who started the war in the east, attacking its western neighbors without any logical justification. At first Russian forces were very successful in Galicia; they crossed Carpathian Mountains and entered into Hungarian plane. But in East Prussia they were thoroughly and promptly defeated by numerically inferior but highly disciplined and aptly led German forces. It was a defeat after which Russia never recovered. The best of its trained officers and non-commissioned officers were lost there. Afterward, Russia was compelled to form new units consisting entirely of mobilized men, who lacked both training and motivation for war. It inevitably resulted in a series of military defeats. In 1915 Russian army was thrown back into its own territory, losing hundreds of thousands in manpower and most of its hardware. The English supplies and arms acquisitions in America had helped partly to restore its military and continue to fight yet for another 2 years but the main strength of the empire was broken precisely in this crucial battle of Tannenberg that was fought in August 1914.
• Soviet-Polish war of 1918-1920. After the collapse of Russian empire, Poles started to form their own military units. When Germany capitulated and its army started to withdraw back into Germany, the new Polish state reemerged. It had an opportunity to solidify its grip in the Polish core lands while Bolsheviks were preoccupied with fighting against internal opposition in 1918-1919. After defeating Kolchak and Denikin, the Soviet state turned on Poland in 1920. But this time it wasn’t simply yet another Russian imperialist invasion but an attempt to ignite global revolution, to conquer the whole of Europe and to destroy its traditional social structure. Though time Polish army was strong and provided with weapons from France and Britain. The Bolshevik hordes were stopped at Vistula river and routed. Europe was saved for some time.
Having dealt with internal problems and having finally subjugated its population, the Soviet system unleashed its aggressive foreign policy. The main target, predictably, was Europe, especially Eastern Europe.
• Invasion of Poland in September 1939. Waiting after the main Polish forces were defeated by Germans in the west, USSR attacked on 17th of September. Although the Red army was met with strong resistance by some Polish garrisons, the balance of forces was too much in Soviet favor and reds quickly occupied the whole territory assigned to them by Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The military formations were followed by NKVD units that thoroughly combed territory, seeking “undesirable elements” and sending them deep into Russia for further processing. Most of them never came back.
• The Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-40, was an attempt to reconquer the former imperial territory. But here the numerically superior Soviet army met fierce resistance. USSR was compelled to exert all its might in order to break through Finnish defenses and to reach Vyborg. In the process Soviet army lost about 130 thousand dead. Five to one ratio with Finns. Formally, it was a victory to USSR; it captured some territories, but in reality, it was worse than a defeat. This war had shown total lack of motivation on the part of the Soviet army of slaves.
• Occupation of Baltic states in 1940. Continuing his conquest drive, Stalin set an ultimatum to Baltic governments. They were asked to allow Soviet military to enter their territories and to establish garrisons there. At first USSR promised not to interfere into internal political life of these states. But, the very moment Soviet army entered Baltic states, the full force of Bolshevik terror was unleashed. Thousands of people were either shot or exiled into Siberia. The overwhelming military superiority excluded any military resistance.
• Occupation of Bessarabia in 1940. This occupation tool place in parallel with occupation of Baltic states. The method was the same: the Romanian government was presented with ultimatum to consent to the Soviet demands and to withdraw its military units from Bessarabia. Romania had no other option except as to agree with surrender of the part of its territory.
There are little doubts that USSR prepared its all-out invasion of Europe in the coming years. Its whole military posture and hardware acquisition programs testify to these intentions. These plans were preempted by German strike.
• Invasion of Europe in 1944-45. Although traditionally portrayed by official historians (either western or Soviet) as a liberation drive, it was nothing else as yet another major invasion of Europe from the east. The only difference was now that it was greatly aggravated by the toxic Marxist ideology that multiplied traditional Russian insensitivity to human sufferings. This event can’t be described as “liberation” because, even if it could be justified by pursuit of retreating Germans, the fact that Soviet Union continued to occupy all those lands up to its collapse, nullifies any claims of “liberation”. The Soviet rulers never intended to withdraw their forces after they entered Europe. Therefore, it was a full-fledged invasion masked under cover of liberation. Yet one special trait of this invasion is that it resembled more Mongol invasion than even traditional Russian one. Bolshevik depredations on the occupied lands were unparalleled to anything that Europe has ever seen before.
• Hungarian Uprising of 1956. After annihilation of local elites, the Soviet authorities established new governments consisting of collaborators and national minorities. These governments ruled using mass terror as a tool to hold people in obedience. But they were very inefficient in organization of economy. The standards of living constantly decreased and the only answer that the system could give was yet more terror. But this tactic is bound to reach a breaking point. Precisely this had happened in Hungary in October-November 1956 when workers revolted against the system and successfully overthrew Soviet puppet government. Seeing that local communists can’t deal with the situation, Moscow decided to invade with all its military might. The battle for Budapest was akin to the battles of WW2. In a few days assault the city was taken; many people died. The overwhelming might of Soviet military had successfully crashed the rebellion and yet again installed its puppets in Hungary.
I would not put the mass demonstrations in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and in Poland in 1980 on this list because those events were not wars; although they expressed prevalent anti-Russian feelings in Eastern Europe.
• Transnistria war of 1992. It was one of the first “hybrid wars” that Russia waged against its neighbors. It was successfully masked as a spontaneous local affair, some kind of rebellion of Russians against Moldovan authorities. But it was not. This event was instigated and controlled by Moscow. The main task was to prevent Moldova from reuniting with Romania. The quasi-independent state and frozen conflict was something that fully satisfied KGB operatives.
• Invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014. This time it was even more crudely made sham than before. The whole “independence movement” was a conspicuous fake but it gave Kremlin “plausible deniability” in discussion with the West. The western ruling dupes (concerned only about electoral cycles) were willing to accept any explanations that would free them from necessity to act. Therefore, these mysterious “green men” were “rebels”, not Russian troops, who fought against Ukrainian army.
• The big invasion of 2022 and ultimatum to NATO. This time all masks were thrown aside and the true face of Kremlin’s monster appeared for all to see. I don’t need to expand too long on it because it is too well known. The only thing that must be noted is the fact that this invasion isn’t something “awful”, “unexpected” and “incomprehensible” but the logical continuation of the long-established foreign policy paradigm of the Moscow’s Empire.
Yes, there are some additional factors at work, especially the ever-growing Chinese influence, but the immediate driving force behind these events is the neo-Bolshevik expansionist policy that itself is built on the previous Russian imperialist foundation.
All talks about “Russia needs security guarantees”, “Russia was provoked by NATO expansion” are the sure sign of total misunderstanding of Kremlin’s mentality and lack of historical knowledge. Being the main aggressor state in Europe in the last few hundred years, Russia always played this game of being a victim of supposed injustice. Russian rulers always concocted stories about how they were threatened by someone and how they needed to “defend Motherland”. Even when Russian troops scrambled to Alps in 1799 it was too explained in terms of “defending Motherland”. Nothing has changed in this regard. The only difference is that now the population quality in Russia is much worse than it was back then. On the one hand this factor greatly reduces the abilities of the Kremlin to make mischief; but, on the other hand, it reduces their ability to logically assess the overall situation and could lead to some very stupid decisions.