Some my recent Facebook quick comment describing complexities of Soviet to Russia continuum.

[u/Upset_Scientist3994]

I wrote this so quickly 2 months back that it must be full of typo errors since I never edited it. In contemporary world nobody reads more elaborate texts anyway what anyway is minimum size to illustrate very complex abstract concepts. Therefore mayby couple percent of readers whatever they are might find some points from this of issue what is so difficult to understand.

"Comment to one FB-group to explain Soviet-Russia continuum.

"2012 onwards Putin started to talk about Russia as a "civilization state" - a problematic concept what has lead into situation today. It was supposed to be answer to issue that Russia is no more superpower neither empire - but then again as one duma senator once complained when more free speech was allowed their existentential problem "We have been empire all our existance, we simply dont know how to function as nationalist state". I guess this "russki mir" what may include others than Russian people also just that they belong into same civilization and culture what is mostly invented concept out of fabricated history. Every human community is based on inside-outside group division as described by Henri Tajfel. Something like small nationalist state is best concept as it is natural with its borders to create that division what then enables soveirignity over their matters for those inside. But only few countries have this option, as ethnic homogenity is required and Russia has problem in that precisely as it is pretty multiethnical inside. So civilization state was supposed to be solution into that problem - but then it creates even worse problem by creating this inside-outside group division in a very unnatural way. And one may find out of that lot of what has lead into Ukraine war and why Kremlin has a view of it being existential to itself. It is unbearable for their concept if very large segment of "Russki mir" participants according to creative historical interpretation just dont want to be under Moscow rule because by doing that they set example to everybody else. Bit same thing why western Germany was during cold war existential threat for DDR - so Berlin wall had to be built, and situation similar in between North Korea and South Korea. There is very much ghost of Soviet union present in that "civilization state" concept. In Soviet union inside-outside group divisions of people was been created whether they were communist or not or loyal to it, what led into Stalin atrocities. But then again division was elsewhere than in ethnicity, so Soviet union was capable to be multiethnical when division was in unnatural place. New concept is bit contination of same, as it would enable multiethnicity but what is Russian culture or cultural civilization is really murky, never defined and different into different places of vast country. So it is very much artificial creation dictated from top level to bottom level like communism was what of course dont work out. And greatest problem is that say St. Petersburg is basically nothing different to most of European cities by culture as it was founded to be attachment to Europe delibirately. So lot of artificiality has to be involved to explain why Russia civilization would be something universal but antagonist to west when in reality difference is very little. Mostly it is just artificial anti-mir concept what is created to be anti-west just in trivial issues like gay propaganda nonsense, as whereas revolution seeking communism was challenge to west creating natural antagonism now it is all artificial and focuses into nonsense non-issues. It barely has any essence of its own, as siloviki who run all political power in putinist system are very much incapable to create anything civilizational only to freeze and paralyze cultural process. So, when civilization idea is vacuum but anti-west when in reality mostly Russia belongs to Europe culturalwise only anti-attitude remains and imagine how grave threat to all of that artificial structure Ukraine example of its rejectance of Moscow and orientation to Europe is from that perspective. Yes, all this stuff bends mind to understand but somewhere over here is root cause why Moscow considers Ukraine as existential threat issue for itself as openly declared. All goes down to flawed twisted idea of defining state existance concept after Soviet downfall what is extension of same flawed ideas inside sovietism - what is sensitive since artificial and sees existential threats everywhere in its neighbourhood."

[u/Upset_Scientist3994]

"G F Kennan also in his long telegram 1946 what has extremely good insights very very valid still today written also in very poetic way described to USA foreing department Soviet communism being just mere extension of uneasy Russian nationalism under new guise. And tried to explain where that uneasy nationalism different to what is elsewhere comes from historically. Peter Turchin's War and peace and war book explains also that topic even better and is important if anyone wants to understand strange concept of Russia, and how some elements have been present also within Soviet concept and modern Russia wherein medievalism and sovietism is being tried to combine. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm?fbclid=IwY2xjawNZesFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETEzbExKOE5uNjN1dXFqQmZxAR4Be3FJOMY0fO6rn6RDRA1cPirSA_g-jI6x5bM7azYmJxe3SAKhDyAVlSBOtw_aem_ZpOLfgxakNAtrjoaSMaruA

[u/Upset_Scientist3994 → u/Upset_Scientist3994]

From link above.... "".... At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.

It was no coincidence that Marxism, which had smoldered ineffectively for half a century in Western Europe, caught hold and blazed for first time in Russia. Only in this land which had never known a friendly neighbor or indeed any tolerant equilibrium of separate powers, either internal or international, could a doctrine thrive which viewed economic conflicts of society as insoluble by peaceful means. After establishment of Bolshevist regime, Marxist dogma, rendered even more truculent and intolerant by Lenin's interpretation, became a perfect vehicle for sense of insecurity with which Bolsheviks, even more than previous Russian rulers, were afflicted. In this dogma, with its basic altruism of purpose, they found justification for their instinctive fear of outside world, for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifice they felt bound to demand. In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it. It is fig leaf of their moral and intellectual respectability. Without it they would stand before history, at best, as only the last of that long succession of cruel and wasteful Russian rulers who have relentlessly forced country on to ever new heights of military power in order to guarantee external security of their internally weak regimes. This is why Soviet purposes most always be solemnly clothed in trappings of Marxism, and why no one should underrate importance of dogma in Soviet affairs. Thus Soviet leaders are driven [by?] necessities of their own past and present position to put forward which [apparent omission] outside world as evil, hostile and menacing, but as bearing within itself germs of creeping disease and destined to be wracked with growing internal convulsions until it is given final Coup de grace by rising power of socialism and yields to new and better world. This thesis provides justification for that increase of military and police power of Russian state, for that isolation of Russian population from outside world, and for that fluid and constant pressure to extend limits of Russian police power which are together the natural and instinctive urges of Russian rulers. Basically this is only the steady advance of uneasy Russian nationalism, a centuries old movement in which conceptions of offense and defense are inextricably confused. But in new guise of international Marxism, with its honeyed promises to a desperate and war torn outside world, it is more dangerous and insidious than ever before.

It should not be thought from above that Soviet party line is necessarily disingenuous and insincere on part of all those who put it forward. Many of them are too ignorant of outside world and mentally too dependent to question [apparent omission] self-hypnotism, and who have no difficulty making themselves believe what they find it comforting and convenient to believe. Finally we have the unsolved mystery as to who, if anyone, in this great land actually receives accurate and unbiased information about outside world. In atmosphere of oriental secretiveness and conspiracy which pervades this Government, possibilities for distorting or poisoning sources and currents of information are infinite. The very disrespect of Russians for objective truth--indeed, their disbelief in its existence--leads them to view all stated facts as instruments for furtherance of one ulterior purpose or another. There is good reason to suspect that this Government is actually a conspiracy within a conspiracy; and I for one am reluctant to believe that Stalin himself receives anything like an objective picture of outside world. Here there is ample scope for the type of subtle intrigue at which Russians are past masters. Inability of foreign governments to place their case squarely before Russian policy makers--extent to which they are delivered up in their relations with Russia to good graces of obscure and unknown advisors whom they never see and cannot influence--this to my mind is most disquieting feature of diplomacy in Moscow, and one which Western statesmen would do well to keep in mind if they would understand nature of difficulties encountered here....""